Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to drill down into Part 1 and clause 4 and ask a question again of the member in the chair that goes to the core of the debate. It's this: how many mistaken deaths is he prepared to tolerate? I say to this Parliament: how many mistaken deaths are we prepared to tolerate?I reflect back on a conscience vote that was held in this Parliament 58 years ago when the death penalty was abolished—fascinating argument.Simeon Brown: I was there.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Simeon says he was there; I was not despite the record. But the debate was fascinating in this regard: some members said There will be the odd innocent person who gets strung up but I'm prepared to tolerate that so the bad bastards who really have done it face their punishment"—I make no apologies Madam Chair. I'm on the side that says this Parliament should err on the side of life. I am not prepared even though—we look at the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch part of me would love to string that man up. But my view is I don't want the death penalty in New Zealand because I'm a realist and I know mistakes were made and I don't want to see a single innocent person die.Now the member in the chair has said he accepts that there will be mistakes. He has said that he acknowledges—quite honestly and I agree with him—that there will be people who are diagnosed who only have six months to live who will not—and I acknowledge my colleague across the way who gave such a situation at the select committee. We met dozens of people who have been given a terminal diagnosis who still lived. So we must be honest as a Parliament and say there will be people who are diagnosed who are not going to die.Then let's go to the second test in the bill. The test is that the person is competent. The medical evidence is that that is one of the most difficult judgments for a medical practitioner to make. There will inevitably be mistakes. If you're trying to diagnose where the person is depressed particularly when we're dealing with people that may be unwell this Parliament needs to acknowledge that there will be people who are clinically depressed that will not be picked up who will be authorised to die.Then there's the third test. Again I would challenge this Parliament: put hand on heart and say every medical practitioner who signs a form and says "That person's not under undue influence." will get it right every time. That is an incredibly hard test. How do you know when you've got a patient in your surgery that their son their daughter or some other person is not trying to unduly influence them? I don't believe there's a single member in this Parliament who believes that there will not be examples where that test is not met the doctor does not pick up undue influence and the person as a consequence has their life terminated.Now my very first experience in a Parliament was as a pageboy in the Delaware state legislature in the US as an exchange student. They were having a debate about the death penalty. There were two groups. There was one group who said "Actually we have absolute faith in the judicial system and the legal tests in clauses like clause 4 and there'll never be a mistake." The more honest said there will be mistakes. So my question of the member in the chair and my question to members of the House is this—and let's be honest—is the member in the chair and the members that are supporting this part saying "Yep. The honest truth is there will be mistakes and we're happy to have mistaken deaths because we believe in the overall public good of the other people who may be in pain and want to die early being able to do so?" That's a fair argument but make it.This Parliament cannot and should not pretend that this bill will not result in mistaken deaths and we should err on the side of life."