O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Oh thank you Madam Chair. Look I'm really pleased and I actually support my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi's thoughts there. Why it takes 14 working days to do the paperwork is beyond me. In fact you know as others have mentioned I think in earlier debates: if you're dealing with family who are not told they are now going to be none the wiser for up to 14 working days which could be a whole month of time. Look I just want to go through if I might some of the elements of Part 2 which I think for me illustrate what is effectively—and I've said it before and I'll keep saying it—shoddy legislation. I encourage colleagues with Part 2 and any part of this bill to look at the wording and the number of pages compared to any other legislation and we'll find that this is incredibly lightweight. The further challenge begins to develop in Part 2 around all of the reporting—in fact there's more talk of reporting the actual act of killing someone—if you take all that out of it you're left with something quite hollow. It starts of course with the title of Part 2 which is Assisted dying"—again a euphemism; I always come back to that. I just sort of encourage the promotant of the bill and those that have sort of I don't know the moral courage to push this to use the right language because doctors all the time—and hospice who have come out very clearly today as before and palliative care people—will tell you that they assist people to die every day. I've assisted people to die but that doesn't mean I'm injecting them with lethal injections.Secondly if we're moving through Part 2 you get into clause 8—and again it's a great example of sort of the shoddiness; I'd go as far as to say sort of almost a willing duplicity that comes through in the language. Clause 8(2)(e) sounds wonderful and it says—this is about telling people that you want to die—"[you] encourage the person to [talk and] discuss their wish with others such as family friends and counsellors". You know people reading this if they get to clause 8(2)(e) in Part 2 they'll go "Oh it's wonderful." But of course you've got to read on in this bill and it's a classic case; it happens in multiple places. You've got to get to clause 8(2)(f). It says to ensure that the person knows that they don't have to actually discuss their wishes with everyone. There's almost I would suggest an interesting falsity that's been put in by the drafters of this bill those various lawyers who I won't name but are known to myself and others. Why would you put the—actually I can use "you" now can't I? This is actually quite liberating.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): That's at the discretion of the Chair.SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh yes indeed; I'll indulge the Chair.Hon Tim Macindoe: And what is her judgment?SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm in trouble.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Ruth Dyson): Not yet.SIMON O'CONNOR: The positive element is put first; the one that if you will will calm people's considerations is put first followed up—and this is not the only example—by a situation where in fact it's very clear that a person doesn't have to tell their family members loved ones or anyone; I think that's a real problem.Look moving on because I know people have touched on coercion and conscience—and there's a depth there. But if we go to clause 15 in Part 2—I'm going to call it the "lethal dose of drugs"; "medication" is again a falsity—it says in clause 15(3)(a) that the attending medical practitioner needs to advise people of the different ways the medication will be administered. I think that's positive; it's good to know if you're going to be injected or ingested. I notice they haven't followed the French model which is around suppositories and it's quite effective. I don't know that from practical experience; I just know enough things medical. But what it doesn't say—and again it shows how shoddy this is—it doesn't actually explain to the person who's about to die what happens and that actually these drugs be they ingested intravenous or otherwise are going to stop the heart cause convulsions and what they'll do to your body—none of that is actually put there. Again it looks nice in clause 15(3) that they must tell them about how it's going to be administered; it doesn't actually say what it's going to do to the body of the person.We then jump to clause 16—again it's a further example of the problems that are just myriad throughout this and I really encourage those members who spoke particularly in earlier readings about the need to have a full discussion to actually get up and take a call or perhaps listen. It says in clause 16(5) that the attending medical practitioner must be available to the person until they die; or arrange for another medical practitioner. Look I'd say that's a good thing—that's a good thing—but again it's so lightweight because what we know is that this doesn't happen instantaneously. It does for some but some people—and there are good recorded examples—can live for days after taking these medication—days OK? There are well recorded instances I think in Oregon—go and look at the evidence—of over 104 hours. Let that sink in members: 104 hours before someone died."