Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. Good call. I did actually earlier say that I have four Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in my name and I'd like to now move and speak on Supplementary Order Paper 364 and it might actually assist some of my colleagues whose SOPs have been ruled out. I guess I was being a little bit facetious when I actually wanted to replace a full stop in clause 24(1)(c) page 17 line 10 with a colon but that is actually to facilitate a new clause (d): freedom of religion or belief or to manifest their religion or belief as set out in sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990." The end of life choice as I said earlier and many of my colleagues have also agreed is actually a life or death decision. This is finality if someone actually makes a mistake. This amendment is to ensure that "the religious cultural and faith-based customs of persons will not be affected by the implementation of this Bill." Earlier my colleague Alfred Ngaro talked about some of the cultural issues that are actually faced by medical doctors and if I can perhaps bring some personal experiences that I have actually experienced in my lifetime in New Zealand when I was earlier in my—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no no. Good try. MELISSA LEE: I am trying to relate it back to the mistakes that the doctors could actually make. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well no. No. We're past that. We want you to be debating your SOP in this particular part of the bill. MELISSA LEE: Yes the End of Life Choice Bill—to ensure that the religious cultural and faith-based customs of a person will not be affected. I'm trying to actually say if you listen to me and if you could indulge me—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am listening to you. MELISSA LEE: Yes. For example—and I'm bringing some of the experiences that I've had—when I interpreted for a student who was actually in trouble with the school and when they were called into the principal's office their head was bowed down and their eyes were cast down and the interpretation of the principal of that behaviour was that they were in fact guilty. They were not; they were just paying respect to the principal. These are some of the differences in our culture in our languages and sometimes when a doctor is actually asking a patient "Do you not have pain?" when the patient says "Mm-hmm." that does not actually mean that they do not have pain nor does it actually mean that they have pain—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): We're not debating that part of the bill. MELISSA LEE: These are cultural issues—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Melissa Lee we are not debating that part of the bill. We're past that. We're now on Part 4. You're talking about clause 24 which is other rights and duties that aren't affected—if you could just focus on that. MELISSA LEE: Yes and I appreciate you clarifying that and I was just trying to actually talk to the amendment that I have just presented. If I could actually move on to support my colleague Maggie Barry's Supplementary Order Paper 374 where it replaces clause 25. Clause 25 basically talks about a person and if they in fact die as a result of the provision of assisted dying. It actually says in clause 25 "(a) taken to have died as if assisted dying had not been provided; and (b) taken to have died from—(i) the terminal illness referred to in section 4(c)(i) from which they suffered; or (ii) the grievous and irremediable medical condition referred to in section 4(c)(ii) from which they suffered:". What Maggie Barry is actually trying to do in effect by replacing that clause with her amendment is to suggest that we should not actually try and hoodwink the actual reason why someone had in fact died. In effect this bill of David Seymour's is trying to say that the person did not in fact die from a lethal dose of a poison. What they're actually saying is that for the purposes of someone claiming an insurance policy they do not actually say the real reason why that person had in fact died and it is actually trying to say that that person did not die as a result of an end of life choice decision and what the doctors had in fact done to them as a result of their request. That to me is actually a lie and I do not think that legislation should facilitate the falsehood that this law is actually trying to—[Time expired]"