Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate that. When members debated the second reading of this bill in the House a few weeks ago this Chamber was packed and so was the public gallery. I imagine that as tonight wears on both will fill again and I certainly hope they will because this is such a significant issue that we are considering.On that particular night I listened for most of the evening and then towards the end of the debate I sought a call on several occasions but I was unsuccessful because of course there were so many members who wanted to take the call and it was a time-limited debate. So as with my colleague Simeon Brown this is my first opportunity to contribute to the debate. And just as the Rt Hon David Carter did before the dinner adjournment when he mentioned it was his first contribution—he set out a few general principles explaining why he was opposing the bill—I'd like to do the same because we are on Part 1 where we're talking about the purpose of the bill so I think there is a degree of flexibility there.Before we get into some of the more specific provisions I think it's important that each member puts on record what it is that underpins their view. I want to say right from the outset I am a person of faith and yes that's in part how I have reached my opinion. But to those who have communicated with me—and there's been one or two members of Parliament who have said Well you've got to put that to one side because that's of no bearing."—I say "Well how on earth can you put something that is absolutely fundamental to who you are to one side?" I can't do that. But I also want to stress that I don't actually think that that's the main reason why I have reached the view that I have and I'll try to cover a few of these in this call. I do want to say that I not only acknowledge the absolute sincerity of the member in charge of the bill and admire the way in which he has in the main gone about promoting this issue because I think it's taken its personal toll. I do admire his generosity of spirit in declining a ministerial position in the last Government in order to promote something that he felt was very important. That's admirable. I've seldom seen that in this House and so I do commend him for that.I also want to say that on the night of the second reading I thought it was Parliament at its best. Regardless of those who spoke for or against the argument I felt that the views that were expressed that night were compelling sincere extraordinarily well presented and I also thought that all other members listened with great respect and sensitivity to the views that were put forward. I want to acknowledge Deborah Russell. I didn't agree with the final point that she made—and I think I've already dealt with that in this contribution—but I thought most of her speech was outstanding and that was true of so many. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and the Hon Poto Williams who tonight has spoken in ways that I think are deeply moving and that is true of so many. I shouldn't single people out because I was very impressed and as I say I thought that it was Parliament at its best and I felt proud to be a part of it—of a discussion of that nature.All of the contributions I felt were sincere and compelling but I also want to acknowledge that that reflects the way New Zealanders generally have approached this issue. We have as members of Parliament been "bombarded"—I hope that's not too negative a term but we have literally received so many hundreds thousands of emails and phone calls and letters from people on both sides of this issue. I'd like to say to New Zealanders who may be listening at home or watching on the television "We have listened to you. We have reflected on the views that you've put to us. We do understand the sincerity which has led you to communicate with us." The fact of the matter is the moment any one of us stands up tonight to take a call we know that we are going to disappoint tens of thousands of New Zealanders. That sadly is absolutely inevitable. To those who have said—and we've had a few calls and emails on this—that we must listen to a particular opinion poll because that tells us the way we should all be voting or we must reflect on the majority of submissions and the tenor of those submissions because that tells us what New Zealanders are thinking I say no; they're all important. Of course we reflect on them. Of course we respect them. But ultimately as members of Parliament we must be true to our own consciences. Ultimately we must look within ourselves to our own values and reach our own conclusions and then be accountable to our electorates. I have said on more than one occasion to people who said "Well I'll never vote for you again if you go that way." "Well that's fine. You have that right and I encourage you to stick to your principles and if necessary go and vote for somebody else at the next election." But I will be true to my principles. I will articulate them as clearly as I can and that I think is what is required of us all in a conscience vote. I wasn't at that time—although I am now—a member of the Justice Committee. I did nevertheless take the opportunity whenever the justice subcommittee came to my city of Hamilton—and I think that was on three different occasions—to become a sub on the committee so that I could hear what my constituents were saying and I was deeply moved. [Bell rung] Mr Chair? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe.Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to continue. Those who submitted in my city I'm sure were typical of people submitting all around the country. They were there in large numbers and their submissions were really heartfelt. Many of those who submitted had profound disabilities. Many of those had either nursed or witnessed a very painful difficult death of somebody they loved and cared about deeply. It's impossible not to be moved by those circumstances—as a result of which I want to say that even though I personally cannot for a number of reasons support this bill I have the greatest of respect for those who do and I have the greatest of respect for those who came to our subcommittees and who submitted to us who have reached a different view. I have been in the home of constituents—one in particular who I remember but I mustn't name of course who was in the final stages of a difficult death and I wept with her over her circumstances. I don't say that to be overly emotional; I just say it because I think that when we've had that extraordinary privilege of being that close to the issue we cannot help but be deeply moved by it. So I do fundamentally respect the views of those who have reached a different conclusion from mine. As I said all MPs have been communicated with at great length and by many many people around the country. I want to apologise to those who may be listening who will say "Well he didn't reply to mine." I did reply to hundreds of emails and letters but I'm afraid I received thousands and to those who I couldn't reply to I'm sorry; the spirit was willing but the task was impossible.Last year I held a very well attended forum in my city of Hamilton attended by about 300 people. I want to thank David Seymour who attended and along with a well-respected Hamilton doctor Dr Jack Havill put the case for the bill. I acknowledge my very good friend and colleague Simon O'Connor the member for Tāmaki who at that stage was the chair of the Health Committee who along with Dr Lara Hoskins who is an equally respected consultant in the Waikato Hospital palliative care team put the case against the bill. We had as I say 300 people there of differing opinions. At the start of the forum I asked them all to fill in a form to express their views on the issue and whether they had formed a view. I did that again at the end and it was very interesting to see how many had shifted. The fact of the matter was a number had come along being undecided and some had decided in favour of the bill some had favoured it and decided against—in other words the majority were no longer undecided. What I hadn't told them was that at the end of the event I also intended to ask them the question of whether they would like to see this issue decided by MPs alone or by a referendum of all New Zealanders. I'm going to make myself unpopular I know with some of my colleagues on this side and on the other side of the Chamber by saying that ultimately I came to the view that I would feel far more comfortable—and that I think New Zealanders would feel far more comfortable—if everyone had a right to decide this issue. While I want to be able to stay true to my own conscience I don't believe that my views should have any greater sway in this particular instance than any other New Zealander and therefore I will if we're given the opportunity support the option to go to a referendum assuming that the vast majority of people will take an intelligent interest and attend meetings and study the issue carefully because ultimately I think New Zealanders will accept the outcome with a greater degree of comfort if they feel that they've all had a chance to have a say in it rather than just 120 of us.Nobody asked me my view on this issue at the last election. Why not—because it wasn't an election issue. We didn't know that we were going to be dealing with this particular bill. Suddenly soon after the election it was thrust upon us and here we are in a position where 120 of us are having to make a decision on one of the most profound issues of our time without really having a mandate from our electorate. But as I say I still believe that in conscience issues we must as MPs form our own particular view. The Rt Hon David Carter before dinner made a comment that I thought was very very important. He said that no one can give us a cast-iron assurance that a vulnerable New Zealander won't be coerced into agreeing to have their life terminated when this bill is passed—if it is passed. While I understand that there are arguments on the other side I do think that we need to reflect deeply on that comment because it is so true. I want to respond to the many New Zealanders who have said that this is all about choice and to accept their argument that those who choose not to consider assisted dying are free to hold to that position but shouldn't deny others who have a different view on assisted death and that option. On a superficial level that sounds fair but I think it's flawed. Unfortunately I'm running out of time. I may have a chance to return to it at a later point."