Poll: most support euthanasia

Parliament is considering passing a euthanasia law that would allow terminally ill patients to choose to die, with the help and approval of their doctors. Do you support it?

  • Yes 71%
  • No 19.5%
  • Don’t know 9.5%

So three and a half times as many people support euthanasia as oppose it.

Newshub: Most New Zealanders support euthanasia

The vast majority of New Zealanders support euthanasia, according to the latest Newshub Reid Research poll.

A Bill to legalise assisted dying is currently before Parliament and it has 71 percent of the country’s support, with 19.5 percent against it and 9.5 percent unsure.

Written by ACT MP David Seymour, the End of Life Choices Bill seeks to give adults suffering a terminal illness or a grievous or incurable medical condition the option of medically assisted death.

The Bill passed its first reading in December through a conscience vote – 76 MPs voted in favour and 44 voted against.

The Bill argues some people are suffering unbearably at the end of their lives, and allows adults suffering from a terminal or irremediable illness to ask for a medically assisted death.

It’s currently being examined by Parliament’s Justice Select Committee, which is due to report back to the House in September.

Under the End of Life Choice Bill, a person wishing to end their own life must meet all of the following criteria:

  • be 18 or older
  • suffer from a terminal or grievous and irremediable illness
  • or be in an advanced state of irreversible decline
  • be in unbearable pain that can’t be helped by medication
  • be of sound mind to give consent

If those criteria are met, the applicant must be assessed by two doctors.

A dying person has no responsibility to extend their life in order to allow visitors to see them suffering and losing their dignity.

In the whole scheme of things, someone dying a few days or a few weeks earlier than they otherwise might is not a big deal.

People’s lives are commonly and frequently extended beyond when they would naturally end due to the intervention of drugs, technology and doctors. It is likely that most people who chose to end their lives slightly earlier would, in an earlier age (not that much earlier) have not lived as long as they did anyway.

It is common for people’s lives to end sooner than modern medicine would force them to live. ‘Do not resuscitate’ is one choice already available.

My father’s life was extended a number of times. He had two operations, and he had six or seven blood transfusions in the last few years of his life that kept him alive. And then his end was hastened with morphine.

My mother was allowed by doctors to starve herself to death. She could have been force fed or put on a drip, but fortunately she wasn’t. It was still awful to see her suffering in her last week.

A legal choice to end ones own life a bit sooner than might otherwise occur, with adequate checks and balances, seems like a no brainer to me, and it seems that most other people agree. We should have the right to choose a slightly sooner death if that’s what we want.

Euthanasia and the value and meaning of life

Philip Matthews: Euthanasia debate reveals deep divisions about the value and meaning of life

In December, the End of Life Choice Bill passed its first reading in Parliament with 76 out of 120 MPs voting to send it up to the Justice Select Committee on the slow process to becoming law.

Despite the deep nature of questions it raises about the meaning and quality of life, the Parliamentary debate was unusually polite and respectful. There was, as former MP and pro-euthanasia campaigner Maryan​ Street notes, a pleasant absence of grandstanding, time wasting or personal abuse.

The details may change but the bill presently would allow for a New Zealand citizen or resident over 18, who is suffering from a terminal illness that is expected to end their life within 6 months or has a grievous and untreatable medical condition, to opt for an assisted death. There are safeguards of informed consent and assessment by two doctors.

The pro-euthanasia camps argue that civilised countries like ours at this point in history should allow for death without suffering, a painless option. You hear a lot about the dignity of the dying.

“In a modern and compassionate society, the law should allow for a decent death,” said Chris Bishop, one of the 21 National MPs to vote for the bill.

The strongest opposition in Parliament came from Simon O’Connor​ who said that “fundamentally, I do not believe doctors should be killing their patients”. O’Connor was one of the 35 National MPs who voted against.

Nine Labour MPs voted against, including Pasifika MPs Jenny Salesa​ and Poto Williams, Māori MP Rino Tirikatene and Pākehā MPs Phil Twyford and Damien O’Connor.

All NZ First MPs voted for it at this stage, but want to see a referendum on euthanasia. All of the Green MPs backed it.

David Seymour’s bill was drawn from the members’ Bill ballot.

“It is not pleasant to talk about painful death,” said Act MP David Seymour, whose bill continued the unfinished business of Street’s earlier attempt to make assisted dying legal.

In this corner there is compassion and dignity, while opposition to euthanasia is often imagined as medieval and unenlightened, a product of redundant religious faith. But actually, Street says, arguments are more complex and nuanced.

It is a complex issue. I am generally in favour of legalising assisted dying/euthanasia and certainly want to be able to make choices for myself about the way I die if I get the chance, but have some concerns about how legislation will both give personal choice but also protect against abuse or misuse.

There is no monolithic block for or against. Her years as the unofficial godmother of the euthanasia movement in New Zealand – she is now president of the End of Life Choice Society – have shown her that there are some Catholics for, as well as many against. There are Māori for and against, Pasifika for and against, Asians for and against.

The polling Street cites was conducted by Horizon in May 2017 and found that 75 per cent of New Zealanders support or strongly support the right to die, with support at its highest among Pākehā and other Europeans and lowest among Asians and Indians.

It is, Street knows, a deeply individual matter. Faith or politics may play a part, or politics or, more likely, life experience.

I have experienced the end of life and deaths of both my parents over years (father, emphysema) and months (mother, cancer). I believe my father was effectively assisted to die but I was shut out of the process (by the hospital he was in, possibly to protect themselves), this was a very difficult time. My mother died in a hospice, under the best possible care but still fraught – they reacted to her pain with just enough pain killers, until the next time she suffered.

This is where Raymond Mok comes in. What does it mean to say that those with serious medical conditions can legally opt out of life with the help of the able-bodied? Does it imply that their lives are less precious, less valuable?

It smacks of discrimination to him. We want to be progressive in our thinking but legalising assisted suicide for only the ill or disabled is not moving forward.

“I think it’s not the Government’s role to say who is eligible to live or die,” Mok says. “If it is the choice of the individual, then it shouldn’t be limited to people with severe illness or disability.”

This does present a genuine dilemma that gets to the heart of our ethics. In our rush to offer a compassionate death to those who are suffering, we might also be suggesting that they are somehow worth less than others. As Mok says, the important thing is that a consenting adult is making an informed and conscious decision to die, regardless of illness or disability.

Street steps carefully into this ethical minefield and says that “when it comes to people with disabilities, this needs to be treated with the utmost respect, because their lives are typically a struggle, society views them differently already, and they feel that because they are already vulnerable, they will be more vulnerable”.

She believes that two things underpin both the assisted dying bill and disability charters, and they are maximum autonomy and dignity. Just as disability rights activists want to enshrine those qualities, so too does the pro-euthanasia camp.

But yes, it is a highly tricky area that must be approached with as much sensitivity and empathy as we can muster. As for the palliative care backers, Street says that she too is a great supporter of it but “I only wish that in New Zealand it were universally accessible and it were universally of a high standard. Neither of those things is true.”

Hospices are as good as we could have under current law, but only a small number of people die in hospices.

The slippery slope argument is harder to combat, though. What happens if we keep normalising the right to die or keep expanding the parameters? How far does liberalism take us? Australian ethicist Xavier Symons made this point recently when euthanasia was debated and made legal in the state of Victoria. In the Netherlands, Symons noted, euthanasia deaths have trebled since 2002, and are now more than 4 per cent of all deaths, with increasing requests from people who are not terminally ill but simply “tired of life”.

Is it a slippery slope, or generally an increasing number of people choosing what they want?

There is something very sad about this trend: boredom, illness and loneliness in the most prosperous societies in history, where some would rather be dead and no longer a burden.

Whatever the reasoning and reason, it should be an individual’s choice, providing there are adequate safeguards.

Would we accept this in New Zealand? Street agrees it is not palatable and she has been adamant about safeguards that would restrict assisted dying to those old enough to vote and the need for citizenship or residency to stop New Zealand from becoming a site of death tourism, as has been seen in Switzerland.

The Swiss situation has only arisen because of a lack of legal choices in people’s own country.

Most of us already can make choices about committing suicide, but options are far from ideal.

One of the biggest fears is becoming incapable of taking our own lives but wanting to opt out of life.

One contradiction is the use of modern medicine to prolong life far beyond natural processes, but legally forbidding using medicine to easy one to their death a bit sooner than may otherwise occur.

It will be an interesting debate, with passion on both sides of the argument. I hope this debate can be conducted with dignity.

Matthews wraps one person’s illness, experience and views around his article, seeming to use that as a proxy for his own views, but there are many circumstances in which people live and die.

WHERE TO GET HELP:

* Lifeline (open 24/7) – 0800 543 354

* Depression Helpline (open 24/7) – 0800 111 757

* Gambling Helpline – 0800 654 655

* Healthline (open 24/7) – 0800 611 116

* Samaritans (open 24/7) – 0800 726 666

* Suicide Crisis Helpline (open 24/7) – 0508 828 865 (0508 TAUTOKO).

Extreme arguments against euthanasia

There must be quite a few people who prefer new Zealand didn’t legalise euthanasia on reasonable and logical grounds – I have some concerns, but think that giving people a choice over better ways of ending their lives outweighs the risks.

But some of the opposition has been fairly extreme.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):

Members of the House, this bill is about killing in two ways. The first is called euthanasia. It’s where the doctor takes an injection, usually something like phenobarbital, and injects it into you—only after they’ve sedated you, of course; couldn’t have the inconvenience of twitching. The other is physician-assisted suicide, where, again, they give you a massive dose of drugs. You take that yourself at your own choosing—and hope that the kids don’t find it in the medical cabinet at the time.

This bill combines both of them. That’s almost unheard of in any other jurisdiction around the world. This bill before us tonight is the worst example of euthanasia in the world.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):

This bill will enable more people to predate on the vulnerable, with far too few—negligible, even—protections and safeguards.

We’ve consulted widely with medical and legal experts and believe that the Seymour bill and version is so fatally flawed that it couldn’t even be fully rewritten to prevent vulnerable people from being predated on.

The answer is not to coerce and to kill, as this bill dictates; it is to continue to invest in world-class palliative care, and that’s what we have in this country.

We have very good palliative care, but it doesn’t prevent suffering. I have seen that up close when my mother died in a hospice.

But the aim of the bill is not “to coerce and to kill”.

Those are two National MPs.

From the other side of the political spectrum some similar but more extreme views from Martyn Bradbury: Why I do not welcome euthanasia in New Zealand

When I look at the horror our mental health system, prison system & welfare systems have become for the most vulnerable via chronic underfunding & indifferent staff – I fear how euthanasia will mutate in that cruel environment.

The way we treat the mentally ill, suicide victims, prisoners, the elderly and the poor with such contempt makes me believe that state sanctioned euthanasia will quickly become a means for pushing the poor to end their lives sooner.

It should surprise no one that it is ACT who is driving this movement. Euthanasia fits perfectly well within the far rights belief of individualism above all and the efficiency of the market to eradicate cost.

Simon O’Connor is more conservative and right wing than David Seymour and ACT.

The loop holes available in this legislation means it is only a matter of time before someone is pushing to expand their definition for cost cutting measures.

Vague fear-mongering long before we know what protections will be in the legislation..

It has happened before, in the 1990s the National Government were caught putting together health boards whose target was to deny health services to anyone who was deemed too costly to continue medical care for.

The National Party were actively and secretly looking for ways to disqualify the sick and vulnerable from state health care. If they were prepared to do it when euthanasia was illegal in the 1990s, imagine how quickly they will begin to pressure hospitals to start euthanasia as a cost cutting measure if it becomes legal?

National Party MPs, including leader Bill English, are amongst the strongest opponents of the bill now before Parliament, so this is a ridiculous and poorly informed political attack.

We know how poorly Corrections look after the welfare of prisoners. We know how badly CYFs looks after children in their care. We know how damaging Housing NZ, WINZ and the Ministry of Development treat beneficiaries.

So what would stop Government agencies applying the same disregard for the poor and sick if euthanasia is passed?

Decency. Common sense. Law.

Apart from Seymour it’s the left of Parliament that strongly supports the End of Life Choice Bill, plus the younger more centrist National MPs.

This is typical confused nonsense from Bradbury.

End of Life Choice Bill – First Reading

David Seymour introduced his End of Life Choice Bill to be read a first time in Parliament last night.

It passed the first vote by a comfortable 76 votes to 44.

This is a big achievement for Seymour, and a good victory for Matt Vickers, who was in Parliament for the first reading.

It doesn’t mean the Bill will get an easy passage through Parliament. It is likely to be strongly debated in the committee stage and there is certain to be many strong submissions for and against the Bill.

The Aye vote (with Noes also indicated):

Interesting to see Dr Jonathan Coleman and Dr Liz Craig voted for the bill, and Dr Shane Reti voted against.

It would have been a travesty if the Bill had not passed the first reading, which would have denied full debate and public submissions.

The Bill may be amended, and it has two more votes to go before it succeeds or fails.

Links to all the First Reading speeches, videos and transcripts:

End of Life Choice bill introduced to Parliament

David Seymour is currently opening debate on his End of Life Choice Bill in Parliament. The first reading is likely to be voted on tonight. It will be a conscience vote for most parties, but NZ First have indicated they will block vote for the first reading if there is a commitment that the ultimate decision is by referendum.

Bill English is next to speak on the bill and opposes it.

I’m not posting a link to Simon O’Connors speech, he made some good points, but in repeating his view that the bill was about killing people I think is taking things too far.

Labour MP Lousia Wall:

Tracey Martin on behalf of New Zealand First:

She confirms that NZ First will vote for the first reading.

A Maori view from Nuk Korako:

He says the bill will fast forward death process for Maori and leave them in limbo unable to join ancestors. Voting against.

A Samoan perspective from William Sio:

He says says you have to deal with the reality of pain and death in order to understand the purpose of life.. Voting against – he says he already has sufficient information to make a decision now.

Julie Anne Genter (Green Minister):

Has concerns about about it being to broad and has insufficient protections for the disabled. She will vote for at this stage.

Maggie Barry is next – the first three National MPs all speaking strongly against the bill.

There are some Nationals MPs who support it. One is Chris Bishop, who is next up.

He says the current choice is cruel, and we have an opportunity to have a more compassionate society.

Then another National MP, Chris Penk.

Opposing the bill – a “choice to end all choices”.

And David Seymour closed the debate, I think ably and eloquently.

Predictably there will be a personal vote. By the look of the comparative numbers going to either side, followed by hand shaking in the Aye side, it looks like the bill will progress.

End of Life Choice Bill – First reading personal vote:

  • Ayes 76
  • Noes 44

 

 

 

Extreme claims after to ‘End of Life Choice Bill’ campaign launch

David Seymour hopes his Member’s Bill on euthanasia will come up in Parliament for it’s first vote soon and has launched a campaign, but there has already been some ridiculous comments fro  National MPs Maggie Marry and Bill English.

NZH: Heated words from both sides as euthanasia vote nears

The first vote in Parliament on a bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia is near but National MP Maggie Barry’s description of it as a “licence to kill’ and a disruption at Act leader David Seymour’s campaign launch in support of the bill showed how heated the issue will be.

That’s ridiculous from Barry. Bein an MP doesn’t give her a license to be stupid.

Seymour, whose bill was drawn from the ballot last term, launched the campaign at Parliament today alongside MPs from other parties, End of Life Choice’s Dr Jack Havill and Matt Vickers, the husband of the late Lecretia Seales.

Seales unsuccessfully took the issue to the High Court after she was diagnosed with a non-operable brain tumour and died in 2015 soon after the High Court ruled it could not grant her wish and said it was up to Parliament to change the law.

The bill could get its first reading on Wednesday night or early next year.

The first reading of the End of Life Choice Bill is expected to be early next year and MPs will have a conscience vote on it.

Vickers, on a visit from New York, said Seales would have been delighted to see the legislation arrive at Parliament and urged MPs to support it.

“Obviously when she took the court case her ultimate goal was to get legislative change and this is the mechanism by which that happens. So she’d be very happy to see that this was going ahead.”

It has support from MPs in every party in Parliament.

It is a conscience vote for most MPs and those in support at the launch were Green leader James Shaw, National’s Nikki Kaye and Chris Bishop, and Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway.

Nobody from NZ First was at the event and NZ First leader Winston Peters later said his party would support it at first reading but after that support would be conditional on whether a referendum was held on the issue. He said the public should decide – not 120 MPs.

His own ranks appeared split – MP Shane Jones said “I do not support euthanasia” but later clarified that did not mean he would not vote for it to be debated at select committee.

I don’t think it is a suitable issue for a referendum. MPs and parliament need to take responsibility for something like this.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said she would support the bill because she believed people should have choice.

“I will always look for safeguards in place to make sure no one is ever manipulated or left vulnerable. But I also support people having their own choice in those circumstances.”

Note that it is generally younger MPs in support of people making their own choices about their own lives.

National MP Maggie Barry was also vehemently opposed, saying it was a “licence to kill.” She said there were no protections for the disabled, the elderly or the vulnerable. “It would make us the most liberal country in the world to die.”

Extreme rhetoric.

However, National leader Bill English – a Catholic – said he did not support euthanasia and believed Seymour’s bill was worse than others that had come up because it lacked the necessary safeguards.

If it passes the first vote then suitable safeguards should come out of the committee stage.

In the lead up to the election, Bill English said it was wrong to link suicide and euthanasia ().

Today he said: “It’s going to be a bit tricky for Mr Seymour to answer the question as to why some suicides are good and some are bad.”

That’s a petty and pathetic comment from English.

End of Life Choice president Maryan Street urged MPs to at least let the bill go to select committee for submissions.

“That way they can find out what it is really about, the safeguards provided in it and the checks and balances to be followed. In those respects, it is similar to legislation in other jurisdictions around the world.”

She said there was strong public support for the move and MPs should consider that when weighing up their decision.

“We want people to have the confidence they have the choice to die well, not badly, at the end of a terminal illness or when they can no longer bear their irremediable condition. We want them to have a choice.”

I want to have a choice. I don’t want the Government and some MPs dictating what I can or can’t do with my own life.

I understand  that some people are against it – but they don’t have to speed up their own deaths.  It is aimed at being voluntary.

Election – governing possibilities

National have a 10% lead over Labour so have the stronger mandate to form a government, and last night Bill English acted and spoke like a winner, but their options are limited.

English said they will work with NZ First to try to form a ‘stable government’ over the next few days. The outcome of course depends on Winston and his party.

Jacinda Ardern looked and sounded defeated last night but she said Labour would have a good look at the results and their options today, and that they would have a few conversations.

Labour did well to bounce back from their 2014 disaster but they didn’t get a strong mandate to lead a new government.

James Shaw claimed that people had voted for a change of government so would be working to try to achieve that with Labour and NZ First.

This depends a lot on NZ First, who may demand Greens stay on the sidelines again as a condition of supporting Labour.

Greens have dropped from 10.7% to about 6% and have less votes than NZ First so don’t have a strong mandate, and their presumed continued refusal to work with National puts them in a weak bargaining position.

David Seymour is at risk of being left on the sideline if Peters refuses to deal with him combined with National. The alternative, a Labour led government, is also the sideline.

Greens could strengthen their hand significantly if they were prepared to negotiate with both National and Labour-NZ First, but unless their membership has a massive change of heart and gets some common sense this looks unlikely.

James Shaw could try to lead his party to negotiate with National, if he wants to put the interests of the country first, but Greens have a habit of cutting off their nose to spite their face.

My personal preference is for National to continue to lead the Government with the best option between NZ First and Greens. This would be the best guarantee of stability, sound economic management would continue but National would be forced to deal better the key issues of housing, poverty, inequality and the environment.

Ardern did well to lift Labour out of oblivion but she and her party came up short. Ardern would benefit from working over the next three years to rebuild Labour with a new injection of talent (current depth of  talent is not strong) ready for a strong bid in 2014.

Another National embarrassment

When things swing against political parties it can be hard to turn it around – especially when they keeping doing or saying silly things.

Steven Joyce dragged National down last week when they were already flagging behind Labour in the polls.

Today 38th ranked MP Simon O’Connor has National in the negative news column after a Facebook comment on Sunday night:

image-dynimg-full-q75

With opponents and journalists looking for something to kick of the week with this got a good airing.

Newshub:  No apology from National MP Simon O’Connor over suicide comments

Hundreds gathered outside Parliament on Sunday to urge the Government to do more on mental health. New Zealand has one of the highest suicide rates in the world, with more than 600 victims in the past year.

O’Connor’s tweet was in response to Jacinda Ardern’s involvment in that.

“It’s strange that Jacinda is so concerned about youth suicide but is happy to encourage the suicide of the elderly, disabled, and sick. Perhaps she just values one group more than the others? Just saying.”

Not surprisingly:

Hundreds expressed outrage on social media, including a number of MPs.

Ardern responded:

Ms Ardern told Newstalk ZB on Monday morning euthanasia and suicide were “completely different issues”.

“The 600 people in New Zealand who have taken their own lives will shock and appal all New Zealanders. The fact our mental health services aren’t doing enough for those people, that’s something we should be talking about this election.

“To draw then a comparison to the issue of the people having the ability to make choices about their own end of life if they’re facing terminal illness, is absolutely a completely different issue again.

“I’ve said openly that I believe people should be able to make their own choices in those circumstances. Mr O’Connor disagrees, he chaired a select committee on this issue and disagreed there too. That’s a conscience vote for us all.”

O’Connor said that no apology was necessary.

But rather than withdraw the comments Mr O’Connor is doubling-down, telling Newshub on Monday he had nothing to apologise for.

Mr O’Connor said he didn’t doubt Ms Ardern’s sincerity, but said she should “also be sad about those who are old or depressed or disabled who are also looking to suicide”, and called her views “inconsistent”.

“The intention of taking one’s life is called suicide. There are some who say that there are legitimate opportunities where it should be allowed, and we call that euthanasia or physician-assisted dying. So no, it’s just an inconsistent approach.”

“At one level saying youth suicide is bad, but saying other forms of suicide are acceptable, that’s an inconsistency. That’s always been the approach I’ve had,” he said.

“You cannot allow suicide for some and prevent it for others”.

Predictably Bill English was asked about it and all he could do was lamely slap O’Connor’s hand:

NZH: Bill English tells Simon O’Connor he’s wrong over euthanasia comments

National leader Bill English says he has texted his colleague Simon O’Connor to tell him it was wrong to link suicide and euthanasia.

Speaking at a press conference this afternoon, English said he didn’t agree with O’Connor.

“We don’t link euthanasia and suicide,” he said.

“In both cases, what’s important here is compassion for people who are vulnerable.

“For suicide, we’re trying to find better and wider solutions as a practical expression of that support for people who are at risk.”

But the damage had been done. This makes National look out of control and out of touch.

O’Connor completed training as a Catholic priest but didn’t seek ordination. He has previously expressed strong views against euthanasia.

But he isn’t totally devout in catholic practices.

Stuff in February last year: National MP Simon O’Connor to marry Minister Simon Bridges’ sister

National MP Simon O’Connor kicked off the new year proposing to Transport Minister Simon Bridges’ sister.

O’Connor’s fiance, Rachel Trimble, who still uses her ex-husband’s name, says politics really runs in the family and she’s joked to O’Connor that he should take her maiden name for fun.

“It’s quite confusing, I’ve had people think that I’m dating Simon Bridges, and I have to explain that he’s my brother,” Trimble said.

“I’m quite surprised he even likes me, considering I have five children…he’s a really kind and caring guy,” she said.

The kids are “great” and “fundamentally they still have a Dad, and it’s not me,” O’Connor said.

O’Connor admits when he was studying to be a priest in the seminary a decade ago he didn’t expect he’d end up marrying an older woman with five children.

Between 1995 and the end of 2004 O’Connor was studying for the priesthood with the Society of Mary.

He completed his studies but when it came to being ordained he decided it wasn’t for him.

“I’m still a man who has beliefs but it’s not a big part of who I am.”

“I don’t regret a day of being in the seminary but you can’t be a politico and a cleric.”

Trimble and O’Connor married in December last year. Unless rules have changed they would not have been able to get married in a Catholic Church.

This latest controversy is a relatively minor embarrassment for National but it could be another nail in their campaign coffin.

Q+A: Ohariu electorate

Q+A: Is Ohariu a safe seat for Peter Dunne? We have the results our Q+A Colmar Brunton Snap Poll on the Ohariu electorate

NZ Herald pre-empt this:  Jacinda effect’ erodes Peter Dunne’s support in Ohariu but he hopes it will be temporary

United Future leader Peter Dunne believes his support in Ohariu has been eroded because of the Jacinda Ardern effect but he questions how long that will last.

The Q + A show has a snap poll tomorrow (TV1 – 9am, Sunday) which is expected to show Dunne trailing Labour candidate Greg O’Connor.

“The question is, and it is something everyone is trying to figure out at the moment, is how deep-seated that factor is,” Dunne told the Herald on Sunday.

“Is it a phenomenon that will pass by as quickly as it arose or is it something more substantial?

Dunne has held the west-Wellington seat since 1984, originally as a Labour MP, but held it in the 2014 election by only 710 votes. He has been a support partner of the National-led Government since 2008.

In the past National has campaigned for only the party vote but this time it is explicitly asking National supporters to give Dunne their electorate vote to keep him in Parliament.

Labour and the Greens have done an electorate deal in which the Greens are not standing in order to give O’Connor, the former police union boss, a stronger chance of rolling Dunne. The Greens had 2764 electorate votes last time.

It’s not surprising to see that Peter Dunne’s hold on the Ohariu electorate is at serious risk (it has been before but so far he has survived).

A resurgent Labour under Ardern’s leadership was always going to help O’Connor against Dunne, but that may or may not hold up as we get into the business end of the campaign.

If Dunne loses it will make National’s chances a little bit harder.


Poll:

  • Greg O’Connor (Labour) 48%
  • Peter Dunne (United Future) 34%
  • Brett Hudson (National) 14%
  • Jessica Hammond (TOP) 2%

Party support in Ohariu:

  • National 46% (50.23% in the 2014 election, 49.60 in 2011)
  • Labour 35% (23.42%, 26.53%)
  • Greens 12% (15.01%, 14,42%)
  • NZ First 4% (4.76%, 3.91%)

501 voters, +/- 4%

That’s a big lead to O’Connor and it looks very difficult for Dunne, but there have been big poll swings lately so it’s difficult to know how this will end up.

However I think this looks ominous for Dunne.

Another part of the poll:


  • Staying with Dunne 63%
  • Switching to O’Connor/Labour 27%
  • Switching to someone else 10%

 

Aim: TOP dog on cross benches

It’s getting hard to differentiate between attention seeking stunts, a normal day in the campaign, and official party launches these days.

Gareth Morgan and the The Opportunities Party have been campaigning for Months, but they had their official campaign launch today.

Scoop:  Labour will need more than ‘Jacinda Trudeau’: TOP

“Quite clearly, Jacinda’s a great communicator, so that’s good,” said Morgan, who welcomed Labour’s resurgence as “great for New Zealand democracy”.

“It’s an issue of whether that’s sufficient for Labour: the Jacinda Trudeau Effect, I call it,” he said, referring to the impact a young, stylish leader has had on Canadian politics through its Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.

On TOP:

While TOP’s plan was to “to be a 30 percent party by 2020”, he expected TOP to poll 10 percent at the Sept. 23 election, although modified that to “being realistic” 5 percent and six MPs in the next Parliament, enough potentially to help form a minority government led by either National or Labour.

TOP has polled 2 percent in three published polls and 3 percent in a UMR poll reported this week by Radio New Zealand.

The party hopes that means it has the momentum to make 5 percent by election day. As TOP expects to win no electorate seats, a party vote under 5 percent would be wasted as it would gain no parliamentary seats under New Zealand’s MMP proportional voting system.

Morgan insisted he did not want to become a Cabinet Minister and would look only to provide support to a government from Parliament’s ‘cross-benches’.

Rather than naming non-negotiable ‘bottom line’ policies, if TOP had a choice of partners, it would pick the one that promised to enact the largest number of TOP’s 15 main policies, said Morgan.

“Whoever gives us the most will get the nod.”

So Morgan wants to be TOP dog on the cross benches.