Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm pleased to take a call on Part 3 of this bill around accountability to really highlight and question the sponsor of the bill about the lack of accountability around this assisted suicide bill that is so sensitive in enabling and legalising New Zealanders' lives being terminated. The real concern that I have is that in the parts that we have dealt with to date there is a real reliance on the law in respect of determining whether a person is terminally unwell on the law determining whether a person is not mentally unwell that they're of sound mind and on the law in respect of the value judgment as to whether a person is inappropriately being influenced. The question that I want to put to the member in charge of the bill is really practical and it is: if someone's life is terminated under this law—and it could well be a spouse a son a daughter a parent who doesn't even find out about the fact that their loved one has been euthanised how do they under this part titled Accountability" test and find out as to what's gone on that their loved one is now dead. Because when I look at these clauses all I see is barriers to families being able to find out what the heck's gone on. We're removing all criminal liability. People are completely exempt from the criminal law. On civil liabilities there's a provision that completely exempts any check in civil law. The coroner is being blocked out of the process. So the really practical real question I want to know is: if your loved one is euthanised and you think something's gone wrong—maybe you think a family member who was going to get a big fat inheritance inappropriately influenced the decision; maybe you think the doctor had a conflict of interest; maybe the judgment about the person being terminally unwell; or the judgment call that you've got evidence the person was depressed—and that should have been picked up. Where does a loved one in that circumstance go? The provisions that are under Part 3 of this bill provide me no reassurance at all.The other part that really worries me is that when we look at the jurisdictions that have these laws there have been horror stories of things that have gone on people that have not wanted to have their life terminated who have been held down and forced to take the injections; people that have been clearly mentally unwell. What we know in those other jurisdictions is that there have been negligible prosecutions. Yes there might be some ticked boxes and some bureaucratic paperwork done but there's no mechanism for the level of scrutiny that we would expect as Parliament in a country that puts such a high value on life.I look at the level of investigation that we now put in when there's an accidental death and the effort the coroner goes to to establish the truth of the facts. I look at the sort of checks that we now put in our workplace safety laws. I even look at how this week ironically the Government has just set up a new office for suicide prevention that's going to have the powers to investigate where suicide is going to occur. And then we have Part 3 of this bill that effectively shuts down any proper scrutiny of this legislation.Well I put a question to the member: in those jurisdictions—whether it be Belgium whether it be the Netherlands or whether it be those jurisdictions in the United States—with the thousands and thousands of people that have had assisted suicide in how many of those cases has there ever been a legal test properly done and how will family members do that? This part of this bill is really a whitewash. Yes it provides a reporting method; you're going to be able to find out how many people have had assisted suicide. But if you're after trying to find some accountability for a loved one that has been inappropriately provided with assisted suicide it is weak as water and does not meet the standards that this Parliament should require."