Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to speak to the important Supplementary Order Paper that deals with the issue of family in clause 8. It is my view that as Part 2 stands we are setting up a legal regime where a person can take their life without any knowledge from their partner their married husband or wife and where they can do so without any knowledge of their children until after the event. Now I'm one of those that believe that family is the most important social institution in our society and that it's actually at its most important at the beginning and end of life. Now no one understates the emotional importance at the time when someone may be terminally unwell where they are infirm or elements of their life but I find it quite obscene that we are considering a law in which that decision can be made without any requirement for family members to be informed.So my Supplementary Order Paper 260 amends clause 8 and requires a person's direct family to be informed before the event. That is—and I've been quite specific with direct family"—a husband wife or partner a mother or father or a child. Now it is my view that they have a right to know that someone may be considering assisted suicide. I'm not saying they have a veto. A person still would have the right to have the decision but to exclude them from the process is for this Parliament to treat the institution of family with gross disrespect. I would feel awfully insulted if my mum or dad made the choice that's provided for in this legislation without me being included and I equally say it would be wrong for me to make such a decision without my mother and father being able to be informed that that was being considered.I also want to argue that it's a really important safeguard. One of the real worries that I have with this legislation is the issue of undue influence. I'm sorry; the idea that a stranger doctor is going to be able to determine whether a person is subject to undue influence with very little knowledge of the person's family background and the like I think is a really important gap in the law. The truth is that it'll be a family member that knows that actually "Do you realise that brother Fred has been trying to get their hands on the farm for the last 20 years and is having inappropriate influence over this that or the other relative?" That sort of family knowledge and requirement for them to be involved in the process I think provides a significant level of additional protection and most importantly it realises and recognises that we aren't islands in our lives—that actually the relationships that we have with our parents with our partners are really important.So I really challenge all members of this Parliament to think about my Supplementary Order Paper on clause 8 which simply requires that the direct family be informed prior to the event. I ask and challenge members to think about their own personal circumstance and whether they would be comfortable that their partner their son or daughter or their mum or dad could make such a crucial decision without them being informed until after the event. I really say that this Parliament often gives lip service to the importance of family. Here is an opportunity for us to actually say "These relationships matter. The institution of family matters." Having a legal husband wife partner or the like matters and for such a hugely important decision to be made without any involvement of family is insulting to that institution."