Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Chair. I thought I should try to address some of the concerns raised by members as quickly as I can. First of all starting with Alfred Ngaro asking: does the second doctor have to be sure that the person is not coerced? Well yes they do because as I was at pains to stress in my opening contribution to this debate they have to make sure that the person at all times is a person eligible for assisted dying. That means a person who has decided in their view—no one else's in their view—that this is the best way to alleviate their suffering. So the answer to that question is: yes. Tim van de Molen gave as usual a very thoughtful contribution. I look forward to ongoing discussion with Tim about the details of the bill; no one's engaged more meticulously I have to say.To Harete Hipango she might like to know—in fact she will have seen in Part 1—that actually we have adopted part of the compulsory assessment and treatment Act the test for competence into the bill. But I'd also say to her and also to Melissa Lee that sometimes it's more important to focus on what actually brings us together our common humanity than try to continually put up distinctions between people. What I'd say is that the tests in this bill are the tests that any person should have to face before they can access assisted dying. Of course medical practitioners should be aware of the cultural nuances and expectations of different types of people. We don't need to put it in legislation every time we make a law; that is already an expectation for doctors up and down this country. Brett Hudson I'm glad we've got to the trifecta. I look forward to continuing the dialogue with you. Tim Macindoe said the doctors object. He held up a list of 1000 doctors that object. Tim there's 17000 doctors in New Zealand; 1000 is not actually very many. More generally scientific surveys of doctors have found that about a third are in favour about half are opposed and about one in six aren't sure. There are doctors in favour and doctors opposed just like almost every other group. We had Chris Penk effectively advocating for a panel of people to decide whether a person could access assisted dying. I think that is a misconception of what this bill is about; it is actually about choice. It's about the person being able to choose. There has been extensive debate and it's been researched and studied extensively by all sorts of jurisdictions—the most fulsome in recent findings were by the Parliament of Western Australia in their report where it's been found that in actual fact when you look at all the evidence the two-doctor model of having professional doctors who talk with the person who are used to making decisions about competence and consent is the correct way to establish a person's choice; not to have some sort of institutional panel put in place. Maggie Barry said that there are no penalties for failing to fill in a form. I direct Maggie Barry to clause 27 which sets out the penalties for failing to comply with any requirements in this bill including the many requirements to fill out forms and send them to the registrar—$10000 or three months in prison; you'd have to be pretty lazy to take that instead of filling out a form. She also asked me whether district health boards should have to fund assisted dying. Well that's actually a choice for district health boards. I don't know what will happen with particular district health boards. I suspect that some will choose to fund assisted dying services but the model of healthcare funding in New Zealand is subsidiarity and local decision-making and I support that model. If we look at what's happened overseas in Australia and Canada they have similar healthcare systems and structure and they work it out at a local level.Finally Simeon Brown asked whether there would be translation and whether there would be an obligation to provide translators. I think he's revealing a broader misconception about the bill. There are a series of obligations on doctors to ascertain that a person is a person eligible for assisted dying. If they require a translator to make sure that the person understands what's happening to talk with the person to communicate with them then they will have to either find a translator and actually ensure that they are having proper communication or assisted dying won't go ahead. So we find ourselves in a position where Simeon Brown if anything is helping to aid and abet assisted dying to go ahead by urging that there be translators so that people can get it even if they struggle with English Māori or New Zealand Sign Language. I think the point is that he has no concern here: a person with language difficulties won't be able to access assisted dying—it's not that they're going to unwittingly access it—because they wouldn't be able to fulfil the criteria of the bill if they couldn't communicate in English.So that's my answer to the various concerns that have been raised around the Chamber. I hope that they are satisfactory. I wonder if we might see a closure motion shortly after I resume my seat.