Seymour David; Mallard TrevorEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILLSecond ReadingDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I move That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a second time. As this bill approaches its second reading it is already over four years old. Very few bills engage with our lawmaking process as fully as this one does. This House supported the motion that the bill be read a first time by a margin of 76 to 44 and immediately after that vote it supported a motion that the Justice Committee would have nine months instead of the usual six to report back. The report back period was extended three more times for a variety of reasons. In total this bill was at select committee for 16 months. Almost 40000 New Zealanders made a submission to that committee which travelled to 14 centres and heard 1350 submissions in person.I say all of this for two reasons. Number one: there has been rigorous consultation on this bill. By sheer numbers it is the most rigorous consultation on any bill in this Parliament's history. Now I know I'm opposed to rushed legislation but this is the opposite. But I also say for another reason that it's been rigorous and that is to record the enormous time and effort that has been put in by the Justice Committee chair Raymond Huo and the members of the Justice Committee. I want to thank them for their monumental effort. I should include other members of Parliament who sat in on the various hearings up and down the country and the officials from the Office of the Clerk who have been unfailingly professional right throughout this marathon process. I'd also like to thank the committee for hosting me as a non-voting member of the committee for the purposes of this bill.What came out of that? Well the committee has made a number of changes that improve the bill from its original form. Ministry of Justice and health officials also deserve our thanks for poring over existing legislation and the regulations in the rest of our legal framework to make sure that this bill coming back to the House aligns with all other existing legislation and regulation. These include the Burial and Cremation Act the Health Act and the Coroners Act. The committee also strengthened the complaints process by making it explicit that the registrar can refer cases to police the Health and Disability Commissioner the coroner or any other authority that it deems relevant. The committee made it explicit that if coercion is suspected at any point in the process then the person becomes ineligible for assisted dying. The committee made it explicit that life insurance contracts must be valid in the case of an assisted death.However I think it's worth pausing on the fulsomeness and time that's gone into this process in comparison with the relatively small amount of change made to the bill. Some have tried to run the argument that it is a poorly drafted bill because it was drafted by a private member. I put it to those people that over 16 months with many thousands of submissions and expert advice from two Government departments the committee has returned a workable bill that is very substantially the same as the one that was introduced almost two years ago and that shouldn't be surprising. This is a bill that the Attorney-General has said is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This is a bill that is consistent with and modelled on the Canadian legislation that has worked successfully in Canada now for three years. This is a bill that is remarkably similar to the Victorian legislation adopted by that state of Australia which came into effect just a few weeks ago. This is a bill which has been endorsed by Matt Vickers who is here tonight and he endorses it with the advice of the legal team that pursued Seales v Attorney-General.I'm mindful that the Standing Orders prevent me from discussing changes that might be anticipated at the committee of the whole House stage in detail. However I'd like to reflect on some changes that the committee considered and reports in its report that it decided not to make. At the insistence of some members the committee restricted itself from making any substantive changes to the bill and I want to record my disappointment with that approach. We could've got much better value out of the considerable time and resource that went into that process if all members of the Justice Committee had been prepared to work more constructively. Nevertheless issues that were raised and that might be changed in future stages of this process are whether assisted dying should be limited to those only with a terminal illness and not those with a grievous and irremediable medical condition; whether the settings are correct for the assessment of the patient's competence to understand the nature of assisted dying and its consequences; and amending the bill to either allow or prohibit health professionals from raising the option of assisted dying with a patient.Outside of the select committee process New Zealand First have raised with me the prospect that the commencement clause should include the condition that the bill comes into effect after being confirmed by a referendum in which every adult New Zealander is eligible to vote. Others have raised the prospect of explicitly deeming that a person cannot be eligible for assisted dying under this bill purely on condition of disability old age or a purely psychological condition. Suffice to say I listened to these concerns and intend to move an amendment that will address such issues. It has been prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel Office thanks to the facilitation of the Minister of Justice. I believe it's a high-quality amendment that can give comfort to those members who have concerns about the bill as reported back from the Justice Committee. It is on that basis that I ask members who have such concerns that they vote this bill through the second reading.In all we've had a lengthy and comprehensive process that has returned a workable bill not so very different from that which was introduced. Our parliamentary procedure allows for further changes to be made at the committee of the whole House stage that I believe will further improve what is a world-class bill.Now let me turn to some of the public debate that has taken place over the past 19 months. I have personally attended over 30 public meetings literally from Kerikeri to Gore. Some of those meetings were attended by over 300 people and a range of issues were canvassed. I've also privately met with people from the religious community my fellow MPs people from the medical profession across civil society constituents and a much greater number of private meetings over that period. The debate has been fulsome and I'd like to thank those that have engaged constructively. But I'd also like to say that there's been some disappointing contributions. People have said for instance that assisted dying being legalised can lead to suicide contagion. There is no evidence for that claim and those that have hijacked such a sensitive topic in this country with no evidence I believe should be seriously considering how they approach political debate in the future.People from the medical profession have said that they will somehow have their careers or their profession damaged. That is plainly untrue. The only obligation faced by a doctor is that if they wish to conscientiously object they merely need to tell the patient so that the patient can get another doctor assigned to them by the Ministry of Health.People in the disability community have said that somehow legalising assisted dying will devalue them while others such as Philip Patston have pointed out that this bill does not allow people to have an assisted death purely because they are disabled already—and we're going to clarify that even further. But actually it's those people who somehow imply that disabled people are not able to make their own choices that are taking the debate around autonomy and dignity back three decades.I won't have time to canvass all of the debate and all of the arguments that have been raised and in so many cases refuted over the last 19 months. But let me leave members with two thoughts. One is that the opponents like to say that in many jurisdictions bills like this have been voted down by legislatures and they are correct. It is true—to scare members of Parliament in other legislatures away from voting for these bills. But in not one of the now 15 jurisdictions housing 200 million people that have legalised assisted dying have they gone back. That is the difference between the rhetoric and the reality. Finally I ask what does this House say to the small minority of people who find themselves suffering at the end of their life? Do we require them to suffer on for the morality of others or do we give them compassion and choice? Thank you Mr Speaker.SPEAKER: The Hon Amy Adams—a five minute call.