Adams AmyHon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Mr Speaker thank you. I do want to come down and speak tonight in this debate. It is an incredibly important issue for this Parliament and not an easy one; one that is complex difficult emotional and one in which all MPs have been actively engaged thinking being lobbied discussing. I want to first of all thank the member who has brought the bill David Seymour. It is courageous—and I don't mean that in the Yes Minister sense but truly courageous—to take a stance on something you know will be so divisive and difficult. But there is clearly a mood in the public of New Zealand for Parliament to have this debate. It's not the first time it's come but it's certainly the time that I think the public has sent such a clear message that they want to see this Parliament properly consider this issue and so I thank the member for doing that. As he said himself he probably had no idea quite what he was getting into when he took it on but he has been tireless in it.It's almost trite to say it's a complex issue. Of course it's a complex issue. There is probably almost no more complex issue but that doesn't mean we can shy away from it. I want to speak very personally as to how I see this issue and my position is clear in one sense and not in another—clear in that I absolutely believe there should be a method by which the terminally ill can choose their time and the manner of their death. That is a belief that I hold but it is not unfettered and I don't say that without recognising the challenges around it. At the same time though I find that the bill in its present form is not one that I think is ready to be passed into law. But what I am going to do is vote for it at the second reading because I think the select committee for a range of reasons—and it's certainly not a criticism of the members—failed to do what the select committee would normally do and work through the bill's deficiency. I think the bill deserves that. I think the bill has the kernels in it of what could be a good system but I don't think it's there yet. So I want to be very clear that my support is to see it progressed to the committee stage and to allow there to be an opportunity for the bill to be amended in ways that I think would remedy some of my concerns. Principally I do not support at all the extension to grievous and irremediable suffering as is currently in the bill. In my view there could be a workable scheme devised to allow people for whom death is inevitable and is imminent to as I say choose the time and method of their own death. The bill is currently far wider than that and I think the concerns that have been raised with me by the mental health community and by the disability community in particular are valid. I do have real concerns as to how that could work. But should the bill be constrained to be truly end of life and allowing people as I say for whom death is already inevitable and imminent to have some say in how that works I support that. I do not believe the State has a role in how people choose to experience their last days on earth. All of us are affected by our own experiences in this issue. For me it was watching my mother die a gruesome painful and dehumanising death and it wasn't because there was a lack of palliative care. It wasn't because there wasn't every opportunity and every drug available and if she'd wanted to spend her last days drugged to the eyeballs feeling nothing I'm sure that was possible but that isn't what she wanted. What she wanted was to be able to choose exactly when that end would come in the last few days and that's really all we were talking about. This was a woman who was proud independent intelligent who knew what she wanted and the last thing she wanted was to be able to have the ability to choose the time of her death. Instead we watched her literally get eaten alive from a vicious melanoma and suffer as I say in immeasurable ways. There should be the opportunity to work out if we can devise a scheme in which that sort of suffering doesn't need to happen. Now I'm not blind to the very real challenges around coercion and they do need to be looked at. I've spoken with the member around how we enhance the coercion controls in the bill and as I said I do think there are some significant changes that need to be made. But I strongly am of the view that this Parliament owes it to the people of New Zealand who have said they want this issue properly looked at and debated. We owe it to them to have a chance to get this bill into a workable stage and to allow those actually I believe very few people who will necessarily take up this choice. None the less it is one that the State should stay out of and let them find a way to choose the time and place of their own death. So I support the bill at second reading and I look forward to its progress.