Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much indeed. I sense a feeling of relief across the committee. It is interesting that the member has started on the theme of safeguards à la Parts 1 and 2. It's a bold move from him given that it's been clearly established in the debates on Parts 1 and 2 before such time as they were shut down that in fact it is exactly the question of safeguards that we should be considering and the flimsiness thereof that has been exposed. So Madam Chair I can only wonder at the member taking three calls consecutively and seeking a fourth. And I wonder if by trying to pre-empt discussion and debate on the various Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) he wasn't trying to shut the debate down in the manner of proposing a closure motion on his own debate at 9.45 the last time we met for this purpose.Perhaps just before I get on to speaking very specifically about the particular provisions of Part 3 may I appeal to those in the Chamber including those watching those who are in favour of the principle of euthanasia and assisted suicide and who might come to that position from a philosophical basis of choice—which is understandable of course as far as it goes—that before we start to consider aspects such as coercion and undue influence and say nevertheless that if the provisions of Part 3 like those of Part 1 and Part 2 and—spoiler alert—Part 4 are shown to be unequal to the task that is required in order to have a safe piece of legislation and that they take those very seriously indeed in relation to the SOPs in voting on this part and indeed ultimately the third and final reading of this bill.I'd like to speak specifically initially—another spoiler alert; I'd like to speak also not initially but continuing throughout the night—on the subject of SOP 345 in the name of my excellent colleague Agnes Loheni. Agnes proposes that and I quote The Minister must publish in a manner readily accessible to the public an up-to-date list of the members of the Review Committee including at minimum a brief description of the relevant qualifications and experience of each member." The purpose of this it seems to me is to provide a measure of assurance accountability—seeing as the supposed theme of the part is a manner of accountability—whereby those who are comprising the review committee are themselves capable of at least some measure of review. We're reviewing the reviewers by this suggestion such that we're not simply asking the New Zealand public who will be interested in this matter generally and of course more specifically those who themselves might be considering what assisted dying as it's called euphemistically might mean for them and of course their loved ones. So for those who have an interest which is potentially every single New Zealander in the matter for those people it's important to know that those who will be reviewing the operation of the Act and the specific operation in so far as particular cases are concerned those people must be known to be experienced and qualified in a manner that is appropriate. Other SOPs deal with what those kinds of qualifications and experience might look like and I won't pre-empt that debate for later this evening no doubt from other colleagues as well except to say that if I were to revert to the classic aphorism that justice must not only be done but also must be seen to be done—so it is that in this case regarding the review committee we have to conclude that it's important that we have a degree of accountability and transparency such that they will be able to do the very serious job the significant task that they have which is to provide at least some measure of accountability and indeed review under the law. The experience from overseas Madam Chair—I suspect I won't get much opportunity to go into in this call but I will seek to continue that by way of another call later when others have had a chance to have a crack. But the experience of overseas just by way of highlighting the debate to come has been around the fact that abuses naturally have occurred and will occur. Overseas in Belgium for example notwithstanding that Belgium is a very different country and has for example obviously a different language in which the Act would be administered—none the less they are humans there too as we are and as such human nature would apply such that the excess of those in a position of power and responsibility must be checked must be understood must be reviewed."