Hudson BrettBRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I appreciate that. This is my first call on this bill as it's proceeded through. Unlike some members this was a topic that was raised very often during the election campaign in Ōhāriu. In fact I don't think I can recall a single public meeting where we weren't asked for our view on this bill. I said at that time—and I continue to maintain and it is my fundamental view—that people are their own independent beings. They are the masters of their own destiny. Where they are able to exercise choice in their lives they should be free to do so free from influence of Government. I'm a believer that less Government is more. We need as much Government in our life as necessary and no more. I hold the exact same view for the courts.My concerns that I expressed at the time were essentially in three areas. One was around the principle of safeguards particularly around coercion but also around a broad-based eligibility that could allow a simple choice other than for a cause that was going to be terminal in a more immediate sense. So it's to that particular matter that I want to turn in this contribution because I want to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 on Part 1 and particularly clause 4(1)(c) from the member in the chair David Seymour.The member has chosen and I know publicly he's stated that while it wasn't his preference and perhaps still isn't in order to achieve broad support for this bill he was prepared and has done so through this SOP to limit the scope of the eligibility for assisted dying under this bill and it restricts that solely to someone suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end that person's life within six months. That achieves all that I sought and I spoke to constituents at the time and since about the issue about broad-based eligibility and I commend the member for making that choice.It also in my view means that we don't face should this bill pass into law the issue of a judicially-based scope creep to this legislation. It simply can't happen. But it absolutely was a risk in my view when the grievous and irremediable condition existed because the only way that condition could've been properly tested would've been in a court. But the idea of suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end a person's life is a diagnosis from a suitably qualified medical practitioner. The scope for a court in the future to extend or broaden the scope of cover is fundamentally addressed through this change—and again I commend the member in the chair for doing so.I come to clause 4(2) an element which I think could be described as a belt and braces approach. I think clause 4(1)(c) sufficiently narrows the scope that 4(2) isn't absolutely necessary but I think it is helpful. It's helpful for members in this Chamber as we debate this but it's particularly helpful for members of the public who perhaps peruse legislation far less than we do to know with absolute certainty that these conditions will on their own—in fact while they're already excluded because of 4(1)(c) there's just that almost double statement which absolutely clarifies that position.So the member in his SOP to Part 1 has met one of my fundamental tests of Could I go from qualified and conditional support to a statement that the bill is moving in a direction where I can continue that support and support it quite strongly?" I can and I commend the member for listening to the concerns of other members of the public as well as members of this House. It will obviously change the scope quite considerably but it certainly I believe presents a bill to the House which is more acceptable to members particularly perhaps some members who have been somewhat equivocal in their support waiting to see as I was and have been the condition the state that this bill would exit this stage of proceedings before finally determining support or otherwise for it. So I certainly commend the member for the change he is proposing."