O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh thank you very much Madam Chair. It's great to take a call. I have to reflect on the irony as we begin this Part 3 debate around accountability that the member sponsoring this shoddy little bill—and I stress little" because it's really only a couple of pages and we're talking life and death—was very quick to not only shut down earlier debates himself but took the liberty to pre-emptively talk about Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) which have been tabled by a number of members. I think it's actually quite symbolic of the whole problem that I and others on this side of the Chamber in particular have that the member doesn't want to have a conversation he just wants to tell people. And you know that's all well and safe in this Parliament but you just need to extrapolate that to the bed of the sick and dying and I would say it's what makes me concerned: that actually there will be no discussion. Those who are sick and dying and disabled will be just told that you know David Seymour and his friends know best and when there's protest they'll say "The debate is over." We are concerned.He spoke when he attempted to pre-empt the SOPs—again not willing to listen to likes of Agnes Loheni or Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and get the context because who cares about context? I mean what are we talking about here tonight? That's right killing people! I mean we ended up getting on to money-laundering a little bit earlier as an example but you know we're talking about killing people. You'd think you might have a bit of accountability beyond a couple of pages.Accountability also starts with understanding the medical profession that is being referenced in Part 3. The member who initially took the call talked a big game that now we're having psychiatrists. Well members who support it might think that's OK. Well there are only about 600 psychiatrists in New Zealand; there are over 2000 psychologists. So things have just got a lot worse.The member as he discussed Part 3 talked about nurse practitioners. Isn't this marvellous now that we've widened it to be not medical practitioners—doctors—we're now going to make it health practitioners and it could include nurse practitioners! I'd be fascinated if the member would actually give the number; I doubt he knows it. So I'll tell him: there are only 300 nurse practitioners. Had he turned up to the Health Committee he would have heard that his blessed unions of nurses were supportive of the euthanasia bill because—and you can look it up—"It will save money." They thought it was a good money-saving opportunity. If the member had turned up a bit he would have heard more of it.So shocking start around accountability—accountability in its general sense; there's no accountability to the person who's dead. All right for those who are supportive of euthanasia this reporting section is there just to assuage you—or them sorry; I don't know the yous and the thems now. The accountability doesn't help the dead person. This is classic bureaucracy: rubber-stamping and ticking boxes nice pieces of paper in black and white. Let's for a moment take the thought experiment that the person was incorrectly killed. I think we call that murder. I don't know if we'd call it that here; now we'd probably just call it an accident. But if the person's dead and it was done wrong all this section does is a trail of paperwork. Maybe if we look at other jurisdictions where a doctor's done something wrong—and Nick Smith rightly pointed out people are held down forms are not filled out and procedures are not correctly followed—all of this Part 3 all of this accountability will it bring the dead person back? No. No.People shake their heads: "Oh this is terrible." because we're just talking about euthanising people here; we're talking about people having their lives ended. I will once again note the irony of those who go around and say "Oh isn't all this suicide of our young people terrible?" but then quite happily will knock off another group of people.The accountability in this Part 3 is post factum; it's after the case. There is no accountability. There isn't anything here. The dead person will not come back at all. It doesn't help and the repercussions are minor. This is classic bureaucracy.I'd like to just touch—because I don't know the calls have been ruthless of a sort—on SOP 259. Once again I had to put this in to change clause 19 first and foremost to demonstrate shoddy drafting. I'm really shocked at the lawyers; again we know who they are—shoddy shoddy drafting. So it talks about opening the Support and Consultation for End of Life New Zealand Group and it has to be appointed. I go on and I'm trying to make a suggestion that actually it has to be clear in the legislation that it also needs to be maintained. I do that for two reasons: first and foremost this is a deadly serious bill—every pun intended. We are not talking here about a small bit of tax law— David Seymour: The member's question has been addressed.SIMON O'CONNOR: —or a change in the speeds; we are talking—and he says "Oh it's already been addressed" because David Seymour doesn't care what you think. Just remember that on your death bed: David Seymour and the pro-death advocates—[Time expired]"