O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'm very delighted of a sort to take a call on Part 4. It's called Related matters" obviously because that's what it's titled. There are some substantial elements to this as there have been with all elements of the bill. So I actually want to start particularly around clause 28. I'm very happy to be corrected—that allows me to talk on some of the schedules the related parts on the schedules? CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mmm. SIMON O'CONNOR: Tremendous. Clause 28 both in what returned from the Justice Committee from Part 4 and as also affirmed on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 269 in someone's name has effectively moved what were amendments to other pieces of legislation—such as the Burials and Cremations Act—out of the bill proper and into the Schedule section. And there are two elements I want to raise on what is on SOP 269. Firstly to do with the Schedule in Part 1 we have in the proposed clause 46CA a certificate of the cause of death and in clause 46CA(2) we have a rather backwards-looking piece of text here—and the member in the chair might care to understand or opine. It talks about the medical practitioner or nurse practitioner—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm sorry to interrupt the member. In whose name is SOP 269? SIMON O'CONNOR: I don't know actually. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Are you sure it's not 259? SIMON O'CONNOR: Oh apologies: SOP 259. I'm not wearing my glasses. Actually strangely if I might the piece of paper itself says SOP 259 but at the bottom of the document it says "269—2/SOP 25"—apologies. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): That's all right. SIMON O'CONNOR: Sorry without my glasses—Hon Clare Curran: Do you want to borrow mine? SIMON O'CONNOR: I'm tempted but then it's a vanity issue. I'm happy to put that on the record. Anyway vanitas vanitatum. So what clause 46CA on SOP 259—and thank you Madam Chair—looks to do is reference "medical practitioner" or "nurse practitioner". Now in and of itself that's not a problem but those in the House who've been here a little while will know that we passed a piece of legislation around basically replacing terms like "medical practitioner" with "health practitioner". So we've ended up with a rather perverse dynamic I'd suggest here of actually limiting those who are available to actually sign the certificate of death. I would like to know whether the member in the chair is conscious that he has actually limited things here—and maybe it's for a good reason. But again what we did a couple of years ago was to make sure that where once documents related to the certification of death were only the purview of a medical practitioner—particularly for those maybe not as versed in health a medical practitioner is effectively and solely a doctor—we changed the law to mean that actually anyone who is a health practitioner and that would include nurse practitioner would be included. So I raise that as an option there: that actually we amend it. I might table an amendment later to try and tidy that up. I think it would be more in line with existing legislation. I think the member who took the initial call was talking up that this particular Schedule coming out of clause 28 links clause 28 is meant to align things. If that is true then there should be an amendment to clause 46CA(2) to basically say "a health practitioner who is available to the person must before the death give the certification." The next element that's in this Schedule which in turn relates to clause 28 is in Part 2. It's something I've had a problem with for a long long time. It's in relation to births deaths marriages and relationships registrations. It's always rather long but the second subparagraph there of new regulation 7(1)(a)(xiiia)—or "13a" if you take out the Roman parlance—is to indicate that the person died of their terminal illness. That is completely inaccurate. I would ask that that be removed. The person in a euthanasia assisted suicide situation does by definition not die of their terminal illness. If they were to die of their terminal illness they'd be dead. They die because someone has injected them with a poison and a muscle relaxant—or in other cases sedation initially in their cup of tea followed by the prescribed drug. So this is a falsity and I think it's disrespectful to the Parliament and to good legislation that we're effectively lying here. As I say it's not what killed them. If we carry on. So once we've let's say accepted that deliberate falsity we then have to—which I think is positive. Subparagraph (xiiic) talks about the interval between the onset of death and the cause. I think that is fantastic. As I've said in the House a few times most people think that when you're being euthanised or assisted to suicide it's quick. That's not the case. People can last for days. I think that'll be important for that to be recorded. It's possibly another tabled amendment to that because you do have—it is rare—the rare situations where someone will take or be injected with the poison—a barbital usually—and they actually vomit it up. It's all quite messy but they in a sense recover and so they have to be euthanised a second time. There's a lack of clarity whether or not in that case they would take the initial act of suiciding and continue until it's finished the second or third time. We also have with subparagraph (xiiid) something which is an impossibility. It asks that the person who's died as a result of suicide—I'll just use that to speed things up. It says "the interval between the onset of the terminal illness that gave rise". Again it's an example of completely sloppy drafting. Very few of us know when a terminal illness starts. We know when the diagnosis is given to us but it's an absolute medical absurdity that someone knows when the terminal illness arises. For a very simple example: say I may well be suffering a terminal illness at the moment—no I'm not an ACT supporter. I won't know until I've actually been to the doctor who gives me my diagnosis. So this subparagraph (xiiid) is creating an impossibility. There is no way that someone can indicate—a doctor or otherwise—when the onset of the terminal illness was. So again the member might attempt to show some medical knowledge and explain why he continues to be happy with the deliberate falsification of documents; the lack of clarity around subparagraph (xiiic) of whether or not multiple attempts to kill someone is taken as a singular action; and as I say with subparagraph (xiiid) how on earth it is possible that the onset of a terminal illness can be rightly put in and because the member is very interested in form filling out—in fact this clause if you will is in some ways even more substantial about forms and documentations and ticking boxes than actually the provisions which allow a New Zealander to be killed by the State. He may want to look at what legal ramifications there could be with keeping subparagraph (xiiid) in place because the mischievous amongst us could see many ways of actually beginning to query documentation. In order to illustrate this somewhat if—and I think some members from their SOPs have documents around filling things out wrongly—a doctor in I suppose good faith with subparagraph (xiiid) attempts to say when they knew the terminal illness started that can become a disputable fact on this very basic premise: that because it is not known definitively it can never be known definitively. Therefore the doctor who notes here in subparagraph (xiiid) that it started at date X is in error immediately—they're in error immediately. In some ways they can never be right—and that obviously opens it up for attack in interpretation. It just needs a vexatious family member who you know might be a little bit upset that mum's being terminated—or their 18-year-old for that matter if they are a mum or dad—who might say "Actually that form was filled out incorrectly. The doctor who took care of my son or daughter has incorrectly noted the onset of the terminal illness. I believe it started for my 18-year-old who was depressed and ill." At this date the doctor says that—we end up with a dispute: who's going to be right or wrong? How can that be proven? And personally I think it would be unfortunate if the doctor or the nurse practitioner who's filling out this document was to find themselves being fined whatever amount of money. I think Melissa Lee raises some good points. That would be unfortunate. So those are my particular observations to do with the certification of death. As I say why does it not just say "health practitioner" rather than the old rather out-of-date legislation references? And again with Part 2 of the Schedule to do with the replacement of regulation 7(1)(a)(xiii) and the subsequent subparagraphs (xiiia) (xiiib) (xiiic) and (xiiid) of the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration (Prescribed Information) Regulations—actually these are erroneous forms. So I would be keen to know why we are trying to create lies in official documents and why if we're going to have the confidence to have the State killing people that we just don't say "Look they were euthanised. That's what killed them." Again it's inaccuracy and I'm a great believer in that. As I say fundamentally you don't die of a terminal illness; you die of a poison."