Bidois DanDAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is an absolute pleasure to make a contribution to this stage in the End of Life Choice Bill on what is a very dignified evening that we are experiencing this evening. I acknowledge that we are on Part 1 so I will try to stay as close to Part 1 as I possibly can. Now I do want to say congratulations to the member for getting his bill to this stage. Of course it will be on record that I voted against the bill at the second reading. But I want to be clear to my constituents that although I remain sceptical of this bill I will do due diligence and make sure I read every possible amendment to this bill and on the merits of those amendments before making my final decision. So we come to this debate in Part 1 which really focuses around the purposes of the End of Life Choice Bill the interpretation and the criteria that people must go through in order to be qualified for the End of Life Choice Bill. Now I think it's quite reasonable to assume that in someone's mind you can create a perfect candidate for this bill—someone who is at the end of life who's in an excruciating amount of pain who wants to go clearly wants to go and who has a terminal illness. I absolutely empathise and can appreciate anybody who is in that tight definition who wants to come under this bill. But then there are a host of people who are in what I would call the grey area; those that are in particular vulnerable to using this bill or perhaps for coercion—or not. Those are the people that I am particularly concerned about those people who may in fact go down this line who aren't necessarily part of those tight criteria. Those are the people that I spoke about in my second reading speech around the most vulnerable people in our society. The most vulnerable people in our society that I see are the elderly the mentally ill the disabled and our young. Now I can totally appreciate David's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 that seeks to address some of these vulnerable concerns. I do want to acknowledge the member for what is an SOP—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Full name. DAN BIDOIS: David Seymour who has made attempts to tighten up the criteria to help address some of our concerns—for those who voted against the bill. So I do think that the SOP has some merit although I do have severe reservations about the criteria in his SOP particularly as it relates to our young because I think 18 years of age is still too young. I can appreciate that the other countries throughout the world who have this also have 18 but there's no reason why New Zealand should not consider an age that is fit for purpose for this society. That is why I would absolutely support an SOP in my colleague's name Simeon Brown which is SOP 283 which increases the age to 25 for assisted dying. Death is not pretty. I think we've talked a lot about death tonight; we've heard a lot through the select committee process about death. It is very clear from the criteria that no doctor on terminal illness can in fact be clear that you've got six months to live. We heard that in select committee and I'll be listening very carefully to the member's thoughts around tightening that up even further. But it is—again death is not pretty. It's a necessary part of life and it's in many cases valuable. The final moments of people's lives are valuable for those that are left behind and that is why I still remain not convinced with Part 1 of David Seymour's SOP. Just to those in my electorate of Northcote I'll be reading all of the SOPs very carefully and considering them on their individual merits. Thank you.