Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): E ngā mana e ngā reo e ngā karanga maha o te wā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.Mr Speaker like everyone represented in this House I have taken this conscience vote very seriously because I do see this as a significant decision that we are forced to confront as a part of our responsibility as members of Parliament and I expect that the public watching at home will see how full the Chamber is today because people on both sides of this debate are taking this issue incredibly seriously and they're taking their responsibilities in this House seriously.My personal experiences like I think everyone in this House have shaped my view. During my childhood my grandmother attempted to take her own life many times because she felt a burden on society as someone who struggled at times with a mental illness. My most fundamental concern with this legislation is that sanctioning euthanasia makes it easier for vulnerable people to feel that the most appropriate option is to take their own life and that it is very difficult to ensure protection sufficient to preclude this ever happening. In Opposition I sat for a period on a select committee that considered euthanasia and heard many harrowing stories from both sides of this debate and I came to the conclusion that improved palliative care practices will address many but not all of the concerns raised by proponents of assisted dying.The committee also reinforced to me the near unanimity of opposition from those in the medical professions with the most information and experience of dying as well as those who work with those who are dying and their families. I retain a concern about the increasing desire across society to favour a sanitised experience of death and that view of mine is shaped by my own experiences as a funeral celebrant where I heard a great deal of euphemistic language around the topic of death. I've also heard a lot of talk about dignity in death and too often it seems to me—not always but too often—that is about the sensitivities of those who surround the dying person rather than the person who themselves is confronting death.I do believe that we stand to learn a lot about what is important in life about relationships within families and communities by sharing the experiences of those who are dying. Our experience of humanity risks being diminished if we push for shorter more succinct death experiences. As I say that please do not think I argue in favour of glorification of suffering but rather a turning toward rather than a turning away from the dying process which I see as a natural process. This decision is not perfectly straightforward as I am particularly aware of those who suffer from degenerative diseases. None the less on balance I find myself returning to the same conclusion born of personal experience as with many in this House.I revisited the bill ahead of its reading in the Parliament in December 2017 and decided not to support it because of my previously documented concerns. I do want to thank of course everybody who committed to the process who made submissions the public as a whole. But as I conclude I do want to say that I believe whether this vote is carried or not people in this House carry a responsibility. If it goes down those who vote it down have a responsibility for making sure we have improved palliative care. Those who vote it up if it goes up have a responsibility to ensure they do everything in their power to protect our most vulnerable.Let me be clear: I do oppose the bill but I do not think the world will end if it passes either. It is my view that if it passes it will be but one more step toward a more atomised and individualised experience of life and death and a step away from a commitment to a common journey through life and death shared with friends and loved ones. Thank you Mr Speaker.