Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you Madam Chair. This is probably one of the most important speeches of my life and I believe other people's lives. There are some who I continue to advocate for and I am speaking on behalf of so it's an immense privilege it's an immense responsibility and duty of care. I spoke before the dinner break to clause 1 in relation to the title the End of Life Choice Bill and I am now going to lead on to speaking to the Supplementary Order Papers 287 and 361 that have been submitted in the name of my parliamentary colleague Jenny Marcroft to do with whether or not this matter should go to a public referendum. Madam Chair colleagues in the Chamber members of Parliament and members of the public—this is a conscience vote. We have been put in the position as members of Parliament to make a decision. It's not based along a party line; it is based along the line of our conscience. But also from my position and perspective it's based along the line of my responsibility drawing on my years of service as a lawyer having practised and applied the law in the specialist field of health medical law and the specialist field of people welfare law and that combined I consider that I am proficient and I am in the responsible position to speak to this bill.Should this be a referendum? My view is that I have a duty of care to cast my vote on a conscience vote based on my professionalism based on my expertise and knowledge as a lawyer working in this field. I stated before the dinner break that I deem and consider and I maintain that this is unsound unsafe and dangerous law. And it is a bill that seeks to kill people. It is the bill that is saying that people have a choice to take their own lives. Well that's what suicide is also. That's what taking life is also. Let's not mess around here. This is euphemised in a very considered way of people saying that they have a choice to end their life. The reality is that this is killing under what is called euthanasia or assisted suicide. This in my view is not a matter that has to be dealt with lightly in terms of people who are not sufficiently skilled or experienced to make a decision to have that choice and it going to a public referendum. It is my duty as a member of Parliament whether I like it or not that I have been put in this position to use all the skill the care the level of my legal knowledge and practice to apply in casting a vote this evening. I concur with my colleagues who are speaking against a referendum and who are speaking against this bill. I defer to my colleague the Hon Nick Smith quite accurately calling it for what it is: the inconsistency in picking and choosing when a matter of conscience and vote should go to a referendum or not. We ought to heed in mind that when we cast our votes as members of Parliament around those inconsistencies and how we choose to vote. We've heard in this Chamber this evening one of my colleagues—one of our colleagues—drawing on his experience as a bookmaker. I am not a bookmaker. I am a legislator now. I have been a legal practitioner and it is my duty of care not to take any gamble or bet on this matter when it comes to people's lives. I have heard also in the Chamber from the sponsor of this bill that the choice is around cultural considerations also. There is nothing in this bill that factors that in. The sponsor from his chair dispensed and dismissed that when I had a Supplementary Order Paper before this committee for those considerations to be factored in. We have debated in this House on numerous occasions the appropriateness of cultural considerations. Conveniently it's not factored into this bill and I have practised in the area of health law and the area of welfare law. So this matter going to the public—[Time expired]