Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Chair for an opportunity to take a call on the End of Life Choice Bill. This is the first time and opportunity I've had to take a call on this bill. I come to this bill with a sad heart. This is not the type of legislation that I came to Parliament to debate. This in my opinion is one of the darker days in this Parliament's Chamber where we are debating legislation to do with the death of people caused by other citizens of this country.I come to this debate and I challenge members who voted for the second reading of this bill to take calls because many of them acknowledged they had concerns over the way that this bill was drafted. They had concerns over some of the safeguards—that they did not go far enough. And this is the opportunity they wanted to be able to come down to this House and to be able to make amendments to this piece of legislation. Well tonight is that opportunity. Tonight is the opportunity for members of Parliament to come here and to propose Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) to explain their concerns to have those addressed and convince other members that those changes should be made.I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill has tabled a large SOP with a number of changes—I believe around 30 changes in that Supplementary Order Paper. But I also note that that was only tabled yesterday. I have tabled a number of Supplementary Order Papers on this bill and I intend to speak to them. I think it is important to highlight and to use this opportunity to highlight the danger that this bill does pose to vulnerable New Zealanders. I would like to highlight the Human Rights Commission which defines a person as vulnerable if that person has been diagnosed with a chronic illness or a terminal illness.So if the Parliament does accept the change which Mr Seymour is proposing which is to limit this bill only to those with terminal illnesses we are talking about vulnerable New Zealanders here tonight. One of the Supplementary Order Papers that I would like to speak to is in regards to clause 4 which does say that those vulnerable New Zealanders who would be entitled to this choice should have a terminal illness which will only give them up to six months left to live. That Supplementary Order Paper 282 proposes to replace six months with one month.I bring this Supplementary Order Paper to this Chamber because I do believe that this is something which would actually if this bill were to pass put in place legislation which is for those who do genuinely only have a short amount of time left to live rather than those who have up to six months.I note that in the select committee report which has been tabled there were numerous submissions from doctors and medical experts who highlighted the difficulty in giving a prognosis of six months. It is I think highlighted particularly with the case of Lecretia Seales who was diagnosed with weeks to live in March 2011 who then went on to live for three years. I acknowledge the campaign and the issue that she had been championing and she did champion. However that in itself does highlight one of the weaknesses in this piece of legislation which I do think members of Parliament do need to take very seriously.This Supplementary Order Paper limits the risk of misdiagnosis. It limits the risk of diagnoses being made which are incorrect. It limits this risk substantially. There were people who came to the select committee who even had stories where there were family members who had been given months to live who are still alive today and those diagnoses were given years ago.I fear that vulnerable New Zealanders will be taking this choice upon themselves based on information which doctors themselves say is difficult to provide—diagnoses which are difficult to make. It puts enormous pressure and responsibility on our medical professionals who under this legislation will have to make these diagnoses because at the end of the day this is a life and death situation. I ask members to support this Supplementary Order Paper.