Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I wish to continue my fine examination—and I mean fine" in the sense of fine-tooth comb; I wouldn't want to suggest any fineness of the other kind—in relation to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 345 in the name of Agnes Loheni. Just by way of review quickly this is the proposal that "The Minister must publish in a manner readily accessible to the public an up-to-date list of the members of the Review Committee".As I foreshadowed I would like to talk about the experience overseas in jurisdictions that have now experience in the area of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide such as is being proposed to be legislated in this bill. I refer particularly in the present case to Belgium where euthanasia is both normalised and normative. It's worth noting that in Belgium as in other places of course the nature of self-reporting in relation to practices where a person's life is ended—that there's an element of self-incrimination at least potentially where a medical practitioner has carried out the act. The essential dilemma is that if a person has done what she is meant to have done then there is no problem but if she has done something that she is not meant to have then with the death report so-called she is supposed to dob herself in.There's a very clear legal principle going back many centuries against self-incrimination—that a person has the right not to self-incriminate—so the dismissiveness of David Seymour in relation to my SOP regarding the desirability of the presence of a lawyer on the panel seems to be as is often the case somewhat shallow and misjudged.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): I'm sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the dinner adjournment. The committee will resume at 7.30 when I hope we might debate Part 3.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Members the House is in committee for further consideration of the End of Life Choice Bill. When we rose for the dinner break we were considering Part 3. Chris Penk had the call and has three minutes and 10 seconds remaining should he wish to take it.CHRIS PENK: Thank you Madam Chair. I do indeed wish to resume my call and I thank you for that opportunity.Before the dinner break we were talking of course about Part 3 and I was deep in SOP 345 in the name of Agnes Loheni. Just by way quickly of review that was the proposed requirement that the Minister publish—or arrange to be published I suppose—an up-to-date list of the members of the review committee and at least a brief description of their qualifications and experience. Where I'd got to before the dinner break was discussing the point around self-incrimination by medical practitioners and in the context of the proposal that the members of the review committee be known to the public and that we simply shouldn't trust that they are able to do their job but have that measure of transparency as we should expect in all statutory bodies not least of all one with such serious function as this is proposed to have.The context in terms of overseas experience is interesting whereby recently in the Netherlands Times we have a report of a Dutch doctor under investigation warning colleagues about the judiciary and saying—and I quote—"Be careful what you provide in reports. In your honesty and sincerity you give everything you have. In a criminal case that is immediately 'evidence'." and I can tell you for free Madam Chair and anyone else that's pretty good advice. The least said the soonest one is able to avoid accountability for the things that one might have done.In the context of review—and particularly if we're going to look overseas at the experience of jurisdictions that have euthanasia and/or assisted suicide—it's worth noting that in the Netherlands there is a huge gap some 20 percent or so between the number of reported and unreported euthanasia cases. Now you might be wondering how we would know about unreported cases. By their definition it is hard to know of such things and that of course is half the point of the difficulty of the so-called accountability provisions but the difference can be accounted for by the self-reported and anonymous surveys statistics versus those that have been reported and acknowledged and sent through in some detail to their equivalent of the review committee. So that's the significant difference even leaving aside the possibility or indeed certainty that there will have been some cases that lie outside even the self-reporting on an anonymous basis.So these lessons from overseas should give us pause for thought and at the very least we should acknowledge them by way of a strengthened provision around accountability such as has been suggested in SOP 345 so that we can at least know the calibre and the qualifications of those who are to be carrying out such important review work for the benefit and safety of all our citizens."