Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate being able to take a second call on this important stage of the debate. I take exception to a lot of the things that the sponsor of the bill has just said. I think the idea that he's somehow a champion of the New Zealand public who would understand the complexities and to think otherwise and not to offer them the option of a referendum is somehow demeaning or belittling their intellect—that is a completely inappropriate and inaccurate way of characterising it as is his I suppose strutting about the number of debates he's done in the sense that he's in touch with what has occurred around the country because of his participation in some debates some of which I've participated in as well. I would say that one sided once over lightly high level if you like to put it kindly is pretty much the zone in which that member has dwelled.That is why I think that his trivialising of the Supplementary Order Paper of Tim Macindoe is quite wrong. The idea that the name is not important and that the title doesn't matter is ridiculous. Words do matter. We heard Melissa Lee talking about the Korean language and we have discussed this with most Māori members of Parliament who understand that there is no word in Reo for euthanasia. It doesn't exist. It is not a concept that has been well understood. Language is important. The way we use it is important. I have found myself even as sceptical as I am about the motivation of the sponsor of this bill surprised by the extent to which various members in this House are prepared to admit that they don't particularly like referendums. As the sponsor said he's got no strong moral view on referendums but he's absolutely prepared to compromise to get the votes.We have the list MP from Wairarapa who as a bookmaker as he describes himself can do the counting. So although he doesn't like referendums although he doesn't like to think that politicians are not doing their job are not thinking things through and are not doing what we ought to do as legislators he's still prepared to go with the referendum option to keep the nine votes. So where's the moral high ground here? What are the principles that you are adhering to by being absolutely against referendums but voting in favour to get these votes? I think it's morally bankrupt to be honest to take that line. This is far too important an issue to trivialise with political swapping of votes to get across the line.This bill is not fit to pass in its current form. It wasn't when it left select committee and it still isn't. How can we as legislators give over a piece of work like this and ask them to decide—ask the public of New Zealand to decide on this complex flawed piece of law? It's not in a fit state for parliamentarians to grasp the consequences that may emerge from this.What happens to the people with dementia? What happens to the way that they're diagnosed? Why is it that of the two doctor's meetings for example one of them could be done by Skype? And that was at the sponsor's insistence. He didn't want to put people to the trouble of going in to see a doctor and travelling and so forth—much easier to do it over social networking.The bill under this sponsor is all about delivering euthanasia and assisted suicide as quickly and as simply as possible. That's why all the safeguards have been strenuously argued down by that member. That's why the sponsor maintains that the eligibility criteria will never expand as it has in every single other jurisdiction in the world where euthanasia has been allowed. Of course it will expand. That's what we do in this place. Every single day we alter laws that are not particularly fit for purpose and this is one of the least fit for purpose bills I've seen in my years in this Chamber. Still it takes up hundreds and hundreds of hours of time. Today tonight in this Chamber I urge members of Parliament to take a moral decision about what we need to do and how we need to fulfil our role.The rubber hits the road with this referendum option. Sometimes there is a place for them and I admit that. If you are having constitutional changes changes to the terms of Parliament and the conditions of members of Parliament we should not be involved in that to the extent that we should be in all other laws and it should go to referendum; I agree with that. But with this question so narrowly focused so poorly defined so loaded with euphemism that it's absolutely unclear what this complex issue was all about we have an obligation to do better on this bill. I think what we need to do tonight is to make the decision that the referendum option is not the one to go for. We need to take responsibility here in this Chamber to make sure that this legislation is as fit for purpose as it can be. Every method of protection we've tried to put in has been voted down. It's deplorable.