Seymour DavidEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLThird ReadingDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a third time. New Zealand has never had a well-funded well-oiled lobby for assisted dying. The End-of-Life Choice Society four previous members of Parliament with similar bills—and I acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street here today—and advocates such as Lecretia Seales have all been passionate grassroots campaigners. And yet New Zealanders have come to their own conclusions on the matter. Analysis by Jessica Young from the University of Otago has found that over 20 years support for such a bill as this has run at 68 percent to 15 percent with 17 percent undecided. For context the biggest audience the All Blacks have ever garnered was only 40 percent of New Zealanders. Such a deep and unsolicited conviction can only come from one place: life experience. And I've listened to New Zealanders talk about their experiences literally from Kerikeri to Gore. Overwhelmingly they've said to me I've seen bad death. If my time comes and I'm not doing well then I want choice. And by the way it's nobody else's business but mine." They've thought deeply about harrowing events in their own lives and I caution members of Parliament that we should not underestimate or belittle the public's understanding of this issue. I want to thank colleagues who supported amendments to this bill at committee. Those amendments have delivered on promises I made to fellow MPs during the second reading debate. There is not time to describe every improvement but I will summarise some of the key ones now. The bill previously allowed people with a grievous and irremediable medical condition to be eligible for assisted dying. That term was lifted from the Canadian legislation where it works successfully. But nevertheless members of Parliament indicated they could not support a bill with that feature and it has now been narrowed. Only a person whom two doctors judge to have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months can be eligible. I acknowledge supporters of the bill who lament that narrowing but I also say that it places a black-letter objectivity in the bill that only the most fundamentalist opponents can deny. Several provisions have been introduced for the avoidance of all doubt. It is now explicit that nobody can become eligible for assisted dying simply due to age disability or a purely psychological condition. Similarly no written consent or advanced directive can substitute for a person demonstrating their eligibility in real time. These avoidance of doubt clauses don't change the underlying function of the bill but they do clarify its intentions. Several improvements have been made to the qualifications required of health practitioners under the bill. The independent medical practitioner or second doctor must now have five years' experience. The medical practitioner who gives the third opinion the potential psychologist can no longer be a psychologist and must be a psychiatrist. Nurse practitioners may play some roles under the bill but all decision-making functions remain with doctors and ultimately with the patient. The employment rights of health practitioners who must play a role under the bill and conscientiously object to that role are now explicitly protected. And the test for mental competence has been upgraded to align with that in other legislation requiring a person to understand retain weigh and communicate information. It's been made explicit that no medical practitioner can initiate any conversation about assisted dying and rules have been added to balance privacy and responsible public reporting of death in accordance with other legislation. Finally the immunity protections for a doctor carrying out acts under this law have been made more specific. That's a very significant list of improvements to the bill but I remind members they are in addition to the already robust regime of safeguards and reporting that was in the bill and debated at length in the first and second readings. One final change made by the committee is to add the requirement for a referendum to be held before the bill comes into force. I'd like to address some criticisms of this feature including those who say that we in Parliament are abdicating our responsibility by adding a referendum. That criticism ignores that Parliament has to pass the bill before the referendum is possible. Today is exactly 23 months since we first debated this bill in first reading; nobody can ever say that Parliament hasn't done its job. In fact the net effects of the referendum is that the public will have one last chance to veto Parliament's work should we choose to pass it tonight. It's impossible to ignore the voluminous debate that has surrounded this bill not just in the last two years but in the last two decades. Some of the arguments have been frankly disgraceful. Let me put on record again there is no connection between legalised assisted dying and suicide anywhere. To see people in the New Zealand Herald this morning saying that there is "suggested evidence" well I've heard that academic standards are falling but "suggested evidence" is a new low. People have tried to play on New Zealanders' natural protectiveness of those with a disability. Let me be clear that no iteration of this bill has ever allowed anyone to be eligible for assisted dying by dint of a disability. I have some personal experience with this. My own mother was one of the last people in New Zealand to contract the polio virus and like many with a disability she fought all her life to assert that her disability did not diminish her as a self-determining person in every other respect. The underlying premise of some opponents is that people with a disability are somehow vulnerable to the mere existence of choice. It's an argument that I have found deeply and personally distasteful.Others have argued more generally that choice for some would mean undue pressure for others. The bill includes stringent safeguards to ensure choice is genuine though and these include requirements for two doctors to independently verify that the person is somebody who feels in their own belief that assisted dying is the only way to alleviate their suffering. They must also talk to others involved in their care and they must also cease taking any action if undue pressure is even suspected. But we can also look at the international evidence. Who is likely to use assisted dying laws? Is it those who are less articulate less assertive and have fewer resources in life? No. It should be intuitive actually that it's those who are used to navigating severe bureaucracy who are more assertive who navigate the stringent safeguards under assisted dying laws overseas at a time when they are ill.And finally opponents who run out of sound objections to this bill try arguing against some other bill a hypothetical one. They call it the slippery-slope fallacy and they say "Ah but it will change." Well let's look at what that would require in context. An MP would have to bring a new bill to this House. A majority would have to agree to any changes and all the same arguments that led to the narrowing of this bill would emerge again. That's one of the reasons those who have studied assisted dying laws overseas the Supreme Court of Canada and the Western Australian and Victorian parliaments have roundly rejected the slippery slope fallacy. The objections to this bill hold no water even with endless repetition. They evaporate when confronted with the details of the bill and the reality of overseas experience.Members would do well to ask themselves why it is that after 15 years 88 percent of Dutch people support their law. If half the things that the opponents have said were true then that couldn't be possible. And they might also reflect on what it's like to be a Dutch MP who was around voting against such a law 15 years ago.So much for the arguments of opponents. We must remember why we are doing this. It's about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. If some people are suffering at the end of their life do we say to them that they must suffer some more because we in this House lack the courage to make better laws or even let our fellow New Zealanders have a say in a referendum on that law? No. We must give them choice.I leave you with the words of Lecretia Seales who said "I am simply saying that I Lecretia Seales a human being confronted with the inescapable reality of my death and the prospect of great suffering—for me and those who love me—must have the right to determine when I have reached the end of the road. This right belongs to me and none other."—or the words of Martin Hames a parliamentary staffer who briefly lived after a botched suicide to end his Huntington's torment. When he came back alive he said to that MP "Boss change it. Change for all others." That's what we must do tonight colleagues."