McKelvie IanIAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you Madam Chair. I didn't expect to get that call that quickly. I'm well on record with my opinion of this bill but I just wanted to say something about the time it's taken to get this piece of legislation to this point and I guess that as you think about these things you could see there could be reason for a positive view of euthanasia if it were in a form where there were sufficient safeguards. However the number of Supplementary Order Papers and the way this bill has been put together concerns me and I think there are chances—certainly very strong chances—that unforeseen loopholes in this legislation are likely to appear. I want to spend a bit of time on clause 8 like some of my prior speakers have. But some of the issues I want to raise are a little different and they do relate to some extent to the potential for coercion. But I oppose this piece of legislation because I've seen nothing in the mass of changes that in any way satisfies my concerns about the potential for things to go wrong in the course of the process. There are two particular sectors of the community that I'd like to comment on. One is the disability sector; the other of course the elder community—I certainly belong to that.But the first the disability sector—I have a significant amount of experience in that as I've been the chairman of Special Olympics New Zealand for the last nine years. That organisation deals with people with an intellectual disability who wish to play sport and there are 6000 or 7000 participants at the moment. The issue I want to raise though is that one of the challenges we have in Special Olympics is identifying a person who qualifies to participate in those sports because of their disability. The challenge we've got in this piece of legislation is in fact identifying those people who have a disability as opposed to those people who have a terminal condition. I think I suppose a modern terminology for that would be a brightline test. There doesn't appear to be any way of differentiating between the two and I think that's a major concern.People with a disability are under very similar pressure often to people with a terminal illness. I don't think that in my experience very many of them would ever want to get to this point and how they get there is the next issue I want to touch on because I think being able to go to a doctor and get permission I guess—or not permission but to enter the process with a single doctor who doesn't necessarily know you very well and go through that process I think is highly dangerous. I think the other thing that concerns me about that is that there is no need—and it's been raised by Nick Smith earlier on—for that person to go back to the family of the person concerned. I think that's hugely concerning.I think the other issue that affects our older people is—there's a number of things that affect older people but loneliness fragility and the fact that they may feel unwanted certainly affects a lot of our older people in our community and the challenges they face with their families are sometimes significant. But none the less many of them if they had a family who cared for them would most certainly expect that family to participate in these decisions. I think that's really important. I just think that there are too many holes in clause 8 of this legislation for me to in any way feel comfortable supporting it. The older members of our community—you see so many tragic things going on with older people. It's caused as I said a little earlier by loneliness by fragility by the fact that they feel unwanted and the fact that they often get to the point where they feel that they're no longer any use to our community or to their families and that I think is also a very dangerous position to get to. It's a very sad position to get to but it's a dangerous position to get to and I don't think they necessarily would want to be euthanised as a result of that.I just want to very briefly comment on clause 9 where I think there are just so many loopholes in the way that you can choose or the way that the person who gives evidence is chosen or is able to complete that evidence. I think that that is quite dangerous as well and so people who are beneficiaries of that person's estate beneficiaries of that person's life could very easily find their way in as—[Time expired]