Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak in this the committee stage of the debate on the End of Life Choice Bill and more particularly on Part 2. There is so much detail that can and should be discussed within this part. In a way it is really the most crucial part of the bill because it contains the devil in the detail and indeed the lack of detail in relation to the way that a person is to make this decision and for that to be verified as being truly their decision and a matter of choice. So I say to colleagues who are in favour generally speaking of euthanasia and assisted suicide—those who are in favour of the concept of what is proposed in this bill—that it is all the more important for those members to pay attention to the detail of the debate that we will have this evening and no doubt into next week as well around the lack of safeguards and protections for the most vulnerable. Of course it is those who are most vulnerable those who are recently in receipt of a diagnosis and prognosis of terminal illness who would be seeking to avail themselves of these choices.I'd like to take a few minutes just to frame the debate somewhat so that we can understand clearly what it is that is up for debate and discussion tonight. I won't seek to go into a huge amount of detail in a way that would make later contributions repetitive because I know that colleagues who are nervous about the ramifications of the bill will have much to say in certain key areas.On that note I want to highlight to the committee that the proposal that's put in front of us not only in the member's bill itself but including the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) proposed by Mr Seymour contains details that are actually significantly different from those in most other jurisdictions and not in a good way—for example the lack of witnesses being needed to the signing of a euthanasia request; the fact that a person only has to make one request not multiple occasions; and that medical practitioners don't have to be qualified in the field of that person's illness. We'll get to all that detail no doubt but it's worth noting in response to the comments made by the member himself earlier—and he specifically referred to a psychiatrist needing to be involved in the signing off—well we've heard last time and I won't go back into that detail too far that the definition of a psychiatrist is someone whose scope of practice includes psychiatry; so not even someone who necessarily has a particular qualification in that area or is a member of that relevant professional body and so forth. So that's perhaps an example of the member himself highlighting what he thinks is a rather neat safeguard but in fact on closer inspection proves to be nothing of the sort.Similarly the member has talked about advertising and the fact that in Victoria recently apparently there's been a ruling that says that it's not the same thing to advertise assisted dying services as initiating a discussion such as his bill would preclude. My question then to the member—and actually probably more to the point members of the House who are interested in making good law—is: why does this bill not specify such a thing if that is what he intends? Will he leave it to the ruling of a New Zealand court if the matter should go to court in the case where a wrongful death has occurred or may have occurred to get that sort of certainty? That is the purpose of this House: to provide some measure of certainty and certainly protection in life and death matters no less than others.Similarly we hear from the member that a person cannot sign on behalf of someone who is making an assisted dying request—or seemingly making an assisted dying request—if that person who is signing would benefit but there is no need to examine for example the last will and testament of the person who's making it. So how that's to be established in any given case how that's to be documented how that's to be verified how there's to be accountability in these matters is very unclear from the bill and in fact the absence of that evidence is really evidence of the absence of the lack of thought and detail that's required if we're going to pass legislation of this sort of magnitude.So I'd like to emphasize first the kinds of areas that I think members would be interested in speaking to tonight and then also start looking at in some detail the SOP in my name regarding coercion. But before we get to that I'd just like to highlight the importance of the provisions that will be discussed and debated in relation to freedom of conscience rights. There are a number of different SOPs on those that will be before the committee tonight. One of those is in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse who has some knowledge and experience of the medical and health profession and he's got some excellent thoughts in relation to organisations that would be subject to the bill.I'd just like to make a plea to you Madam Chair and your fellow presiding officers to recognise and understand that conscience rights for an organisation are different in nature from those of an individual practitioner. So I would respectfully encourage you not to consider that as being one and the same and therefore potentially out of scope if there were to be some perceived overlap there. Other proposals in the space of freedom of conscience relate more to the individual practitioner but strengthening those that have been put forward by Mr Seymour. Again along the theme that for those who are in favour of the principle of assisted dying and may be in favour of the bill more generally to understand and acknowledge the severe danger to the medical profession—probably the legal profession too if they have to interpret too much of this stuff—is a crucial theme of the Part 2 debate.So please allow me then to turn to the subject of coercion and more particularly the proposal that I'm making by way of SOP 302. The idea is to propose practices that will be such that the legislation if it were to pass will be less unsafe than if it were to pass in its current form. I do not claim for reasons of modesty and understanding human nature and also the way that the law in medicine has always operated and will always operate that this would be a complete defence to practices of coercion undue influence and so on but I do claim that it would be at least a step in the right direction. Again I would respectfully encourage members of the committee whatever perspective they have on euthanasia in general to understand that if the starting point and the philosophical basis for allowing this practice to creep in to what we have so far called healthcare in this country then at least we can ensure that it is a person's choice that is being exercised in this way.The detail of my Supplementary Order Paper is based around a couple of key concepts. One is the desirability of setting up a panel of practitioners—an independent panel and that's a point to which I will return shortly—that will have the mandate to consider individual cases of requests for assisted dying as that term is defined and I'll talk briefly now about the way that the panel is put together and then if time allows get on to the functions of the panel and its procedures and so on. I appreciate that I might not get the opportunity to do that fully within my remaining time in this call Madam Chair so perhaps I might seek your indulgence and indeed a call later on for that purpose. For now though looking at the nature of this independent panel the idea is to determine any individual case where the pressure is present in the situation of a vulnerable person—one who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness—and so the composition of the panel is important because it's the people who will comprise the panel who will be making these decisions that are so important to understanding the types of coercion that might arise. So their qualifications in different fields will be necessary to achieve that properly.So then first I note that the panel will be independent in nature. The idea is to have a decision maker outside of the medical practitioner attending and then the so-called independent medical practitioner and the panel would have no fewer than 12 members at any time. Within that a committee of at least four members would make the decision on any individual application. There's a certain amount of bureaucracy and a certain amount of administration inherent in this and I do acknowledge that but I also feel that in such a significant matter as life and death under this bill that it's not an unreasonable thing to expect and to institute. So first a chairperson who must be a District Court judge—the idea there being to have someone who is well versed in the practice of weighing evidence often from two sides albeit that a non-adversarial scenario no doubt would hopefully prevail in each of these types of situation but also expert medical practitioners in the area of geriatric care psychology and adolescent mental health.