Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to speak to two parts of the bill the title and commencement clauses. In particular when I look at this title and the sponsor of the bill has talked and used words such as integrity" and "transparency" and yet when I think about the title of this bill the End of Life Choice Bill I would like to reframe it to what its true integrity is which is the "End Your Life Choice Bill" because that's exactly what it's all about.When you look through the bill only once does it mention the name of the bill. Throughout the rest of the bill what it says consistently is using the words and the terms "assisted dying". It uses terminologies "lethal doses" it uses "requested assisted dying" and "eligibility for assisted dying" consistently. So why is it that the member cannot when he uses the words "transparency" and "integrity" then name it for what it is; call it for what it is?In other jurisdictions around the world—if I look at the Netherlands for instance they call it "euthanasia" they call it "assisted suicide". The sponsor liked to use Latin words. Well the Latin word for suicide is—and they use the words "sui caedere" which actually means to kill oneself. People understand what it is. He nods his head. That's right; that's correct. So then if that's correct why use words that are misleading—End of Life Choice Bill? It's misleading to the public because we know that the end of life—of course in our mortal selves we will die. This is not about the End of Life Choice Bill this is the "Ending Your Life Choice Bill" and that's what you should name it.The sponsor should name it so that people can be clear. The thing about New Zealand First over there—in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361 they're very clear that they're indicating that there should be two choices. And the two choices are: will you vote yes for the End of Life Choice Bill and the Act that it is or no? Again it's misleading. It doesn't give the people the information and the understanding about what this bill will actually do and what it actually decides. If you want to use integrity if you want to use transparency then change the title to exactly what it is. In other jurisdictions they call it for what it is: assisted suicide.Why is it they won't use it? Because they know that in the terms of the public they would not accept that. If there was a referendum if there was a question out in the public that said "Do you choose this bill which is the End Your Life Choice Bill yes or no?" I believe there would be a different discussion. There would be a different response because then people would say "What do you mean 'end your life'?" Because that's exactly what this bill is doing. And you would say "Well what you are doing you are allowing for a medical practitioner to provide you with a lethal dose. In other words so that you would by your choice be killing yourself." Because that's exactly what it is.The terminology is called "suicide". There have been debates over the fact that—should we be using that in regards to the fact that we want to reduce youth and teenage suicide? The rate in the OECD for New Zealand is horrific. And people have said "No they're not the same." Of course they're the same. Youth workers have told us they are the same. So if that's the case then maybe the sponsor who shakes his head—if he wants us to use the words "integrity" and "transparency" he should say that this bill so that people are really clear—and I want New Zealand First to understand this. If you want the people in the public—and Mark Patterson said "when we cross that Rubicon" and he knows it is a Rubicon because once you get to the other side it's harder to reverse. That Rubicon will tell us this: the fact is that you are saying to the public that you are ending your life. That's the choice that you are making. Then why not change that inside your SOP? Why not make it really clear that that's what you're voting for?Why not also make it really clear that actually you're commissioning the Electoral Commission to inform the public through a process that we in this House have had to go through? If that's what you said—Mark Patterson you stood up and said that: "Trust the New Zealand public."—then trust them by informing them not just by allowing other people to set out rhetoric out there. Trust them by making sure that it's commissioned—the millions of dollars that it will cost to inform the public so that they can make a right decision. That's the difficult challenge that we're in.I want to finish off with this. People have talked about the different jurisdictions around the world where they call it "assisted suicide" and what they've come up with in the Netherlands for instance—16 percent of those who had assisted suicide deaths and euthanasia have had those deaths have come to the point where their people have suffered a horrific death. People have argued on the other side "Let it be compassionate. Let it be caring."—the reality is jurisdictions around the world have realised that actually that is not the case. I implore the people on the other side those of you that are there: this bill will do harm and if it does then vote against the referendum. Vote against the referendum so that we will not see this bill go into law."