Donnelly Brian: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Death with Dignity Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:610;Page:7490] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 My mum and dad got engaged immediately prior to my dad going off to 5 years of active service in World War II. When he returned they got married and over the years five little Donnellys came out. But at the wedding was a mate of my dad’s who had gone through the same years of service in the same arena of war as my dad had and he became more or less like an uncle to us children. As a young child I can remember my mother telling us of the awful experiences he had had to encounter during the war. He told my mother of the nightmares he still had as a result of those experiences—ex-servicemen do not often talk to people other than ex-servicemen about those things. They were experiences of having his men on more than one occasion trapped under burning tanks with no possibility of escape but facing an agonising last few hours—minutes whatever it was to be—of life as they pleaded with him their officer basically to shoot them. My dad’s friend had reacted to their pleas. He had shot his men. I can still remember reflecting on this story of the dilemma that had been faced by a man who as I say had become like an uncle to us children. The question I asked myself then and the question I ask myself now is: did he do the right thing in shooting those men his friends under those circumstances? Every time I have come to the only possible conclusion: yes he did. 
I ask Bill English who said we should just sit and watch those people suffering whether he believes that my dad’s friend should have watched his men suffer all the way to their deaths. People may ask what that has to do with this bill. It has everything to do with this bill because this bill is about people caught in exactly the same situation with no hope of being saved doomed to a torturous agonising demise and pleading for someone to bring the suffering to a close. People will say that a different morality prevailed during the war. I dispute that. Rules may change but the moral principles do not. After all war is a human construct and to those who come to this issue with an absolutist moralist viewpoint I ask why would the Omnipotence—whatever that Omnipotence may be—presuppose a differential morality around a human construct when presumably the Omnipotence existed before humanity. 
I have a fundamental suspicion about absolute laws of morality because it would seem that when they are applied rigidly around the fringes we inevitably end up with injustices. We have only to reflect on the hundreds of millions who have died over the centuries in wars over absolute commitment to religions that uphold the sanctity of human life. Because of my upbringing—and it was the same upbringing as that of Damien O’Connor and Bill English—I have a strong belief in the sanctity of human life. But I do not have that to such an absolute extreme that would condemn my father’s friend. I say that laws that force people to undergo horrendous suffering and indignity do not uphold the sanctity of human life. They are the very antithesis of that principle. 
I had long been persuaded that the answer to the suffering of people with terminal illness was better palliative care. Upholding the sanctity of human life demands that we provide the best possible level of palliative care. I have little time for Michael Laws but I can understand his bitterness towards those who voted against his bill and then did nothing to raise the level of palliative care in this country. In fact many of them allowed the resourcing of palliative care to be diminished. No one who works in the area of palliative care however has been able to provide me with an assurance that even with the best treatment we are able to provide we can ensure that such care will catch all circumstances. There are still some who are doomed to an undignified agonising death and it is for those people that I will be voting for this bill to go to the select committee. If through the select committee process I can be convinced that palliative care can catch all I will reconsider my position. 
I commit myself at this point in time simply to vote for the bill to go through to the select committee. That is the right place for the issue about palliative care to be vigorously scrutinised in a balanced public debate. It is also the place where the regulations to ensure that the law does not spread its intended coverage are robust and tight. We hear evidence from the Netherlands and we want to make sure that that scenario will not be able to be repeated in New Zealand if what we hear is true. I hope that I do not have to draw people’s attention to the fact that it will go to a binding referendum.