SpeechHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to speak in Part 3 as I have in Part 2 and Part 1. I was the deputy chair of the Justice Committee and we undertook through that process to hear all of the people that asked to be heard before our committee. We did our level best to do that and it took a lot of time but it was worth it because people's lives are at stake. This is the most serious piece of legislation and of course it is one of the most poorly drafted and poorly crafted pieces of legislation that many of us have ever seen—certainly in my case. I feel it has been ushered through this House with unseemly haste.Every single provision to try and make this bill safer—for those of us who have grave reservations about this bill we have put in a lot of effort along with hospices along with many of the people who made submissions on the bill to try and reflect their concerns—and they're very real concerns—about the lack of protections for the vulnerable. So Alzheimer's New Zealand Hospice—we have worked closely with them. All of these amendments have been voted down so all of our efforts to try and make this a safer bill have not been acknowledged and I would urge members opposite and people who are in favour of this bill to listen carefully to what we are saying about the various parts.Part 3 the one we are debating tonight means ultimately that nobody accepts responsibility. And it's all about accountability; accepting responsibility for what we do in this House about enabling assisted suicide and euthanasia is a very important part of our role. In my case I think it is the most important piece of legislation I've ever had anything to do with and I deeply regret the cavalier attitude of the sponsor of this bill and his dismissive arrogant way of addressing the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that have been done in good heart and in good faith throughout this process and in particular with this one in Part 3.So when we look at possession when we look at the protections and the accountability for people who will be providing protections scrutinising them through registrars through the various processes that have been outlined in this bill the review committee. We will look through clauses 19 to 21 in some detail but I would ask members of Parliament to think about how you take responsibility for people who have been coerced how you take responsibility and ensure that there is accountability through the registrar and through a very very flimsy and shoddy process to ensure that elder abuse and the ability to diagnose dementia by one doctor's meeting of an individual—and the second meeting can be done through social networking on Messenger. That was at the insistence of the sponsor and I would ask him to justify why he made that such an important part of the select committee deliberations. It's all in an effort to get this through faster and to have less accountability and less responsibility ultimately.Freedom of choice is all very well up to a point but if you are disabled depressed or have dementia your freedom of choice is very compromised. This bill and the provisions in particular around the review committee and the way that the Support and Consultation for End of Life In New Zealand Group is put together the oversight of Ministers which I have some SOPs on which I will speak to later in this debate—as long as it's not shut down of course—these are the individual aspects of this bill that really do need to be drilled into. We did always intend at the Justice Committee that when this bill came back to the House it would be talked about in detail. I don't know that Damien O'Connor that chairman Raymond Huo that Duncan Webb that other members on this committee have even taken any calls—except of course closure calls. That's all they're interested in doing. They thundered that it was important to get this bill right. This is their opportunity to stand and take a call and debate with some intellectual rigour and some emotional engagement on this issue.When we look at the various aspects of the review committee there is no recourse for people who end their lives based on misdiagnosis. Why is that? Because they're dead. They're also not necessarily able to articulate their own issues in the lead-in to seeking to find out more about death. When it comes to the review committee it is likely that some of these cases will not ever be reported. Where's the transparency in that? Why are they not able to be published? And SOPs that we will deal with in more detail later in the night will suggest ways in which the public of New Zealand in which the relatives of those who have been claimed will be able to understand what went on in the lead-up to their loved one's death because at the moment there is no transparency afforded for in this bill and euthanasia and assisted suicide—[Time expired]