Brownlee GerryHon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can I begin by acknowledging the members of the Justice Committee who have put in such a long number of hours and have heard arguments from both sides of this particular option that currently sits before the House. I know that in the environment they had to do that they had to maintain a high degree of decorum even though emotions at times would most definitely have run high as people have their particular view on an issue like this. I want to acknowledge the mover of the bill. I know that he does so from a deep belief that this would be something that would be of advantage to many New Zealanders. But it's not a bill that having considered it for a long period of time I can support. I would acknowledge the comments that were made by the previous speaker Michael Wood. I think it would be something that we could all do talk about people we know who have a particular challenge in their life that might lead them to a point where they wanted to no longer live. And I think the way Mr Wood outlined that in the case of his friend is a very good example of what many of us will know. The other issue is on the coercive power that a bill like this could see exercised over elderly and vulnerable New Zealanders. We often have debates in this House about how we should be treating people who are elderly or for that matter people who are living in difficult circumstances perhaps through their finances or their family situation or some other such reason. I think when we do that there's always a desire regardless of the outcome to ensure that there is the best possible option available to the people who need that particular assistance. What concerns me here though is that as we have an ageing population—we know what the New Zealand population profile starts to look like and we know that the cost of healthcare for all New Zealanders in the later stages of their life can be a huge fraction of the total health bill; a disproportionate fraction in fact. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to see people starting to think Well I've had a good innings so now maybe I should perhaps opt to make the choice that makes it easy for so many others." That's been mentioned by two other speakers already. I can only think about my own mother who died a difficult death with her brain cancer. I had to go and tell her what the specialist had discovered when she had the scan and her options were at that stage no treatment and death perhaps within a month or to undergo some treatment and life could be extended perhaps as far as 18 months. There was no in-between. It was: choose to live on or choose to go very very quickly. When I told her that it was very distressing for me I have to say but she just sort of sat up and said "What a month?" and I said "Yep Mum it could be a month." And she said "Well bugger that. I'll have the treatment." It wasn't easy; it was awful. But she did it as much from her desire for us to have a farewell if you like—the last time that we would have with her the last weeks or months or whatever it was. The treatment that she got I think didn't alleviate all of her pain by any manner or means but it did give her a degree of comfort and in the last hours of her life she was not able to experience or was not experiencing that particular pain. I only say that because it is in itself the start of a confusion because that was her choice. In this case I don't think we should have a bill passed into an Act that makes that choice to end a life so much easier than it is at the moment."