Bishop ChrisCHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge my friend David Seymour the sponsor of this bill. All members of Parliament come here wanting to make a contribution for the betterment of New Zealand but not everyone manages to do so. David if this bill passes tonight and the referendum succeeds—and I believe both will—then you will have made an enormous contribution to New Zealand. You'll have made New Zealand a more compassionate society a more decent society a more humane society. People forget I think sometimes that this bill was actually drawn in the last Parliament. Two and a half years on we are debating the third reading. David has shepherded the bill through that arduous process. David I've known you for over 15 years. I know that you are deeply committed to a better and freer New Zealand. I'm proud to call you a mate.To the bill: my starting point when the bill was drawn was human agency and self-determination. I came into this Parliament as a liberal and I am determined to leave as a liberal. In my maiden speech I said that a fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual over the collective should be the lodestar that guides good Governments. I said that we should trust individuals more than we do and I stand by those words. This bill upholds individual dignity. It affirms individual autonomy. It sanctifies self-determination.I sat on the Justice Committee that considered this bill. I've had numerous people come and see me about it. I visited my local hospice. I've read widely on it. I've done my research. And I want to make five fundamental points that stand out for me at the end of this extended and long debate.The first point is that the status quo is or should be fundamentally intolerable to a civilised and humane society. Palliative care is a wonderful thing but it cannot end all pain and suffering. That was accepted by both sides of the argument in Seales v Attorney-General. Many doctors have come to see me; almost all accepted that there were rare circumstances when palliative care could not ease all suffering when people died horrible painful deaths. Those deaths are a reality we must recognise. I do not accept the argument that has been put by some that painful death is just something we should accept that it is God's will. Pain is a part of life but it seems cruel and heartless to not try and ameliorate suffering when we can do so.The second point I want to make is that in the absence of legalised assisted dying people take matters into their own hands. There is extensive research about this from both New Zealand and overseas. From 1900 to 2000 the research suggests that somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people rational competent and suffering a terminal illness. In a substantial number of those cases it was expressly found that the deceased had ended their life because they still retained the ability to do so but they believed they would not be able to do so if they waited any longer.The third point is that medically assisted dying happens now. That is a reality the House must recognise. Doctors admit it; the research supports it. We need to recognise that it happens already but now we have the chance—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to regulate it properly.The fourth point is that it is not beyond the wit of humans to design a system that stops terrible suffering by a few while avoiding harm to others. Two hundred million people live in a country or a jurisdiction with assisted dying laws. This bill has been through an extensive process. It has comprehensive safeguards based on international best practice. I believe it is a good bill.The fifth point that I want to stress is that the bill merely hastens death; on average by 10 days. We need to remember that people who qualify for eligibility are going to pass on anyway; they have a terminal illness. The evidence suggests it hastens death by 10 days. The evidence also suggests some people who are eligible will choose not to take it up but the knowledge they have the ability to do so to exercise that option is comfort enough.Tonight the House has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remove the invidious choice presented to some people under the status quo. We currently deny terminally ill people the choice of dying at a time of their choosing with their autonomy recognised and their dignity affirmed. Instead we give them an invidious choice: take your own life often dangerously or suffer needlessly. We can do better. Tonight we have the chance to do so.