Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise and take a call on this and like my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry I am concerned and it is with a heavy heart that the consideration by other members of Parliament has not been heeded to in regards to the fact that in the second reading speeches many people said they would allow due diligence. The debates have only been held on one side of the House predominantly. And I'm concerned about that because as we go into this title and commencement phase the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been put forward by Jenny Marcroft to me actually is irresponsible. It's irresponsible in a number of different ways. SOP 361 actually then puts the responsibility now on to those members of the public who—by the way of almost 39000 submissions already made the largest in 165 years of New Zealand's Parliament 91.8 percent voted against. They spoke out against this right across the board. These are health practitioners; these are those who are there in hospices offer palliative care; and even those community members spoke out against this. Why are we now using this form of a referendum to justify the fact that we need to hear the voice of the public when the public have already made their voice heard? Also too in regards to this SOP let's think about the health practitioners that actually spoke out. I want MPs to hear this quite clearly because you may not have been there on the Justice Committee. I wasn't there on all of them; I was on some of them. But we heard quite clearly from 93.5 percent of the health practitioners who said that this bill is unsafe. When are we going to be held to account as legislators? Like the Hippocratic oath for those who are health practitioners part of the principle of care is that you shall do no harm. And in this bill if there is even the smallest proportion where there is the ability where harm could be had to others in our community then surely you should be voting No to this bill. That's what we should be doing. If there is any portion any opportunity where no" could be there and hence the reasons why these SOPs 361 and 287 in my mind and my belief are irresponsible—to put that responsibility.Jenny Marcroft has actually said in her comments that this affects the fabric of our society. Absolutely it does. It changes the way we see and value those in our community who are vulnerable those who are sick. And in other jurisdictions around the world we've already heard that this has been the case. Professor Theo Boer came from the Netherlands which has had this form of euthanasia legislation for almost the longest of any other country. And here's what he said. Initially he was in favour. Now he is opposed. Why—because it is not safe. So to the legislators on the other side I ask you I plead with you: hear the 39000 submissions that said no. Hear the health practitioners that said no. Hear people like Professor Theo Boer who came across who've had this legislation in their country and they said and he said say no. Why—because it is not safe enough.I want to read just in my time that I have left from Professor Margaret Somerville a professor of bioethics from Sydney and Montreal in Canada where they currently have this legislation. And here's what she said: "The passage of euthanasia legislation is not inevitable." There's a lot of talk around the place to say this is going to happen anyway. Here's what she said: "[It's] not inevitable." In fact there are only 67 jurisdictions around the world that actually support this. "But defeating it depends on politicians being fully and adequately informed and understanding what they're unleashing [when] they do this." So what is it that we should be doing to the public? Now Jenny Marcroft talked about using MMP as an equivalent. Well let's remember then—in her SOP why isn't she mandating there'd be at least two years as the Electoral Commission had actually put in place to inform the public of the complexities of MMP? Surely she cannot be saying that even through a term of Parliament politicians submissions that have been held—that even then they could not come to a full agreement. Why would she want to unleash a complex and difficult and social-impacting decision on to a public by a yes or a no where clearly the polls really show that people still do not understand?So in my submission here I would like to say that it is irresponsible for the SOPs 287 and 361 to be unleashed on to the public. A referendum is not the way to go in this situation. And it's interesting the supporter of the bill—when in other cases I've heard her speak out against New Zealand First in using this. However this is a vehicle and a pathway of convenience purely to get David Seymour's bill across. I say to the members on the other side "Do the due diligence. If in your hearts you know that this bill is not safe enough do not unleash this on to our country and into our nation where it will do harm to our communities.""