Rail into the CBD
Maryan Street’s optimistic claim that David Seymour’s End of Life Choice Bill will pass (This choice will happen, Jan 4) is based more on wishful thinking than on objective fact, with a rich vein of calculated spin running right through it.
Firstly, the way Street talks up the prevalence of legalisation: she would rather the reader did not know that fewer than 5 per cent of jurisdictions worldwide have legalised euthanasia, and that the vast majority of such bills fail.
In 2015 the UK Parliament voted across all parties to overwhelmingly reject the legalisation of assisted dying. This barely rated a mention in our New Zealand media. So much for Street’s words, ‘‘the trend is clear and it will inevitably happen’’.
Regarding the likely result of a referendum, Street should not be so confident. Remember the flag referendum, which was thought to be a no-brainer?
Add to this the fact it would share the platform with the equally contentious issue of cannabis decriminalisation. Many New Zealanders are already wary of the pace of social engineering legislation and, in the spirit of ‘‘enough is enough’’, simply vote ‘‘no’’ to both.
Finally, Street’s claim that the bill includes ‘‘strict criteria’’ is a wonderfully ironic punchline which would be funny if not so dangerous. Stephen Francis, Auckland
Quite a leap
Melissa Hardy (Letters, Jan 4) makes a wild leap of imagination from reading the word ‘‘discriminatory’’ in the attorney-general’s report to assuming that ‘‘child euthanasia’’ is just around the corner.
This kind of alarmist scaremongering fools no-one.
Any change to any law in this country requires an entire parliamentary process to be gone through. First reading, select committee, second reading, committee of the whole House, third reading. New Zealand law is different from Dutch law and Belgian law: it’s based on English law, and that’s our process.
Does Hardy really think that our parliamentarians will at some time in the future try to ‘‘sneak’’ under-18s into the eligibility criteria for assisted dying without the whole country knowing about it?
All eligibility criteria are discriminatory. They are designed to discriminate against those who don’t meet the mark. For example, under65s are discriminated against in terms of eligibility for superannuation; the employed are discriminated against in terms of receiving unemployment benefits.
Ann David, Waikanae I was intrigued to see in your holiday ‘‘15 mins of fame series’’ (Jan 4) that a Kapiti lady, asked: ‘‘What is the biggest issue facing Wellington and what can be done?’’, responded ‘‘Traffic, it would be good to have the train go further into the city.’’
Well, it is obvious to ordinary people, but not to the current planners. ‘‘Rail penetration of the CBD’’ is the universal paradigm for rail transit everywhere else in the world. First planned in 1878, it was formally proposed by the Wellington Regional Council 20 years ago as part of a regional light rail system sharing existing railway infrastructure. It was meant to be implemented by 2019!
But such ambitions fell apart in the dash to build Transmission Gully and other motorways, which will increase the traffic burden in downtown Wellington. And it seems that the current Let’s Get Wellington Moving study intends to keep our rail system incomplete and crippled by its edge-of-the-CBD terminus, while further big state highway enhancements are promoted. Brent Efford, Light Rail Transit Assn, Aro Valley
Scotland’s example
To learn from this terrible recent tragedy (Deadly rail accident on sea bridge, Jan 4), Denmark should now arrange for two separate bridges so that one can be used for road traffic and the other for rail.
The Firth of Forth near Edinburgh is spanned by two separate bridges for good reason. Hopefully we will all learn.
Heather Mackie, Trentham