Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Speaker. No member of this House is devoid of compassion and none of us has a monopoly on it so I begin by thanking everyone who has engaged respectfully in this debate over the past two years. There have been many heartfelt and compelling contributions and I'm sure I'm not the only MP who despite having a firm conviction one way has also found many of the opposing arguments both moving and persuasive. I think that's healthy. I acknowledge that there are some for whom the expected passage of this bill will be both welcome news and possibly at some point a blessing and to those people I offer my aroha and best wishes. I am genuinely pleased for them but I believe that the arguments against this bill and our obligation to protect and care for those who are ill and vulnerable in our communities are more compelling and that this is a dangerous measure that should not be supported.At the start of the committee stage of this process I said that I'd been impressed by the quality of the debate. Sadly in recent weeks the tone of the debate in our consideration plummeted and I think the committee stage debates were unacceptably lopsided sometimes bordering on being farcical. Nearly all of the bill's supporters disengaged from the discussion a number of serious amendments did not receive the detailed consideration they deserved and the drudgery of personal voting overtook intelligent engagement. I am one of many MPs who feel deeply aggrieved that on several occasions we were denied the right to debate those amendments adequately. That's an unacceptable curtailment of our right and our responsibility to speak out in this House. Those MPs whose only contribution to the committee stage debate was to move closure motions let down our constituents on perhaps the most challenging issue our generation of MPs will face. The cumbersome voting procedure also contributed to the sharp decline in the quality of debates on amendments and the time allocated for them. Our time should have been spent mostly debating ideas in this Chamber not traipsing back and forth into the lobbies voting for hours on one occasion until 1 o'clock in the morning.As I noted three weeks ago I've been alarmed by how many people I have spoken to throughout this debate who hold very firm views but who have nevertheless not actually understood what the bill actually proposes and that's why I promoted an amendment to change the title of the bill from the End of Life Choice Bill to the Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Bill as that is what this bill enacts. Sadly my amendment failed. Assuming this bill is passed tonight we will instead have a referendum in which the public will be asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable via a question so misleading that it is heavily biased in favour of one outcome. A referendum must accurately reflect the issue the public are asked to determine yet an opinion poll showed that a majority of the public think that assisted dying or the element of choice in this debate includes having the option to turn off life support or the right to refuse further medical treatment. We already have end of life choice options of that nature in this country and it is dishonestly euphemistic to sanitise the issue by misleading people into believing that those who are concerned about the bill are against choice—of course they're not.So let's spare a thought tonight for the outstanding and deeply compassionate professionals and caregivers throughout the country who support people who face the ordeal of a terminal illness. When I raised the concerns of the disabilities commissioner who made a superb and moving submission on behalf of some of our country's most vulnerable individuals I was met by silence yet in their thousands New Zealanders who live with disabilities have pleaded with us not to pass this bill. Tonight I acknowledge my disabled constituents in Hamilton who have made their fears known to me perhaps personified by the courageous and admirable Toria Newman whose book A Million Reasons I commend to all members. She will be watching tonight.When I raised the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association apart from the bill's sponsor who flippantly dismissed their appeal as being only that of a vocal minority I was again met by silence yet this is just some of the doctors in the country who are deeply distressed and are pleading with us not to sign up to this bill tonight. The bill clearly runs contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. I understand that some doctors are supportive of it but the overwhelming majority are not. The overwhelming volume of correspondence we've received from medical professionals confirms that the arrogant dismissal of their deep dismay is patronising nonsense. Some of their names as I say are on that letter; many others are not. This bill puts them in a deeply distressing untenable position yet their voices have not been heard in this House in this debate. I'm running out of time. These are some of the inconvenient truths of this debate. I can only pray that if this bill passes as I assume it will do tonight we will ultimately be able to find a way to reach the right outcome and that we will in particular increase our protection and care for those who are most frightened by it.