Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair for the opportunity to speak again. I'm sure this will be my final contribution in this the committee stage. I just wanted to flesh out a couple of those arguments that have been made really well actually on both sides of the House and funnily enough on both sides of the debate—many eloquent arguments against having a referendum including by some MPs who then go on to say that they will nevertheless vote for it. So that's confusing some might say unprincipled; I wouldn't use such a description of fellow members of Parliament of course.It has become very clear including very starkly in the sponsor's David Seymour's last address that he acknowledges—and it's plain for all to see—that the more scrutiny that this bill has received the less support it enjoys. That's at the crux of the matter so far as the proposal for a referendum is concerned. The debate is going to be shattered into 4 million pieces and swept up across the country in a way that actually reflects less scrutiny that the average New Zealander will give it than the average MP has given it—not withstanding that there will be honourable exceptions in the case of members of the public and perhaps dishonourable as far as at least some members of Parliament are concerned.If we're to have a poll of those who have read the bill and made a good effort to understand it rather than having that as a referendum we could do a further reading. Having already had two readings in this place we could even call it a third reading and be done with it. So that option is of course available to us—just to be a little bit radical.If it's true on one level that in the end of life choice the word choice is illusory and I believe for reasons that colleagues have stated earlier today that effectively it is so too is it at another level whereby if we have a referendum and the good people of New Zealand who will be busy doing lots of worthwhile things in their everyday lives and don't have the opportunity to read and understand every nuance of this piece of legislation—if they are not well informed then that will be upon our heads to have given them a task to which they should not be asked to be equal. I say that with no patronising intent. Of course New Zealanders are very smart and probably the average New Zealander is smarter than the average MP. That's a suspicion I have had that has been rapidly confirmed at times but in any case the fact of the matter is it's not their job. It's ours and I think we should get on and do it. A colleague previously—it might have been the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has made the point about misunderstandings as regards the current law in terms of end of life. Of course that's quite correct and I'll add just briefly from a legal perspective that the current law already allows such measures as receiving pain relief that might none the less have the incidental effect of shortening life notwithstanding that that's not the primary purpose. Of course we can refuse life-sustaining treatment and so forth. Again that is already allowed for under New Zealand law—quite rightly—and that is not the subject of the bill. So the confusion that would surround that in relation to a referendum would be very unfortunate indeed. I spoke earlier about the tyranny of the majority and that was a phrase that Mark Patterson picked up in his contribution. I will at least acknowledge that in the case of New Zealand First they have advertised their position in terms of a referendum very clearly so their position at least is not a surprise to the average New Zealander as the position of some others in this House today will seemingly be. In talking about the tyranny of majority I am referring to the disproportionate effect on those members of the public who will become or who may become subject to the eligibility criteria. Obviously they are those with a terminal illness but more particularly those who suffer mental ill health. Depression is a common and indeed well-documented phenomenon in the case of people who have recently received a diagnosis for mental illness and of course there are those who have family members who do not display the filial piety to use Melissa Lee's delightful term in Korean which I shan't try and translate back. For all these reasons but perhaps most compellingly I think some of the arguments that Louisa Wall made—and I do think that she has made a very good diligent effort once again in terms of understanding and articulating her position on the bill. The divisive debate as she calls it I believe is inevitable. Particularly I fear for the unsavoury comments that would inevitably be made because they have already been made in relation to this topic whereby those who have a relatively short period of time left to live or who might have disabilities will be described by others as having lives not worth living and so forth and that is beyond unfortunate. I fear too about misinformation that the sponsor of the bill might put out. He's on record as saying inaccurately that the bill has a clean bill of health so to speak in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the last Attorney-General. That's not so. It was found to be discriminatory on the basis of age and it's unfortunate that he's been dishonest on that and I don't suppose that he will stop saying that particular untruth. For all these reasons and for all the reasons other colleagues have said I cannot support the referendum proposal.