SpeechPAULO GARCIA (National): Tēnā koe Madam Chair tēnā koutou katoa. I stand in support of Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 302 authored by my colleague Chris Penk which is an amendment to SOP 259 by the proponent that seeks to amendment the End of Life Choice Bill. In particular I speak to new clause 18C. My contribution is on the basis of SOP 302 as it seeks to require the establishment of an independent panel of practitioners experts in their respective fields tasked with determining whether pressure had indeed come to bear on a person's decision to seek assistance—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come to adjourn the committee for the dinner break. The committee will resume at 7.30 p.m.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.PAULO GARCIA: Thank you Madam Chair. My contribution is to the basis of SOP 302 as it seeks to require the establishment of an independent panel of practitioners experts in their own fields tasked with determining whether pressure had come to bear on a person's decision to seek assistance to end his or her life—pressure that has effectively coerced the person to arrive at that decision that wish to end his or her life.Over the past few months that I have been a member of Parliament—just coming up to 3 months now—what has struck me the most is that beyond the rhetoric beyond the many words said in the debates there is an overwhelming desire in this House by all its members to protect and care for New Zealanders especially the most vulnerable. The coalition Government does in fact refer to most if not all that they do as related to wellbeing. In plain language who are the most vulnerable in New Zealand and the rest of the world? Everyone will surely agree and not contest that infants and children our youth the disabled and the elderly are the most vulnerable.I raise a number of facts: first that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners in their submission to the Justice Committee labelled the End of Life Choice Bill's coercion safeguards as problematic stating that—I quote—The coercion of patients will be impossible to discern in every request for assisted death."; second that the Disability Rights Commissioner described the bill as "inadequate and unsafe" stating that it undermines the position of vulnerable New Zealanders and that it poses significant risks to them as individuals and as groups; thirdly that the United Kingdom courts from the High Court to the Supreme Court and the Irish courts—the High Court and the Supreme Court—and the European Court of Human Rights have rejected the 2012 judgement of Carter v Canada which found that risks inherent in assisted dying have not materialised.I would think it difficult for anyone in this House not to reject the position that one doctor can without fail identify elder abuse when an elderly person presents with no physical signs of abuse. It is common knowledge that the elderly can appear even fiercely independent as they try to assert a decision they have made even though pressured to do so. In this regard how can one doctor be able to identify psychological abuse and/or financial abuse both of which may not readily present?I would think it difficult for anyone in this House not to reject the position that one doctor can without fail identify subtle pressure exerted by family members or friends even medical practitioners that have effectively coerced an elderly person or a young person to wish to end his or her life. Again such pressure can only possibly be determined by a lengthy course of analysis—certainly not as easy as the proponent suggests—preferably by more than one expert skilled in the ability to ferret out the truth of whether such pressure did exist.I would think it difficult for anyone in this House to reject the position that one doctor can without fail identify internalised pressures experienced by the persons themselves such as feelings of abandonment of being unwanted or a burden to family. Thank you Madam Chair."