McAnulty KieranKIERAN McANULTY (Labour): What we've seen tonight—and it was shown yet again by Denise Lee's contribution—is the same old arguments rolled out again and again. They have a crack at the bill for being changed and yet I note Denise Lee stood up and read a description of the bill that isn't this bill but the old bill. She said that the bill seeks to do two parts and that it seeks to include workers in the collective arrangement despite the fact that we've covered again and again and again that that part is no longer in the bill. Her colleagues accused us of not reading the bill and she's made herself look utterly foolish by reading the old bill—I mean good Lord! What I will point out to the members and especially David Seymour is it is now 10 to 9. There is no mathematical way we can get to the End of Life Choice Bill. So those that are wanting to filibuster you've done your job so good on you. But those of you that are wanting to discuss—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm not—KIERAN McANULTY: You're dead right Madam Chair. You're dead right—I would certainly not accuse you of doing that. But what I am happy to accuse the other side of doing is saying the same old thing but not saying anything different because they've actually failed to outline why they oppose this bill. They've pointed as Denise Lee did to the submission of Auckland Council—just like Nicola Willis did—forgetting that we've got exactly the same information as them. What Denise Lee failed to point out was that in Auckland Council's submission their primary opposition was to the collective agreement clause that is no longer in the bill. Every single National speaker has opposed this bill on the basis of the part that no longer exists. Now I'm not blaming Denise Lee because she didn't know that it was taken out despite the fact that she's standing up and talking about it. But nevertheless here we are at the committee stage. It's an opportunity for people to look to improve the bill just like the select committee—although every single National speaker has pointed out that the bill has changed despite the fact that that is what the point of the select committee is. The only person thus far on the Opposition benches to speak to this bill was David Seymour. Even though he framed his speech as a lecture in economics and he was speaking to the Associate Minister of Finance at the time he still addressed the bill and I will acknowledge him for that. As I said he's achieved his goal—we won't get to his bill tonight. He's accused us of speaking in clichés. He's accused us of speaking in colloquialisms. I have a cliché for Mr David Seymour: get some mates. Get some mates David Seymour and then perhaps you'll be able to say that your opposition to this bill reflects the views of the country. But as you stand there as a one-man party you can hardly say that your particular point in opposition to this bill has broad support. I must admit the National side don't have anything on David Seymour because at least he spoke to the bill at least he bought original arguments to this and at least he wanted to discuss whether or not the provision of taking a personal grievance which this bill does in extending it to those workers in a triangular employment arrangement—at least he discussed that. He didn't go down the route of complaining that the bill was gutted at select committee. He didn't go down the route of having a crack because I'm a list MP not an electorate MP. He didn't go down the route of saying that this wasn't needed and then referring to the submitters that opposed the part of the bill that no longer exists. We have heard numerous speeches about this part of this bill. They all said the same but they all said nothing.