O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Acknowledging what I think is a wonderful opportunity the speaker who's resumed her seat Louisa Wall noted 20 years this topic has been raised but actually tonight starts a process where I would suggest for the first time we are able as a Parliament to properly interrogate this bill clause by clause word by word. Fundamentally we are about to change arguably one of the most fundamental principles of Western society in particular around life and death.I would assume most in the committee will agree as we start looking at Part 1 and eligibility that if we are to provide the right for some we must always make sure that the most vulnerable are protected and that no mistakes are going to be made. So I will immediately disagree with the member in the chair David Seymour who was suggesting at the start that we should get through this rather quickly. I find that unfortunately attempting to gloss over already what is incredibly serious because I think as I've mentioned in other speeches as I've been around the country we get this wrong and people innocently die. I for one believe the number zero is fantastic. One would be too many.The member who resumed her seat Louisa Wall—and acknowledging her contribution—sparked in me a memory of a wonderful quote. It's from an excellent book called A Canticle for Leibowitz and it sums up my impressions of things particularly around suffering. It says that it's right and proper for the State to maximise security and minimise suffering but in seeking both we found the opposite—it's right and proper to maximise security and minimise suffering but in seeking both we found the opposite. That's the risk we have here tonight so I'm looking forward to interrogating this very carefully and I do it out of a sense of duty to those who may end up being able to terminate their lives through assisted suicide or euthanasia.So starting with Part 1 we do need to look at the purpose of the bill. This is a major change. I think we have to note that there have been a number of changes and I say that for two reasons. One—and my colleague Chris Penk has kindly pointed it out already—we've only just got this long-promised Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 in the last 24-36 hours so I think myself—and maybe I'm just speaking for myself—I have been scrambling if you will to try and catch up on this. The second reason I mention is that we were we told when this bill was first introduced that it was perfect—that the greatest legal minds in New Zealand and medical minds had pulled this together from the brilliance of jurisdictions overseas. So I find it somewhat—hmm—ironic to be charitable that here we are once again with the greatest legal minds and the greatest examples overseas debating a bill which I'm about to show—and I hope in a few ways—has problems that we need to fix first.So we have a new purpose of the bill. It's been raised by actually some other lawyers who have engaged me already to sort of understand what it's actually saying. So the member might want to take a call on that particularly clause 2A(b) of SOP 259 which says to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option." It seems a bit odd that we have to add the word "lawful" and what does that actually add? It would be—I don't know—a redundant oddity in a Parliament that we were to be establishing a non-lawful process. So it just needs a little bit of tightening up there and I would suggest the member look at that if he wants to put some further SOPs forward.We then move into again what strikes me—and look granted I'm not a lawyer. I rely very heavily on lawyers QCs judges and others to provide me information in this field. But in Part 1 clause 3—this is the interpretation side—we now have a rather circular self-stating first definition or interpretation. It says an "approved form" means a form that's approved. I'll read that again. It's an approved form means a form that's approved and—granted—issued. So it's sort of circular and I wouldn't mind the member sort of explaining why we need a definition of "approved form" which says it's a form approved. I mean I'm very conscious we've flipped the words around.We then go into what I think is actually a fairly substantial and important element and Chris Penk touched on it in a broader context around—I would use the word for the first time I think tonight—euphemism. I mean I've spoken to this many times before. If we're going to talk about life and death let's be upfront and honest about it. The Dutch—I don't particularly like their law but by Lord they're very good at just laying it out clearly.So we're talking here about assisted dying. Well I've just been actually at the hospital somewhat about to farewell a friend unfortunately who's on his last legs. He's being assisted to die currently. He's been assisted to die by family and friends palliative care doctors and loved ones in a way that I think most of us if not all of us would accept is quite accessible and acceptable. It would be something in my final days—whether that's tomorrow three months 12 months or 12 years from now; maybe hopefully a lot longer—I'm going to be assisted to die. I know a number of doctors have suggested that the wording while also euphemistic is incredibly loose because actually doctors particularly those in palliative care assist people to die every day but they don't do it by injecting them with something like phenobarbital and causing a massive cardiac arrest.Why then—I have to challenge the member once again as I've done many times—is he not able to call this what it is which is euthanasia and assisted suicide? So (1) euphemisms: why are they being used if we want clarity? Secondly why does this bill not actually in the interpretation section clearly spell out the two forms of death or mechanisms of death: euthanasia where the doctor will inject you with as I say something like phenobarbital usually with the muscle relaxant earlier; and then assisted suicide which is where you are given the pill sometimes a liquid and you ingest and take those at your leisure? So just clarifying why the two specific elements are not there.Look it's been touched on why the word "lethal dose" has been taken out. Look a medication intuitively to the populace—and again this is a bill we're writing for all New Zealanders. When we talk about medication we talk about—and we think intuitively—that it's something which heals us. It's a balm if you will. A medication that ends your life is not really a medication. You know it's like saying a cricket bat whacked over the head is medicinal. Well no it's not. So again I just encourage the member in the committee to consider all these little changes. Why is there not the confidence to just call a spade a spade? OK it is a lethal dose. The drugs which will be used are exactly the same that they use currently in America for the death penalty. They are not medications.We then move on to "attending medical practitioner". That says "in relation to a person means the person's medical practitioner". Again and this is why I really encourage the committee to prosecute every word carefully—and I'll always defer to the lawyers. It seems great. Oh it's the medical practitioner—the person's medical practitioner. Well does that actually mean your general practitioner the man or woman that you see and have seen for every year? Well it doesn't prescribe that in any way shape or form. It just says a "person's medical practitioner".In other words at this point—and I'm more than happy for the member in the chair to correct me—it actually doesn't specify that it must be a doctor that knows you or a doctor that has known you for a significant time. In fact as we've seen in other jurisdictions across the world we've seen sort of death buses driving around where two doctors will jump out and certify that you are terminally ill and can go and it's all done and dusted. I mean they knew you because they've just met you so again I suppose I'm just using this as a singular example at the start to illustrate the need for us to prosecute and ask very deep questions. So I'll probably look to introduce some SOPs or amendments to this SOP to make it clear if that's the intention that the attending medical practitioner—which means a person's medical practitioner—must include their general practitioner or perhaps it's a doctor that has known them for over six months for example. So it's again just an encouragement that we don't get caught up in what looks like nice language which actually can mean something quite different.I just want to touch very quickly on the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights—a different angle that Chris Penk has gone down and we'll prosecute this a little further later when we get particularly to clause 4. At one level there's been a delight from some that we are narrowing the bill—and I think actually Louisa Wall has touched on a really good point that all of a sudden those with the likes of motor neuron Huntington's disease and so forth have been taken out of this equation. However it's also been trumpeted that those with disabilities will now not be included. Now obviously as someone who wants to protect the vulnerable I like that. However we are moving into a strange situation that actually we are developing a discrimination against disabled people. Put very bluntly you have the right to die but I'm sorry if you're disabled you don't. Now at one level we can say yay because that protects the disabled; on the other side we can go that's a discrimination prima facie. So that has to be addressed there.We also have—moving now on to page 4 of this new SOP; I'm afraid the ink Chris Penk is actually stuck on my fingers. But it says "competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying." If you jump then to clause 4A you find it's again a circular argument. That competency—[Time expired]"