Carter DavidRt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair as this is the first time I've spoken when you yourself have been in the Chair can I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your position. I have no doubt you'll do a superb job and it is just another accolade in what has been a very significant parliamentary career that you've had since you came here in the 1993 election.Can I just take this opportunity to make some opening comments on this particular legislation and I do so because I was overseas at the second reading debate when I would've liked to have had the opportunity to state my position. I don't intend to take numerous calls through the debate but I will oppose this legislation and I'll oppose it for one significant reason: I cannot be assured that there won't be some elderly person who is coerced into accepting assisted dying. In saying that I want to acknowledge the work that David Seymour has done with this bill. I know that he has attempted to take away that risk but I don't believe anybody can give me 100 percent assurance a guarantee that in the future if this legislation is passed some person won't be pressured—maybe quite deliberately by family; maybe almost subconsciously by family—into feeling that they take pressure off a family situation by euthanising themselves or agreeing to be euthanised.I want to also acknowledge as this debate has progressed through the House the very strongly held views on both sides of the argument and I respect each and every one of you for your strongly held views. That's why it's a conscience debate. I've seen this legislation now come before this House—this is the third occasion and as with any of the conscience debates we have in this House I think we have some of the best-quality debates that we have at any time that I've been a member of Parliament. So I look forward to the debate as it develops and wherever the result goes I respect the democracy of this House. I'll respect the views that are finally espoused through the debate and the result that is agreed to.A lot of people say that as people are in their last days you wouldn't treat an animal like that and I accept that argument. I've farmed for well over 40 years. I've sadly taken a number of my working dogs to the vet to have them put down because they were at the end of their life and suffering but I don't think you can have an analogy between a veterinary process and this legislation. Medical science is far better than that and I do not accept that anybody should suffer in their final days. I think the ability of medical care the palliative medical industry is responsible for making sure people can live with dignity in their final hours.On Monday of this week I visited a friend who has not got many days to go; he is dying of cancer. I went through primary school with this man I went through secondary school with this man I've been associated with him in a business sense throughout his working life and as we talked to him—I certainly didn't raise the issue of euthanasia but he knew he didn't have long to go. But he was using that time incredibly profitably in that he was spending time with his family with his business acquaintances. He was clearly preparing everything in a very logical methodical way to make sure his wife and only son were left in a very tidy position. He was on medication—he talked about that. He wasn't suffering. He was using those final days in the best way possible.So I don't as I said at the start intend to take lengthy calls. I just wanted to take the opportunity of explaining quite clearly to the committee why I respect the views of Mr Seymour and those that will argue with some passion for this legislation. I will not vote for it for the simple reason that I fear someone will be coerced at some stage in the future into feeling they have to accept this option—deep down they probably did not want to.