O'Connor GregGREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): Thank you Mr Speaker. I stand as the first member of the select committee which considered this bill to speak in the House tonight and it's been quite some journey getting here. I will be supporting this bill to the committee of the whole House stage and I implore those members in the House who are undecided to do the same thing.I stand here very disappointed that we don't have a bill that went through a process where those of us who travelled the country heard thousands of submissions read thousands of submissions were exposed to people with a vast variety of views weren't able to take those views and ensure that this bill—this bill that has arrived at this House from a very very long journey through those who have brought the subject to the House unsuccessfully; those who in case of a Lecretia Seales have taken it through the courts to arrive at this House. There have been many journeys to come to this place and we when we come to this House come for many reasons but I think everyone here comes to do the right thing.Now we all will have an incredible number of pressures on us. I myself am a practising Catholic. You don't think I get a bit of pressure from my mother when I go home? My father spent six years in the seminary. You don't think that memory doesn't fit long? However what I have been elected to do here is to do the absolute right thing. So in sitting through the submissions that we did—the thousands of them—as we went around the country we had everyone who stood before us who spoke before us come from a very considered position. They all came from an emotional position but what they all didn't have the advantage of is doing what we as a select committee did: to hear the different sides.I have spent my life before this place as a detective and one thing you learn as a police officer and as a detective is that there are always two sides. And I implore those who have made up their mind to actually have a look at the other side of the argument because there has been much disinformation about this out there—so much of that disinformation that unfortunately is used to reinforce. But can I ask members of this House because now it comes down to us to actually look at the information. Give yourself a chance to actually see beyond much of the rhetoric much of the downright lies that are being told in relation to this and the only place we now have to do it having been denied the opportunity at select committee—the only place we have to do it—is at the committee of the whole House. Now that will be another process and there will be those—I understand there is going to be quite a large number of amendments but we can see through that. We are politicians we are elected to be here we can see through those who will come here with an objective determined to have their way. But sit back and watch and take it all on board because that's what we're here to do.Can I just share a personal story? I stand here as a cancer survivor—someone who my surgeon nicely told me after he did give me the sign off wasn't expected to make it. He wasn't quite that blatant with me at the time during my treatment but I knew I was pretty crook. So I have faced down my own destiny.Also I have a disabled son. My son was born very ill not expected to live intellectually disabled and clearly he was going to have a hard road ahead of him. It's quite something to be standing with your wife when the paediatrician tells you to your face and looks you in the eye and says You know there won't be a post-mortem if this boy dies don't you?" Well there's only one way you can take that. But there wasn't a post-mortem he didn't die and any implied option in that case wasn't taken up. However that same boy about three months later was—the predicted pneumonia his inability to breathe by himself did occur. Against all advice his paediatrician put him on a respirator. The reason they didn't want him on a respirator was because at that age it was going to be clear that they would never get him off. At that stage because of his difficulties breathing then the fear was that his only option was to remain on a respirator. When he was on the respirator he was fine. He wasn't in a comatose state which often is the case when people are considering removing people from a respirator. He was actually quite a happy boy there enjoying the world in his ability to do so. So we attempted to get him off that respirator unsuccessfully twice. The third time was going to be the last chance. Each time we took him off he stopped breathing and he essentially died. So the third time was going to be the last chance. So we made a decision. The decision wasn't to do nothing; the decision was actually to do something. The decision was actually to remove the ventilator which we did. It was like watching a little diesel engine starting you know just with a "poof poof"; you're not quite sure if he's going to make it. He did make it—I'm pleased to say he did make it; in fact he was in the gallery here when I made my maiden speech. But I bring that up because what that's given me is the opportunity to perhaps see and get close to death either side of it—my own my son's—that many don't get the opportunity to do. I think that alongside with my experience at the select committee considering those that came to see us and hearing how it's administered overseas has given me the opportunity I think to use my life experience to make the right decision. So what I would say is that I'm here today to make the right decision. There were some things that happened along the way—a little serendipitous. The Hon Nick Smith and myself were going to Invercargill and we were taking a taxi in from the airport. I'm not going to presuppose—I don't know where Mr Smith is going to sit on this but we were chatting and the taxi driver asked us what we were there for and we told him and well did he start. Mr Smith I'm sure you'll distinctly remember this. He told us about his brother—a big strong strapping farmer from up in northern Southland who had become ill seriously ill with cancer and died a horrible death begging to be able to be put out of his misery. He just simply said "You guys have just got to do this." in his good Southland way. The R's may have rolled in there somewhere. But certainly—that's my memory of that; Mr Smith may have a different one. But that was again one of those moments that we consider.We then went to I might say the hearing where we did have I think 95 percent—I think we may have had one person in favour of the bill. Like many of our hearings we did hear from people who were opposed. If we left it to that we would think really yes no one in New Zealand wants this. However we get out there—we are out there at our markets we're out there at our cafes all of us MPs are out there every week. If we're only looking for people who will agree with us that's all we'll see. If we go looking for reassurance of our position that's what we'll find. But what I'll challenge everyone in this House is: don't do that; don't come in here with what your Pope wants you to do. Don't come in here with what those—your vicar or anyone else—want you to do. Come in here and do the job that you have been tasked to do. Do the right thing. Now I am going to be voting for this bill to go to the next stage and that's all I'll be doing. But what I'll be doing is making sure it goes to the next stage and we do get to look at the facts; that we don't come here with the opinions of those things that are actually opinions of others. That we actually make right—just think in this House how many times have issues been debated here that we hear "If this goes through it's going to be the end of it." I'll challenge people now what about homosexual law reform? Now I was on the other side of that as you might imagine with a religious background. That was a terrible thing—people were opposed to that. What was going to happen to the world if it passed? I think of Invercargill again. Wasn't there an MP down there who said there would be sodomy in the streets? No it didn't happen. Now I would challenge those people who were listening tonight those that are here. I would say: think about what those who are influencing you said at that time. Ask them now—challenge yourself now—who believes that men engaging in consensual sex should go to jail? Because I would suspect very few of us do. However those who opposed that bill that was what they were advocating. Look at the other things that have happened in the meantime—prostitution law reform. I was involved heavily in that in my last profession. Again the predictions were: it's going to be the end of time hell in a handcart; we are all going to be doomed. That's come and gone and where are we now? Does anyone even talk about it? I suspect it will be the same thing with this bill. I suspect that in three or four years' time as it has been in other jurisdictions—and again I ask you to look at what happens in other jurisdictions. Do not believe the absolute rubbish that much of what we're hearing is. Have a look for yourself. Put a detective's hat on put a politician's hat on and go and have a look and do not be guided by the absolute gibberish that is much of what is being espoused out there. Do the job we're here to do and at least send it to the next stage so we can do the job that the select committee was denied. Thank you Mr Speaker."