Macindoe TimHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Mr Chair. Could I begin by thanking those members who have already spoken in support of my Supplementary Order Paper 396 this afternoon. I hope to be able to take a couple of calls in order to outline my thinking in why I am proposing a change to the title of the bill and also what became for me the very challenging question about whether this bill should be committed to a public referendum. As media have been reporting some of us have been lobbied intensively over the referendum issue in recent days and I'll admit today's been one of the more difficult days I've had as a member of Parliament as I've tried to work through those tensions that I've felt about that option. I've gone on record in earlier debates in this House and in my electorate as being likely to favour the referendum option with the caveat that I would continue to follow the debate closely before making a final decision and I have been doing that.In part that was because I've long felt that the New Zealand public will be much more comfortable with whatever decision is made on this issue if they all have a say in it. I believe that our constituents have as much right to be heard on this issue as we do. For those who've written to me or attended meetings in my electorate office or made their feelings known on this question to the justice sub-committee which I always sat on whenever it met in Hamilton in my electorate I often reasoned that I could continue to cast my conscience vote against this bill while also giving them the same right to vote according to their conscience on this matter at the ballot box.I hosted a public meeting on this topic in my electorate at which David Seymour MP and Dr Jack Havill put the case for the bill and Simon O'Connor MP and a member of Hamilton's palliative care team put the case against it. At the conclusion of that meeting a clear majority of attendees indicated that they would prefer the matter to be decided by a referendum than solely by MPs. That in part influenced my thinking that I would support a referendum being held and I will still be able to vote for that option this afternoon if the Supplementary Order Paper in my name is adopted by the committee.However I'm troubled by the amendment that's been put forward by Jenny Marcroft and the New Zealand First Party. I'm firmly of the view that a referendum if it is to be held must accurately reflect the issue that voters would be asked to determine. I've been really alarmed over the last year and more by how many people I have spoken to who feel strongly on this issue and hold very sincere views who none the less have not understood what the bill is actually proposing. Many people have argued passionately along the lines that It's my life and it's my choice what I should do with it and particularly when to end it." I respect their view as I'm sure all of us do because I'm sure we all believe in choice but the issue isn't that simple and many others feel this bill denies or threatens their right to exercise free choice.No one wants to see anyone endure a cruel or painful death. To suggest that opponents of this bill turn their backs on suffering is wrong and insulting. It infers that doctors and palliative care staff are indifferent to suffering or put their own concerns ahead of those of their patients and again that's absolutely wrong and offensive. That's why during the committee stages of the debate I tried to give voice to the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association of Hospice New Zealand and of the Disability Rights Commissioner in particular. All of those organisations and offices have a vital role to play in this issue and their concerns and experiences should be listened to with considerable respect.However many of them are deeply disturbed that their submissions were not fairly considered and their voices were not heard in this debate. That is simply not good enough. I understand why many of them feel that the passage of this bill would leave them feeling deeply compromised some to the point of having to leave their profession. Euthanasia runs clearly contrary to the Hippocratic oath and while I understand that a few doctors are supportive of this measure the overwhelming feedback I have received from doctors and palliative care specialists in Hamilton and elsewhere is that they cannot support this bill and are deeply distressed at being put in a dreadful position should it pass. That's why I'm appalled that debates on important amendments in Parts 1 to 4 have been so one-sided that the bill's supporters have largely disengaged with a few doing nothing but moving closure motions and that the mechanics of personal votes have often overtaken intelligent engagement.Today we're considering amendments relating to the bill's title and the option of a referendum which I believe are closely intertwined. It would be wrong for us to instigate a referendum in which the public was asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable when the very question is so misleading and biased in favour of one outcome. Supporters of the bill have often argued that opinion polls show a clear majority of New Zealanders in favour of this bill—[Bell rung] Thank you sir. As I say supporters have often argued that a majority of New Zealanders and opinion polls are in favour of the bill but of course on the other hand we know that the vast majority of those who submitted to the Justice Committee were opposed to it.Both of them deserve to be respected. Both of them are valid but neither of them gives us an absolutely clear idea of the way the public feels on the matter. However what I think is important is that an opinion poll also showed that a majority of the public thought that assisted dying or the choice element of this debate included having the choice to turn off life support or the choice to refuse further medical treatment. Others have argued to me that the choice should be available to those who are in dementia care or in a healthcare facility where they have no realistic chance of regaining full independence in their own homes. They may be close to the end of their lives but no one should pressure them into hastening their deaths and we should accord them absolute respect and compassionate care to the end. How terrifying to think that we might ever contemplate widening the scope of this bill in those directions because the fears of many seriously disabled New Zealanders that they are particularly vulnerable to such a choice being exercised on their behalf by others would be very real indeed and we have heard that concern frequently in this debate. I pray that we will never live in a country where that pressure is applied but I worry that it is the direction that this bill is taking us. And those who pretend that the slippery slope argument has no validity are deluded and will in time in my view be proved wrong to our considerable cost. That is why I strongly favour changing the title of the bill from End of Life Choice Act 2017—of course that's when it was introduced—to the "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019" as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper 396 in my name. If this matter is to be decided by a referendum the public must know that we already have end of life choices and that we do not need to adopt this bill in order to be able to make those choices. However this bill is a move towards euthanasia and that's therefore what it should be called.There is also the argument that holding a referendum on euthanasia and another one on legalising cannabis for recreational use and perhaps another one on another topic yet to be determined would be very undesirable as we campaign for the 2020 general election. I do agree that that's a valid concern. However it is not an argument against democracy. So I maintain that the referendum question should be held at a different time from the general election even though I acknowledge that to do that would come at considerable extra cost to taxpayers. So after a great deal of soul-searching and consideration of all of the arguments I have concluded that I cannot support a referendum that would not accurately describe the question that the electorate would have to answer. End of life choice does not accurately describe the gravity of the issues that this bill raises or the medical and palliative care procedures covered by this bill that are already legal such as refusing further medical treatment or having one's life support turned off or putting "Do not resuscitate" on the medical notes at the end of a hospital bed. However I will support the referendum option if the bill's title is changed to make it clear that this bill does not cover the many end of life choices that are already legal but instead provides a regime for euthanasia and a framework for legally assisting suicide involving doctors administering or patients self-administering lethal doses of medication as is the terminology in the bill. I urge colleagues especially those who disengaged from this process some time ago to reflect on the fact that there is a significant difference between the bill's current title which is deliberately euphemistic and in my view misleading and the implications of what we are being asked to do here which will change our society for ever. So I earnestly hope that even members who have not previously supported any amendments will seriously consider supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and the option of a public referendum that could then follow to ensure that the issue may be fully understood by the electorate and the questions debated appropriately before we enter the polling booths and decide on this momentous issue."