Genter Julie AnneHon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Minister for Women): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. If there's one thing that all of us in this House have in common it's that we are all going to die and all of our loved ones are going to die. And I'm sure that we all also agree that life is precious and sacred and that all of us have an aspiration to have a long healthy happy life. We want that for our loved ones. We want that for our community.We're also not just individuals. Well we are individuals in one sense in that we want to have control over our own lives and some autonomy. We are also interdependent members of communities and the health of our communities influences our own happiness and well-being. In recognising that interdependence and also our autonomy I think it is incredibly important that we recognise the passion that is held on both sides of this debate.I sat on the Health Committee when it listened to days and days of submissions on this very issue and there are very strongly held views on both sides. I think it's an absolute privilege to be here as a representative and to have the opportunity to consider the evidence consider the weight of the views and to cast a personal vote. That is unusual actually for the Green Party because often we vote along with our party policy—and we do have party policy on end of life but Mr Seymour's bill goes further than our party policy.The Green Party's agreed party policy on this recognises that there should be a framework within which someone with a terminal illness who has less than six months to live can apply to have assistance to end their life and that that be very carefully regulated to ensure that there's no abuse of that power. But this bill goes slightly further than that and I do have concerns about how broad the nature of the bill is. I want to voice the concerns I know are out there particularly in the disability sector that this bill as drafted is a bit too broad and may in fact jeopardise those who are more vulnerable who are not in a position to make a necessarily fully informed autonomous decision or who might feel pressure from others to end their lives early. But having listened to all those submissions and looked at the evidence I also think that there is a very compelling case that this issue isn't about suicide. It's about what happens when somebody is already very close to death.Modern medicine has enabled us with an incredible ability to extend life to the point at which we may question whether the quality of life is what we would want. So understanding all of the concerns that I have heard I do think that this bill should progress to the select committee. I personally would like to see it amended because I do believe that the evidence in other jurisdictions is that it is entirely possible to have a framework in which people are secure that there is no risk of abuse. In fact the evidence from jurisdictions that have physician-assisted dying show that it's very very small numbers of people who end up using it so the idea that somehow there would be doctors out there licensed to kill people at will is very far from what I think we are actually debating with this bill.I think we heard from enough people who raised the issues of how difficult it was and how unfair it seemed that while we have modern medicine to enable us to extend life when there was no choice no option but for someone to die they weren't able to have that death assisted in a way that made it more comfortable made it possible for them to have family around them and made it possible for them to avoid being in horrific situations such as what happens with things like motor neurone disease and other types of illnesses. So I will be voting for this bill to go to the select committee and I'm sure that it can be amended in a way that would ensure the safeguarding of those with disabilities and other vulnerable people.