Penk Chris; Mallard TrevorCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): The End of Life Choice Bill so called seeks to establish a regime—let us be clear—to facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide in this country; respectively the act of ending the life of another through a lethal dose of medication or to do it to oneself. There are a number of questions we should ask ourselves in this House today.The first is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. Put another way the question is not whether it is possible to imagine whether a person who is competent in good mental health has a supportive family and whose first language is English the language of the death transaction might be able to make a choice and not be bullied into an early grave but rather whether it is possible to imagine others who lack such natural advantages. I can think of constituents in both categories and I acknowledge them all. The next question we might ask is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise the so-called choice absent other choices? A further question might be not whether the bill is better than it was before—less dangerous in other words—but whether it is good enough now.With regard to the referendum proposal that was inserted at the committee stage of the debate we ask ourselves: is it responsible for us as lawmakers to hand a loaded gun to fellow New Zealanders and say Don't worry I have applied the safety catch." knowing very well that for many New Zealanders the only words of the bill that they will ever read before such a referendum will be the title of the bill containing the euphemism that it does?Recent polling has indicated clearly that members of the general public quite understandably given that it is not their job but ours to understand and interrogate the details of such legislation misunderstand the nature of what it is that Mr Seymour is proposing. Seventy percent believe that the bill concerns itself with "Do not resuscitate" orders. In fact this is already legally and ethically accepted in New Zealand today. Seventy-four percent believe that the switching off of life support is within the remit of the bill notwithstanding that again legally and indeed ethically as far as the medical profession is concerned this is already perfectly legitimate in this country. Some seventy-two percent believe that the bill contains an exclusion for mental health precluding those who are suffering perhaps from depression having received a terminal illness diagnosis in recent times for example from accessing the provisions to make the choice as referred to in the bill.Even advocates for the bill—and I do not blame them for this; again it is our job and not theirs—often do not know the detail of the bill. I was speaking recently with one who spoke very passionately and articulately and frankly very well in support of the bill and urged me to support it. But she did not believe me when I said that it would be possible for a person to receive a diagnosis of terminal illness on a Wednesday gain the necessary approvals under the bill that same day and be dead before the weekend. I have double-checked as I had promised that constituent I would and I can confirm having read the bill that there is no stand-down period no time frame involved other than the 48 hours between the approval and the lethal dose of medication being administered.In the context of the referendum still—before I move on—we must face the prospect of misinformation by the sponsor of the bill David Seymour. He has previously said in this very House that the bill has received a clean bill of health from the Attorney-General. That much is not true. The Attorney-General was explicit in stating that it discriminates on the basis of age opening the possibility of a challenge through the courts. And this is the missing piece in the constitutional jigsaw puzzle that the sponsor of the bill has recently exposed his own ignorance upon. It would not be required as he has just said that a member of Parliament necessarily would have to in the future bring such a change to this House. There is misunderstanding by supporter MPs too who have claimed that it would be a matter for the family doctor of a person. There is no such provision in the bill requiring that a doctor who signs off the person whether the first or the second doctor need ever have met the person themselves before. If that sounds familiar it's because it was the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by a fellow MP who was concerned about the lack of meaningful safeguards. That SOP was not supported by the sponsor of the bill. It failed and accordingly the bill retains that outstanding requirement that shortfall. These are the myths and misunderstandings my fellow parliamentarians and my fellow New Zealanders that we will have to contend with if the sponsor's approach of full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes is adopted. It is not good enough.The support for the bill as expressed by its sponsor is predicated on a false choice. There is improving care and technology and pain management techniques allow the improvement naturally to continue. The words "There is no alternative" ring hollow. So too the syllogism that says "We must do something; this is something; therefore we must do it."There are other things that we can and should do in the context of end of life care. And there are things that we should not do as well—certainly those things that seek to solve one problem but substitute in its place many others. Whatever the result today it will not be available for members of this House to claim later that they did not know. Numerous SOPs proposed amendments have highlighted the outstanding defects and this has been the purpose or at least the result of the committee stage of the House.Key issues remain and I make no claim that this is an exhaustive list but merely some of the more important. No independent witnesses are required at any stage of the process including at the death—independent witnesses being of course those who are not involved in the decision-making process and of course the person themselves for obvious reasons would not be available as a witness later. In contrast Victoria's equivalent law requires at the administration stage both the request and the lethal dose a witness. So too in Oregon—in fact two witnesses in that case—and likewise in Victoria and Canada.Another such point: the person eligible doesn't need to be mentally competent when the lethal dose is administered. Thereby we've passed up an opportunity in this House to rectify the bill such that a person is now denied the opportunity effectively to reverse their decision having made it when they were deemed competent—noting of course that the threshold for competence is so low as merely being that they understand the nature and consequences and can express that at some time. There is no prescribed cooling-off period. Forty-eight hours merely between the administration of the lethal dose of medication following the initial approval as I have stated earlier is a common misunderstanding whereas by contrast in Oregon it is some 15 days; nine days in Victoria; and 10 in Canada. Again if this sounds familiar it's because we made this very proposal in the committee stage and again it was rejected by the sponsor of the bill and others who supported him in doing so. So it is that we do not have that sort of cooling-off period that protection and it is particularly relevant in the context of evidence that we have heard that mental ill health—particularly and explicitly depression—often follows immediately after the diagnosis of a terminal illness only to pass at least in some cases. Contrary to the claim of the sponsor of the bill only the attending medical practitioner needs to check for coercion. The second doctor—the independent medical practitioner so-called—has no such requirement under the bill. I could go on. Given time constraints I will not but even if there were no other defects—and please believe me when I say that there are—these alone would be sufficient to indicate in my mind that we have a very troubling answer to our question that I asked previously which is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise this so-called choice absent other choices? I'll finish with a run-through of the bill by the numbers: 39000 approximately is the number of submissions a record received by the select committee; 90 percent—more than in fact—those opposed to the bill. Those who knew enough or cared enough to get in touch with the committee and express a view opposed it overwhelmingly. The number 40—that's the number of clauses in the bill as compared with 143 in the equivalent Victorian legislation. So when we heard earlier from supporters of the bill that not too much scrutiny was required because there were relatively few clauses that is quite clearly absurd in the context of that which is not in the bill being as significant as that which is. The question is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. We don't know the number of people that will be coerced into an early death but we do know that it is not zero. I oppose this bill. [Interruption] SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I just make it very clear to members of the public in the gallery that participation in this debate is limited to members of Parliament. The Hon Grant Robertson—a five-minute call."