Allan KiritapuKIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tuatahi ā ka huri ake au ki ngā tāngata i tino māuiui i tēnei wā. Kua kite a rātou i tēnei taupatupatu i tēnei pō ā ka nui aku mihi atu ki a rātou.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Firstly I turn to the people who are very sick at the moment. They have seen this debate tonight and I would like to strongly acknowledge them.]I thought it'd be appropriate to I guess share some thoughts and ask the member who has presented this bill before the House a couple of questions this evening. I didn't take the opportunity in the first reading to add my voice to this Chamber but I want to commend you David for the work that you've done in this very challenging area. It's an emotive one and one that can be taken over by emotions when the issues that we have been asked to consider as legislators go a lot further I think than the hyperbolic rhetoric that can sometimes overtake the debate. So I want to commend you on the way that you've conducted yourself through the course of the time that you've been championing this bill.I was one of the people that voted No at the last reading and I voted No because I wasn't satisfied with the bill and where it got to at the end of the select committee process. I made the decision for myself that at every opportunity I would consider what we had before us at each stage and at that stage I was not of the view that there were sufficient protections in place for some of those people that are most vulnerable.I want to commend the member for some of the amendments that you've made to that bill that we were asked to consider at the second reading in particular the amendments to clause 4(1)(c) the definition of who is eligible for assisted dying and the inclusion of new clause 4(2) in terms of some of the issues I think many members of this Chamber questioned in terms of the mental disorder mental illness and so on and so forth. So I just want to thank you and acknowledge you for those amendments in terms of addressing some of our concerns.That said I still have some fundamental concerns I think with this bill and for me after a lot of soul-searching it's come down to I think the role that the medical practitioners play. I want to thank my colleagues Louisa Wall and Lawrence Yule under the guidance of Paul von Dadelszen and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Morally for me this isn't an issue around morality but process-wise in determining who in fact is the best person to make the determination about whether somebody should or could make the choice to end their life—that's the issue that I've been focused on. I want to commend my colleague Louisa and my colleague Lawrence—sorry the member Lawrence Yule. The approach that they've taken and it is one that goes down the Family Court route—and I hear the opposition in terms of ultimately it could be quite a judicial route quite confrontational and unnecessarily so.I had the opportunity to work for a couple of years under Paul von Dadelszen who at that time was the Deputy Principal Family Court Judge in New Zealand. Part of his role was to go in and deal with folks who were compulsorily sanctioned. I watched under his guidance how New Zealand already has a legal regime that enables the court and the judiciary to deal with people who are in very vulnerable stages of their lives and to do so in a very compassionate way that is not adversarial as a lot of the dicta that have come from this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) might suggest. Some of the provisions that are in the member Louisa Wall's SOP provide the discretion of the judiciary to be able to go to people in the most appropriate fora whether that be their homes the hospice or so on and so forth. That essentially is already a process or an infrastructure that our legal system already has.I step back and I ask myself: why am I so concerned about the distinction between the role of the medical profession in contrast to the role of the legal profession or the judiciary in making that determination? Perhaps it's a little Old Testament - like and we're living in a New Testament - like world but if you strip it back to the Hippocratic oath—and look I know that there's a lot of comments that can be made about that but the medical profession in its basis and its foundation was essentially one that was focused around the preservation of life. In contrast the legal profession is one that is on its daily basis required to look at matters factually. It's asked to consider a whole range of issues look at the law apply the law apply those legal principles and make a determination. That's what that profession is geared up to. In contrast the medical profession—and look yes so the Hippocratic oath it's a little dated and I know that there'll be some comments that come out from those that say yeah like I said it's a little Old Testament but it still provides the foundation for the medical practitioners' code of ethics now. In there still is the overarching—I think you can pull away and say that there's an overarching consideration that again is around the preservation of life but also ensuring you know the rights and dignity of those that require medical attention.I think that the SOP that my colleagues have presented before this committee for consideration is one that provides some security that citizens that do want to make that determination they can have a medical practitioner provide their medical reports and that goes towards a factual inquiry. You have a judicial person to make the determination and on the facts and on the basis of the lawmaker's determination I think that that is a much better approach in these circumstances. I know that's not the member's view who's introduced this bill to the House.On that basis I then am required to look at the range of other SOPs that are before this House and I've considered them all in detail and some I'll vote for and some I'll vote against—I won't go into those depths. But I guess from the member tonight I am interested in particular on what your considerations were in terms of having the discretion be reserved to those in the legal profession and from the judiciary. The role of the medical practitioners—and we have heard substantive views from the medical practitioners in their profession about the discomfort that they might be put into. There might be multiple views there but I am interested in what your considerations were there.I do I guess want to say as a caution for the full House—whether you're for or against or any which way—that we were fortunate to I think at the second reading be a little devoid of some of the emotional rhetoric and I pray that that is a practice that we maintain as we progress through this committee stage. So those are my questions for the member. Tēnā koe.