SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It doesn't get any more serious than this in this House where our role and responsibility as legislators is to talk about life and death. The arrogance of the sponsor of this bill David Seymour was that he tried to shut the bill down. Many in this House on the second reading said Let us do due process. Let's ensure that it's robust it's clear and that we would have the opportunity and the time to be able to do that." Can I remind us that McGee in Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand talks about this: in order for a piece of paper to turn into legislation and law it has to have a robust process in this House. Nothing gets more serious than this.I don't speak to the sponsor of the bill because the truth that is he doesn't care. For those of you that are over there in the Chamber I plead for you to take the time to understand and to read what the bill is actually intending to do. The bill initially in Parts 1 and 2 is talking about choice—in fact that's why it's called the End of Life Choice Bill. But Part 3 talks about accountability. You see the reality is that for every choice there is a consequence. So what I want to say to those on the other side of the Chamber and those who aren't here—of those 120 members in this House—is to know this: our duty of care and responsibility is to legislate in such a way that we do not make mistakes. You see mistakes have unintended consequences and we will bear the brunt of that responsibility. Can I remind the members in the Chamber that's the role that we were elected in to this House for.So is there an opportunity? It was only just today in this House during question time when the Prime Minister stood up and said this in regards to being accountable and in regards to suicide: "One death is one death too many." So this Part 3 is about accountability. So the question is this: could there be a possibility that we could get one death wrong? Is there a possibility that other jurisdictions have got it wrong? I want to say to members on the other side that even the sponsor David Seymour admits that it has been gotten wrong in other countries like the Netherlands and like Belgium who've had this for a number of years. And even in Canada. Why? Because they got it wrong. But here's what they do: in order to tolerate the fact of the actions to their consequences they say "Well they were going to die anyway. They were going to die anyway." I was at a debate and I was there with Maryan Street and we talked about accountability as this Part 3 talks about and I posed the question about the review in Belgium. It talked about potentially there may have been 10 to 12 percent. Now she questioned that and said "No that's too high." I asked "So what's an acceptable level of accountability?" "Well maybe we'll lower it to 5 percent." Even 5 percent of the 6000 that were killed through being euthanised that was one too many.So to the members on the other side I ask that you take the opportunity that you even take a debate that you ask the questions. Do the work that you were elected to in this House. It's not enough for others on this side here to be passionate to be caring enough to take the time to do it; I would ask that those members on the other side do the same thing.Clause 20(2) talks about this. The fact is that under the review committee—but the reality is there's no recourse for people who end their lives based on a misdiagnosis. The truth is technically and clinically there are misdiagnoses that happen all the time. Can I comment from Professor Roderick MacLeod who's probably New Zealand's most leading palliative care specialist and he clearly states this: "If you're going to create a category of those who may be killed then diagnosis has got to be right 100 percent and prognosis has got to be accurate. But these things are very inexact sciences." In other words they cannot be determined. So to the member in the chair David Seymour to the others that are over there: where will you set the threshold? Could we get it wrong? Answer is yes—other jurisdictions have.Why would we allow a law like this to go through? There is no recourse. In clause 20 it clearly states this. There is no recourse for those who've been misdiagnosed. In other words there's no reporting where people have got it wrong where doctors have got it wrong; they've admitted to the fact. There is plenty of research that actually clearly states this: "There has been a misdiagnosis we have got it wrong."What will our whānau say? What will our family say? What will you say as legislators on the other side? Did you fight for this bill to make sure that it was safe enough? If you're going to vote for it then make sure it's safe enough. Make sure that your hand on your heart you can say this: "We've ensured that this bill has all the safeguards. We've looked at all the jurisdictions across the seas and we've seen the factors; actually there's not enough." Yeah that member can shake his head but the reality is he doesn't have enough life experience to know what the reality of life is. He can be the policy guy that turns around and gives a whole set of answers to all these Supplementary Order Papers but the reality is he knows he's wrong.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Before I call the next member could I remind members that we're debating Part 3 which is clauses 19 to 22A. A passing reference to the subtitle of the Part is not sufficient to be addressing it. So I'd really encourage all members to address the part."