Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to engage in the debate and the challenge that was made by Louisa Wall with respect to my Supplementary Order Paper 260 on the issue of the involvement of immediate family. The bit I agree with is that there is a world of difference between the words encourage" and "ensure"."Encourage" is a weasel word. Let's be honest: when we are legislators and we say that something should be encouraged the final test of the law is a court and in a court of law whether you encouraged or didn't encourage has got a gap that's a lot wider than a bus. There is no real legal enforcement. That is why I argue very strongly that the word "ensure" says that immediate family—children partner husband wife and parent—should not be excluded from a life-and-death decision such as the assisted suicide that's provided for in this bill.Now the member argues that there's a small number of cases—a case that causes great concern for opponents of this bill—around the issue of elder abuse. But here's my test for the member: even if there is a case of a son or daughter that is guilty of elder abuse and they're involved in the process of the decision of someone who's wanting to get assisted dying—assisted suicide—the worst that they can do is to persuade them to be living—right? That's the worst. Wouldn't that be an awful thing? Wouldn't it be an awful thing for a son or daughter to say to their mum or dad "I love you to bits. I need you around. You add strength and value to my life."—right?Louisa Wall: What a spin.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well what I'm saying to the member is: shouldn't we as parliamentarians be erring on the side of life? That is the value judgment where I see the world very very differently to the member opposite and their view.A decision for assisted suicide is not a decision that can be reversed. It's not a decision that you can say "Oh I made a mistake. I want to undo it." I just think there is an ignorance from members about the importance of family.Hon Stuart Nash: Look in the mirror before you start calling people that.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say to Stuart Nash: the importance of family to society and the capacity for someone to take their own life and for their son or daughter their husband or wife or their mother or father to not even know about it until after the event actually is obscene. It is obscene.What the member is arguing for is that somehow in society the relationships that we have with people like our lawful husband wife or partner or whether it be our mother or father—do not those people have rights too? Aren't they an important check to make sure that the person who's making such a decision actually understands the implications for others and the effect on family? Haven't people felt the pain that goes with suicide when somebody takes their own life and with the failure to even be able to have those last conversations with that loved one that are just so important for life? Don't members get the importance of those relationships? Why are they considering a bill that would cut out the sons the daughters the husbands the wives and the mothers and fathers from a decision such as this?I look at the laws that exist in other jurisdictions; they are substantially stronger in this area. I want to hear the argument as to why those immediate family members—why is it that this bill includes greater rights for medical professionals to be informed than for the loved ones of someone that is considering assisted dying?"