SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I stand to rise and I do want to introduce a new conversation and debate on a part that hasn't been debated and that is in clause 11. Clause 11 talks about a second opinion to be given by an independent medical practitioner. Where this becomes important is that I would like to ask the member in the chair David Seymour because he states quite clearly and has debated in this committee and in the Hansard that part of the safety mechanism is that there will be two medical practitioners. But as I read this I want to question that and I'd like the member in the chair to actually respond to it because in clause 8 it actually talks about the request that is made—8(h) talks and it requires this: do their best to ensure that the person expresses their wish free from pressure from any other person". So that's the point of coercion. That's been the conversation and the debate that we've had in the committee. We all accept that; we understand that. But the member did say in this Chamber and on record that there were going to be two medical practitioners. But what it cites is the fact that both medical practitioners will then identify whether there has been coercion. As I read this all it asks for the second medical opinion from that practitioner is just to decide whether that person is eligible for euthanasia for assisted dying. That doesn't actually say that they have to also too ensure that they are what you call free from coercion free from any pressure. I think that's significant. I think that's important because the member has consistently said he's had a double safeguard in place. That is not how I read this clause inside the bill. I'd like the member to be able to answer that question. He's often talked about the member the duty of care we should be taking. But I'd like to remind the member and in fact just recently he actually in his comments quoted about the extensive submissions—in fact nearly 39000 submissions. In fact it was a quote with Ian McKelvie and it was in regards to the amount of time that he'd spent. What he doesn't quote inside of that is that 91 percent—in fact 91.4 percent—opposed the bill.Let's talk about the health practitioners because he has often talked about the health practitioners. This clause talks about the medical practitioners. Madam Chair 93.5 percent of those who gave an opinion on this bill and in particular that which would relate to this clause oppose the bill. So the member can stand up in the committee. He can try and convince us that this has the support of those that are out there but already we've seen that there is a huge support for those who oppose this bill.The member also talked about the fact and in his comments of there being no evidence. I'd like the member to also stand up and quote from the research that shows there is no evidence because we can quote from research that there is evidence of coercion. There is evidence of the fact that there has been non-consent for those—and we'll take the Belgian study for instance as an example. In that Belgian study it recorded that of those that were surveyed nearly 32 percent of those were non-consent. Now the member can shake his head but I'd like for him to quote his surveys his reports. He hasn't been able to do that inside this House. This relates to this aspect of this part of clause 11 and it relates to the duty of care. Again I keep coming to this House—and I want to reiterate that we have said in the second reading many members have said let it do due justice. Let's have due diligence to allow us to debate in this House. This has had the largest number of submissions. I want to read from one of those submissions because people took the time to not only have a written submission but oral submissions were submitted—the largest number of any other bill in the 165 years of this Parliament. I believe it deserves the debate and the time that should be given—more than just a couple of hours—to debating this bill. Here's what one of the general practitioners of many had to say: "I am greatly concerned how the legislation of euthanasia will impact doctors and other health professionals across the country. The great majority of New Zealand doctors are opposed to this bill." A number of them have also said that they are not trained to detect coercion. QCs and lawyers have said the same thing so how can we be sure—how can this bill be safe? This is the challenge to the members on the other side. For those who are questioning about whether we should support this bill we all have a duty of care to ensure that we do no harm. If you believe that the safeguards are not in place then you should oppose this bill. You should oppose the changes and amendments that are there because they do not provide what I believe and what 39000—93 percent of those health practitioners—believe. This bill will do harm to those who are vulnerable in our communities."