How Whanganui region voted and what they think about the End of Life Choice Bill

Rangitikei MP Ian McKelvie believes four in five people in his electorate are against the End of Life Choice Bill.

Te Taihauāuru MP Adrian Rurawhe and Whanganui MP Harete Hipango voted for the End of Life Choice Bill on its first reading, because they wanted the conversation to continue.

But by the time the bill was read for the second time, on June 26, Rurawhe had realised his constituents were dead against it.

"I have had public meetings with my constituents throughout my electorate and taken every opportunity I have to speak to constituents and to Māori organisations.

"It's clear they want me to vote against it," he said.

Hipango analysed the bill as it was drafted. At its second reading, she voted against it.

Her experience as a lawyer advocating for the vulnerable convinced her it was flawed and unsafe, and could be misused.

It was eurocentric, she said, lacking the ability to balance collective wellbeing against individual choice and rights.

Those rights and choices would not be subject to robust scrutiny, she said, and there would not be enough independent checks and balances.

Meanwhile, Rangitīkei MP Ian McKelvie is having a similar experience to Rurawhe's.

"My correspondence on this is five against to one in favour," he said.

It's not that Rangitīkei people are conservative, he said. On gay marriage they were five for versus one against.

McKelvie had been against the bill from the start - and not for religious reasons.

As the chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand he deals with lots of people with intellectual disabilities, and didn't like that under it people with permanent disabilities could ask for an assisted death.

He knows that will be taken out of the bill, but said it's just too loose and full of loopholes in general. Not enough background work has been done, which he says is the trouble with members' bills.

Te Tai Hauauru MP Adrian Rurawhe

Hipango, McKelvie and Rurawhe see a danger that vulnerable and older people will feel pressured or coerced to ask for death.

McKelvie has seen people in his electorate being given a year to live, and being alive five years later. Some of them have made the trip to Parliament every time the bill comes up, to say they are glad they never had the chance to ask to die.

McKelvie's doctor friends are very uneasy about the bill, and he thinks it's unlikely it will be improved enough for him to vote for it.

Rurawhe agrees, but said he will keep in touch with what's happening, and vote for any amendments that give more protection to the elderly and vulnerable.

He's open to the idea of the bill going to a referendum - but wants to make sure it's the best possible version.

McKelvie and Hipango don't like referenda, because they say the average person doesn't have access to all the complex information needed to make a good decision - unless they go to a lot of trouble.

Hipango does not support any referendum, while McKelvie has qualified support.

"I guess I would support it going to referendum, in the hope that it might get beaten," he said.

Whanganui MP Harete Hipango.

Rurawhe said MPs were elected to Parliament to make laws, but perhaps life and death issues like this one should go to a referendum.

"So that means that Parliament needs to make it the best bill it possibly can be."

Voting on the bill will be on individual conscience for most parties. The June 26 debate was reflective and respectful, Rurawhe said, with good speeches on both sides.