spinofflive
 National MP Maggie Barry December 2018. (Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King)
National MP Maggie Barry December 2018. (Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King)

SocietyApril 6, 2019

Maggie Barry is euthanasia advocates’ secret weapon

 National MP Maggie Barry December 2018. (Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King)
National MP Maggie Barry December 2018. (Photo: RNZ / Rebekah Parsons-King)

The North Shore MP’s aggressive opposition to the End of Life Choice Bill is proving such a turn off that it can only bolster the pro-euthanasia side, writes Graham Adams.

David Lange – famed stand-up comic and New Zealand’s funniest prime minister – once quipped that National leader Jim Bolger had “gone around the country stirring up apathy”. If Lange were alive today he might quip that Maggie Barry is going around the country “stirring up antipathy” – towards herself.

The North Shore MP is a fierce opponent of David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill and over the past few years has popped up in town hall debates all over the country to put her case.

At every opportunity, she has breathed fire at the proposal that parliament could allow some very sick people to get the chance to legally end their lives – at their own request – a few weeks or months earlier than their disease dictates.

Most people – including the very ill – want to live as long as they can but hope to skip the often painful and distressing bit at the very end. Or at least that’s what polls showing a persistent majority favouring assisted dying over two decades tell us.

Curiously, having lethal medication at hand can give those with a poor prognosis the confidence to live better and longer. As eminent Auckland University psychologist Glynn Owens pointed out at the trial of Suzie Austen in Wellington last year on charges of aiding a suicide, just possessing a life-ending drug can be palliative for the terminally ill because of the reassuring and soothing effects of knowing they can take it if their suffering intensifies.

As Professor Owens pointed out, one-third of all those in Oregon who receive prescriptions do not actually take the lethal medication.

It is well documented that having the chance to legally take such medication also means some of the terminally ill don’t feel the need to take their own lives even earlier while they are still capable. It is estimated that more than six per cent of terminally ill people succeed in killing themselves – mostly in lonely and violent ways – and many more try. An assisted dying bill would make that unnecessary for many.

Maggie Barry has made it clear this sort of evidence won’t sway her opposition one little bit, insisting that Seymour’s “disgraceful” bill is nothing more than a “licence to kill”.

In some ways, her aggressive approach to the topic makes her almost an asset to the pro-euthanasia camp inasmuch as she alienates many people who might be otherwise persuaded to agree with her.

However, it must be said the frequent claims she makes contrary to well-established evidence are a serious worry. On TVNZ’s Q&A this week she claimed that palliative care can help everyone die painlessly, which, as Seymour noted, was found to be untrue in Lecretia Seales’ high court case – not to mention the evidence provided by horrific deaths described in numerous submissions to the select committee inquiries. It’s as if the voluminous evidence about untreatable end-of-life suffering provided since Seales took her case in 2015 never happened.

Often belligerent, Barry talks over those with opposing views and uses such inflammatory language that sometimes even those against a law change feel ill-disposed towards her.

As David Speary wrote in the North Shore Times last September after attending a debate on assisted dying in Devonport: “[Maggie Barry] interrupted the [End of Life Choice] speaker and, when it was her time, completely dominated the rest of the meeting. The chairman could hardly give anybody else a chance.

“Maggie distorted statistics and overseas reports like they were ‘fake news’, and many people in the audience got upset at her references to killing people as if it would be indiscriminate elimination of the mentally ill, physically handicapped, or the old and useless.”

David Seymour, in particular, seems to be the tinder paper to her inner volcano. On Q&A, she looked ready to spontaneously combust at the very sight of him and quickly made the mild-mannered Act MP seem like a model of decency and decorum, which he invariably is when he’s not on the dance floor.

It’s hard not to wonder if Barry isn’t still smarting from the events of last December. A day when she was minding her own business in the corridors of parliament, journalists stopped her and asked what she thought of the news that Seymour – in response to public opposition – had suggested that his bill be restricted to the terminally ill, that the “grievous and irremediable” clause be dropped, and that the bill explicitly exclude eligibility on the grounds of mental health conditions and disabilities alone.

He also suggested that aspects of Barry’s own member’s bill to improve palliative care be incorporated into his End of Life Choice Bill.

Barry’s bluster at this thoroughly unexpected attempt at compromise was televised and the embarrassing spectacle made it painfully obvious that she knew she had had been gazumped. She was obviously blindsided by his recommendations and dismissed them out of hand as “an extraordinary flight of fancy”, “publicity seeking” and accused him of being “cute”.

She returned to the same theme on Q&A this week when Seymour again made his offer of tucking her own palliative care bill into his under the glare of television lights. She declared she “didn’t want a bar of it”.

She also reminded Seymour that he no longer had any direct influence over the bill he sponsored as it was now “the property of the [Justice select] committee”, of which she is deputy chair, and that the committee had been generous in allowing him to sit in on meetings to comment and consider submissions.

There was not the slightest hint of gratitude that her palliative care bill, currently lodged in parliament’s biscuit tin, would have a real chance of becoming law under his proposal if the House adopted it. Left in the tin, it may languish there for ever and never be drawn. In fact, Barry may well leave parliament without it having seen the light of day if she fails to adopt Seymour’s perfectly reasonable offer.

Many viewers will conclude after watching her TV performance that she is determined to crush Seymour’s bill no matter what it takes and no matter how many compromises he is willing to propose to meet his critics halfway. Even if he has no official power over the form his bill takes now – apart from his vote as an MP – he has a lot of moral authority as its sponsor and tireless advocate.

Barry is sitting on a substantial majority in her North Shore electorate but she is not doing the wider National Party any favours with her aggressive opposition. And some of her fellow National MPs aren’t best pleased either. Insiders say there is a lot of disappointment in National’s caucus at Barry’s behaviour and that has affected not just her own credibility but those who side with her as well.

There is a mood abroad for more kindness and civility in our politics – as well as a desire for more liberal social policies – but Barry seems to have missed that memo entirely.

Perhaps her colleagues should remind her that it is possible to oppose the End of Life Choice Bill graciously and logically and passionately without being plainly rude or making stuff up.

The Justice select committee is due to report back to Parliament on April 9.

Keep going!
Phone scammers prey on vulnerable (Photo: Getty)
Phone scammers prey on vulnerable (Photo: Getty)

SocietyApril 5, 2019

Why we need a central scam agency

Phone scammers prey on vulnerable (Photo: Getty)
Phone scammers prey on vulnerable (Photo: Getty)

Different scams are dealt with by different agencies, leaving many consumers confused as to where to go. The Commission for Financial Capability’s Bronwyn Groot says it’s time to centralise how we report scams in New Zealand. 

News this week that the money lost through online scams had ballooned to $33 million in 2018 – triple the amount lost the year before – only confirmed for us here at CFFC that something needs to change in how New Zealand fights this form of crime.

The Netsafe report also revealed that 13,000 instances of online scams and fraud were reported last year, up from 8,100 cases totalling $10.1 million in losses in 2017.

That’s 13,000 people, and 13,000 families still suffering the long-lasting effects of having their hard-earned money – sometimes their life savings – stolen from them. Fraud is not just about financial loss. It takes an emotional toll that affects a person’s psychological wellbeing for months and sometimes years afterwards.

Unfortunately, all of the agencies working in fraud prevention know these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg. Most scams go unreported partly because victims are embarrassed, but also because they don’t know where to turn, and if they do find someone to report to, they come away disillusioned. Our research shows a vast number of people don’t bother reporting scams because they think nothing can be done.

And therein lies the problem – the system is fractured with a number of agencies covering different types of fraud and few providing support for victims. There’s Netsafe for online scams, CERT (the Cyber Emergency Response Team) for cybersecurity fraud such as ‘sextortion’, blackmail, phishing and malware, and the FMA (Financial Markets Authority) for investment scams. The Department of Internal Affairs for spam and until recently, postal scams, ID Care for identity theft, telephone companies for phone scams, the police, and for general information, Consumer Protection, Scamwatch and us.

Each organisation does a fantastic job in its respective area, but consumers are confused. If they do approach an agency and it’s the wrong one, they are passed on and must go through the trauma of explaining the crime they’ve suffered over and over again, often with little result. It’s no wonder they give up.

Investigation of this form of crime stops before it starts, and victims feel isolated as they sink into a mire of shame and self-recrimination that can lead to depression, marriage break-ups and, at worst, suicide.

A spam email message (Photo: Getty)

If New Zealanders knew there was one central agency that could help them, we would know how big this problem really is. A central point could provide a rapid response to reports, triage cases to teams expert in different types of fraud who know the buttons to push to stop money being lost, start tracking offenders, put preventative measures in place to stop victims being targeted again, and support them through recovery.

The agency could also co-ordinate alerts to the public warning them of the latest scams because, like viruses, they morph and multiply by the month. Scams are not run by a single person sitting in a dark room: they are sophisticated international businesses employing thousands of people and using the latest technology to stay one step ahead of enforcement. Millions of dollars are siphoned out of the New Zealand economy every year and into organised crime – guns, drugs, human trafficking – and into the lifestyles of those who run it.

A woman I worked with recently knew none of this. Mary lost $68,000 through an investment scam – she’d been cold-called by someone offering her shares in a company that didn’t exist. She was led through a maze of fake websites, fake documents and was convinced to transfer multiple payments to various overseas bank accounts before her family got wind of what was going on and took her to report it to the police. The police said there was nothing they could do and suggested she contact the FMA. The FMA took Mary’s report and referred her to me.

I’ve worked with Mary and her family to show them how the scam operated and support them as they come to terms with the loss. Sometimes I can help people contact enforcement in the country in which their money has disappeared to put a stop on bank accounts and try to track offenders, but success is rare. Scammers move money quickly between accounts and countries, change contact names and company names, and stay several steps ahead of us.

The latest statistics show we’re losing the fight against scammers. We need to get as smart as they are, move as quickly as they do, while also wrapping a security blanket around the victims. I believe, like my counterpart at Netsafe, Martin Cocker, that this can best be done by pooling our resources and expertise into a central scam agency. Several of the agencies mentioned above could be developed into a national response centre; CFFC would support them with our work in mapping individual scams, supporting victims and public education. We just need the political will to bring us together.

It’s been done overseas. The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre is an example of the one-stop shop that could work here. We could start small, grow the agency gradually as we get processes in place; we’d have no problem sourcing demand.

Then, the next time a friend or relative is scammed, or you fall victim (because it’s not a case of if, but when), you will know exactly where to turn. Your distress will be met by professionals who will not judge you, but place the blame firmly where it belongs, with the offenders, and immediately get to work. We expect no less when reporting any other kind of crime.