Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): I've spoken on this bill a number of times during its passage through the House and it will be no surprise to members that I'll be voting against it. I've been clear in my view that this bill sets a dangerous precedent and poses a real threat to vulnerable New Zealanders. Any member who has taken the time to engage with this issue will be familiar with the arguments which is why I've chosen to focus my contribution not on the failings of this bill but on the abysmal process this bill has had through this House.Reflecting on my relatively short time in Parliament I note members from all sides spend enormous amounts of time discussing issues which are relatively minor taking part in the process in an open and transparent manner. However when it comes to this issue—an issue of life and death—the process has been manipulated with deals made in closed rooms and MPs hiding behind a referendum too afraid to make the tough decisions that we're elected here to make.Right from the day this bill came up for its first reading the processes of Parliament were used to advance this bill's cause. At the first reading tricks were played to bring the debate forward to a members' day when it wasn't expected; designed to ensure members were caught off guard. At the select committee stage despite more submissions being made on this bill than any other piece of legislation this Parliament has ever seen the member in charge of this bill David Seymour simply ignored the 90 percent of submissions which were opposed to this bill instead formulating his own sponsor's report which ignored the changes proposed by the Justice Committee and ignored the input of those who submitted. While I commend the work of the select committee the sponsor's actions show his lack of respect for this process. At the committee of the whole House the sponsor not only waited to table his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 the day before the debate started but he voted against every single amendment raised by anyone other than what he proposed in his own SOP.Serious issues have been ignored such as the rights of doctors hospice and palliative care experts to conscientiously object to this process. Increasing the age of eligibility to an appropriate age to ensure that youth don't qualify for assisted suicide: voted down. Ensuring that family members are at least informed of the fact that their loved one is ending their life by assisted suicide or euthanasia: voted down. Adequately protecting the rights of those with disabilities: voted down. These significant amendments and many many more were voted down by the member in charge and those in support of the bill with very few MPs who support the bill even contributing to the committee of the whole House and some only contributing by trying to have a closure motion.And then came the deals. A deal made with the Green Party whereby they would support this bill in a block on the basis of a few changes to the eligibility criteria for this bill. The party which considers itself the conscience of the nation refuses its members to be able to exercise a conscience vote on a bill of this magnitude—not only on the bill as a whole but on every single SOP.The other deal was made with the New Zealand First Party whereby this bill would go to a referendum at the next election. This not only cynically secured nine votes for this bill but is giving MPs the opportunity to hide behind a referendum rather than actually voting on their conscience here in this House today. The cynicism not only extended to the New Zealand First Party but to MPs on both sides of this House who voted for a referendum despite being opposed in principle to referendums. With these two deals 17 MPs will not be casting conscience votes here tonight—something which could materially change the outcome of this bill if they were given that right.With all of these cynical backroom deals and disregard for the process it is symbolic of what this bill stands for. Our elderly and our sick will be put at risk of being abused manipulated and processes in this bill being ignored and the rights of doctors and patients set aside in the name of choice. If parliamentary process has been run in this manner how can we trust that the bill's processes won't also be abused? And if they are well the person involved will be dead with no opportunity for redress.This is a conscience vote and for good reason. The member in charge started his speech by talking about polling numbers. In fact that's basically all he's talked about; the only correspondence I've ever received from the member in charge is telling me how many National Party people support this bill. He was asking me to consider my majority at the next election rather than the principles and the detail of this bill. I understand and respect the views of people in my electorate who disagree with me on this issue and I'm open to Mr Seymour's polling numbers being proven right. But it offends me to think that David Seymour simply boils this life and death issue down to a few polling numbers.I came to Parliament to make the hard decisions to look at the evidence and to make a decision; not to be swayed by polls with leading questions. This issue is about the most vulnerable. I have opposed and I will continue to oppose this bill.