Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair and thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on this. I would like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper 301 in my name that I haven't discussed yet and I don't believe has been discussed in detail so far. But firstly I have a question for the member in the chair David Seymour which I would like him to give an answer to. It goes to the heart of his philosophical brand as the leader of the Association of Consumers and Taxpayers and that is: how much time would it take for someone from the start of this process to the end of the process? So over the first request that they make to when they actually take the medication and die what is the time frame that that will actually take? I think that's an important question which isn't outlined here in this legislation. There are steps—is it all happening in the same day? Is it happening over a week? Is it happening over three weeks? I understand that some of those time frames could be delayed because of the choice of the individual but assuming that the choice was made to progress this in the fastest possible manner what is the time frame that this would be done in? I'd like him to rise to his feet and answer that question to the House because I think it's something which all members—David Seymour: It's an interesting question but how does it relate to ACT? SIMEON BROWN: Well all members would—I'm not going to join the ACT Party because of that question but I would ask him to act and stand on his feet and answer that question. Secondly—the Supplementary Order Paper 301 which I'd like to take a call to. This is in regards to clause 8 of the bill and is about when the request is made. One of the intricacies in when the request is made is—there are two elements which the Supplementary Order Paper tries to address. Firstly it's about ensuring that people have the adequate translation services available for them if they are unable uncomfortable or unwilling to engage in discussion in English Māori or New Zealand Sign Language" which are of course New Zealand's three official languages. So this is about adding an additional element to the process so that it confirms the presence of a translation service in that part. I'd like to ask the member in the chair to be able to give me assurances that those New Zealanders who don't have a strong grasp of any of those three languages are going to be adequately able to communicate their will to the attending medical practitioner in those circumstances. I'd appreciate it if he can give assurances to the House in that regard. The second issue and I think it's quite important—it has been touched on but not in any detail as to my Supplementary Order Paper—is around the issue here in clause 8(2)(b). It says that the attending medical practitioner must "personally communicate by any means (for example by telephone …)" or electronic communication—in the current bar 2 bill it says also using social media and in David Seymour's Supplementary Order Paper it says electronic communication which I think is a broader term and I understand where he's going with that—"with the person about the person's wish at intervals determined by the progress of the person's terminal illness". The question I have here and this goes to my Supplementary Order Paper is why are these conversations not happening face to face? Why are these conversations these important conversations about the person's prognosis about the irreversible nature of assisted dying the anticipated impacts of assisted dying why are they not happening face to face? This comes to the issue of coercion and the fact that the doctor or the attending medical practitioner needs to be aware of the individual's circumstances which they are under and they are not even potentially having a face-to-face conversation with that individual.I ask members whether they think that is something that they would accept. Would they accept that the conversations which are taking place between them and the medical practitioner could be happening on FaceTime on Skype or on some other form of electronic communication or would they rather those conversations happen face to face so that the actual relationship the fiduciary duties that the doctor has towards their patients are being seriously taken and that we have doctors and medical practitioners who seriously look at these issues and understand the full context? I ask the member and I ask members to consider that question and if they do not think this bill is adequate to vote for Supplementary Order Paper 301 in my name to address it. Thank you very much Madam Chair."