Sio Hon Aupito WilliamHon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Mr Speaker thank you for the opportunity. We in this House are generally unequivocal in our support for fundamental freedoms and human rights. We support the right to work; the right to live free of discrimination; the right to health housing education justice social and economic wellbeing. As a nation we support the principle of solidarity and we pool our resources to ensure these rights are promoted and protected. We support the right to religious freedom. We support the right to life. We support the right to control what happens to a person's body and to make medical decisions for themselves. We want these rights for everyone but one can't protect collective rights unless we also protect individual rights.Tonight most of us will cast a conscience vote on the End of Life Choice Bill. This conscience vote means we are to use our own individual moral sense of right and wrong to cast a vote on a matter that's often highly sensitive or will potentially divide our communities. This is where it becomes complicated. We are given the opportunity to cast our vote based on our individual moral sense of right and wrong on an issue that's important to a section of our society but we are doing it in the political arena. The political arena complicates things because it isn't a simple yes or no answer. Other parties have come to a consensus to vote as a block.At my first reading speech I had outlined that this wasn't a new issue and the previous Parliament had already undergone a rigorous comprehensive review and it got declined by the previous Parliament. Mr Seymour has picked it up afresh and has secured considerable support through this House at first and second reading. I want to acknowledge those who seek to get this bill passed for the pursuit of their personal right and autonomy of decision making. I acknowledge the submissions that I have received both for and against for the passing of this End of Life Choice Bill. I thank the submissions from individuals and religious leaders of church organisations. I understand the concerns that they've raised and appreciate the respectful manner in which many have raised their concerns.May I say to those who have argued strongly for or against based on their strong beliefs religious or otherwise I ask them to consider that all of us fundamentally have free agency. All of us have the right to make choices; the right to choose for ourselves. Just because one feels strongly about their own personal beliefs doesn't give them the right to try and force their will on others or abuse others who hold a different view.I absolutely have no opposition to their right to hold or share their beliefs but I ask that it be done with an appreciation that we must also cherish the right for people to choose and recognise the gift of free agency that belongs to everyone. Sometimes we see an intolerance of other people's beliefs and bullying or threatening behaviour towards those who have a different belief. We must pursue a state where we can debate with persuasion and still maintain peaceful and respectful relationships. After all we are all connected and what happens to one group will affect another group.I want in particular to acknowledge the submissions of many in the medical profession in New Zealand and those whose occupations it is to provide care to the sick the young the elderly and disabled. I acknowledge that when they have made a personal commitment to dedicate their lives in the work of caring saving and protecting other people's lives the passage of this bill raises genuine concerns for them and that workforce. I support the right to life; however I also support the right of those who seek to have the autonomy to end their lives who are suffering from a terminal illness. How then does one compromise between two opposing fundamental principles: protecting the right to life versus the autonomy to end one's life? Whilst we cherish and champion fundamental human rights in this place we in this political arena often will pass laws that attempt to balance out the protection of individual human rights against the taking away of the rights from the few. We do this all the time in the political arena.Finally in my search for guidance I have looked into my own cultural framework of decision making. Our Pacific MPs are divided on this and there's nothing wrong with that. I have a different world view. The Samoan word for health is soifua maloloina. It literally means life in a state of wellbeing or wellness. The death of one affects the group especially the next generation. Therefore weighty decisions are made by the collective in consideration of the impact on the individuals' lives in that collective especially the young ones. The Samoan way of decision making is a collective decision-making. One's autonomy has to be balanced out with the effects and impact it has on individuals of that collective.As the son of an elderly father of 81 years of age and not at his best health-wise I'm reminded by my covenant carved on my body: as long as any of my parents are alive I am bound to do all I can to provide them with soifua maloloina. For that reason I'm voting no.