O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm pleased that this is continuing. I will add a comment that it's been striking as it was in the first part that those who have never taken a call but have spoken about the importance of this are trying to shut it down. There are a number of clauses here and I will continue talking to clause 16 which has not actually been fully discussed; nor clause 18 which I will get to. It does need to be noted though that the member in the chair David Seymour who's responded has certainly noted the ties that members are wearing and the nature of ironing quality but has not actually addressed the questions. When we look at this whole part the first thing that needs to be noted is that the choice is not with the person; that's been raised several times. This is an entire process about doctors choosing. I would note in clause 8(2)(b)—which has not been discussed—whether the member in the chair has given any thought to the Harmful Digital Communications Act Principle 9 which says that one is not to use harmful digital communications to facilitate a person to commit suicide. I'd note in section 8(2)(b) which has not been discussed hitherto that the doctor may actually—sorry it's not even a doctor these days; is a health practitioner. Watch out podiatrists! I note that you may use a telephone or social media to talk to the person. I by nature would define that as a harmful digital communication which offends Principle 9 and I would expect the member in the chair to try and answer that one.I was interrupted earlier as I had taken only the one call on clause 16(5)—that the medical practitioner must be available. As I noted in the likes of Oregon people have survived up to 104 hours and I'd really like to know how the member—again with this shoddy drafting—is imagining that a doctor is going to be there for that length of time. How are they going to take rest breaks and meal breaks and so forth? That hasn't been discussed.As well we know from the overseas data—and unlike the people who are supporting this bill I am more than happy to table all that evidence and have done many a time—that actually in the Netherlands in 16 percent of assisted suicides—so that's when you decide to kill yourself—and 6 percent of those who seek euthanasia which is far more efficient because the doctors are doing it there are complications. This bill is effectively silent about what the attending medical practitioner as outlined in clause 16 is meant to do. So not only have we a situation where people are surviving much much longer—because the general view in people is that this death with dignity is just nice and easy the doctor walks in anaesthetises you muscle relaxants—because as I've mentioned before you don't want to fight back—and then terminates you. But as we know two things can happen—not in all cases; I want to stress that we are talking exceptions here—Marja Lubeck: Repetitive.SIMON O'CONNOR: Sorry? I heard a muttering from someone who might choose to take a call which would be novel. That might have been one of those unwanted complications! Hours to die and there is no structure here for the attending medical practitioner according to clause 16(5) of how that is to operate. Yes I notice in 16(5)(b) it says to arrange for another medical practitioner …". But if you're up to 104 hours—which is days by the way for those mathematically challenged—how does that look 24 hours a day?Now the member in the chair might point me—might point me because you know he's novel—to 16(6) and say that that person has to be available. As I pointed out in my earlier contribution it always starts with the positive: that the doctor the medical practitioner has to be in the same room. And you go "Gosh that's lovely." And then you read 16(6)(b) and it says well "not in the same room … but is in close proximity". Well that's fascinating because once again—because this is shoddy drafting—what does that mean? Close proximity? Is that if we go back to clause 8 that your Skype is running that you've got FaceTime? What does that even mean? So the challenge to the member in the chair is—and particularly those who support this who don't seem to take calls strangely—what does that mean? Even if you support this legislation—and every member has the right to—what does that mean for the patients like those in Oregon who take 104 hours to die? Is the doctor in the room in the room next door somewhere in the hospital down the road? Where's the specificity? And we somehow as a Parliament in this debate are looking to sign this off without the specificity as is required.I'd also note if we move on to clause 17—[Time expired]"