Ngaro Alfred; Mallard TrevorHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. New Zealand Parliament was first constituted on 26 May 1854. The very first debate was not about sheep or banking or even education. In fact the very first debate was actually about prayer. In Hansard it records There should be an acknowledgment of dependence on the Divine Being and that prayers should be made for a blessing on their labours". Since that day for over 165 years we have had—though slightly paraphrased and recently changed but the key principles remain the same as you have presided in this place—these words "Laying aside all personal interests we pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand." There is no better set of guiding principles that should reflect how we conduct ourselves as MPs in the House of Representatives—in the Parliament of New Zealand.There are three principles here: we must put aside our own personal interest and consider the interests of the minority and the majority; secondly we must conduct the affairs with wisdom and humility—in other words avail ourselves of the best evidence with robust debate—and thirdly we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation that is ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. I ask that we as 120 MPs in this Parliament elected by party or electoral vote consider those principles as we debate and eventually decide on this bill. The choosing of death over life—it doesn't get any more serious than this. I want to then frame my speech on these three principles.Firstly putting all personal interests aside. This bill is personal and affects all of us. I want to acknowledge the stories we have shared in this House. I want to honour the memories of those we have loved and those we have lost. Every day in this Parliament we have to scrutinise the merits of any legislation. We also have to take into account a wider set of views and not just our own. I want to challenge the comments that were made "Let the public choose through the referendum." We have had 39000 views shared through the submissions process—the largest in 165 years of this Parliament. Over 90 percent have opposed this bill. The public have spoken: 93.5 percent of all health practitioners submitted against this bill and said that it was in their words unsafe. There were 1800 oral submissions over those 23 months in which people around the country wanted to be heard wanted to make their views known. Again over 90 percent opposed this bill. Many organisations who are at the coalface of providing aged and palliative care like Hospice New Zealand are strongly opposed to this bill because and in their words "It is unsafe." This is the tyranny of the minority because you see the majority have spoken. Never before have we had a majority of voices of opinions of those who are right across the whole of the health sector and of our community who have spoken strongly. Ninety percent is by far a majority that cannot remain silent in this House.The second principle: we must conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility. In other words avail ourselves of the best evidence with robust debate. There are significant differences between this End of Life Choice Bill and the laws in Oregon Victoria and Canada. Several of these differences and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) addressing them were rejected during committee stage without being debated. Many members of Parliament in this House in the second reading declared that due diligence should happen—a robust debate—but on many occasions that was not the case. Members abdicated the opportunity to debate to ask questions to make this bill safer than what it was when it came into this House. That was not the case.I want to just point out three of these points that actually indicate why this bill is unsafe especially to the medical practitioners that are out there. First of all there is no independent witness required at any stage of the process including at death. SOP 211 was rejected without debate. In contrast in Victoria's law it requires a witness at the administration request and a witness at the administration of the lethal dose. In fact in Oregon two people are needed to witness the signing of the written request. It is also two in Victoria and in Canada.The no prescribed cooling-off period such as the minimum of 15 days in Oregon nine days in Victoria 10 days in Canada—that cooling-off period is the opportunity where people may change their mind and their opinion. The only time frame specified in this bill is 48 hours from the writing of the prescription to the chosen time of death.Specialist medical knowledge is not required in this bill. Neither of the two doctors need to be trained or experienced in the area of the person's illness or have vocational registration. This is not the case in Victoria or the case in Oregon. The Victorian legislation is far more restrictive than what is being proposed here with 68 safeguards and a planned review after five years. Those of us that argued in this House on the premise that this bill would be compassionate and safe—it does neither of these things. In other words the majority of the health practitioners and as has been said in this House 1500 who voted against this bill simply said this: "Say no to this bill." Why? Because it is unsafe. Are there others? Seventeen health practitioners—17 doctors only—against 1500. That is the majority.Thirdly we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation. That is to ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. Laws are supposed to protect us all but they are only useful if they are safe and practical. Everyone deserves a healthcare system based in a compassionate community that looks after all aspects of their wellbeing. This is what we should be focused on rather than this bill. Modern dying is a public health issue that we need to better address together in order to alleviate our shared human suffering. I want to quote some words from Dr Aileen Collier who is a clinical nurse and specialist in international research and education in palliative care in New Zealand. She states "I am deeply concerned about the proposed change in law. Most people who support this bill do so because they want to defend people's right to choose but I can tell you now that if you pass this bill people will make this choice to die due to an absence of other choices. It might be social isolation financial worries not wanting to be a burden concern about placement in aged residential care."Equity of palliative and end of life care is a significant issue for Māori and Pacific. We know there are substantial issues across healthcare for Māori. We have a duty of care. Can I remind the House that it was this member David Seymour this sponsor who also voted down the cultural competencies which are in practice—are in law—at the moment in the way we deal with Māori and Pacific and other ethnic groups. This member voted that down would not allow this to come through. So where is the compassion? What will happen to those who are vulnerable in our communities? This is an unsafe bill. You might think you want freedom of choice but I'm asking you to consider those who lack that freedom and I ask: how many people without access to real choices are we prepared to allow to die for the benefit of a privileged few who have a voice?In my summary I state this: upon the walls of this Chamber are the plaques which recognise over 100 years of war. The decision to send our soldiers into harm's way meant we had to be sure there was absolutely no other alternative. We abolished the death penalty for capital punishment in 1989 because we knew that we could get it wrong and people who were innocent could die. I ask that all of us hold ourselves under the same level of accountability. I want us to urge all 120 members of this Parliament: can we guarantee that this bill will do no harm? If there is even a fraction of doubt then vote No to this bill. Do not allow this bill to change the social values of this country. The sponsor of the bill has already admitted there will be some unfortunate casualties for the greater good. This bill will do harm. This bill will ensure that we change the value of life in our communities and in our nation. There is the tyranny of the minority here today but it is our opportunity. I ask and I urge all members of this House "Laying aside all personal interests we pray for guidance in our deliberations that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand." I oppose this bill. [Applause in gallery]SPEAKER: Order!"