Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. It doesn't get any more serious than this when you're in this House as a legislator when you're debating and deliberating the issues of life and death. I was honoured to be and privileged to be at a number of different public meetings throughout the stage of the select committee and I can remember quite clearly a number of health practitioners when they stood up and they declared the fact that they swore an oath that they shall do no harm. That was the oath that they had and hence the reason why a number of them spoke so strongly against and opposed this bill because the intent of the bill continues to ask that question.I believe that for us in this House as legislators as lawmakers we too need to ask that question that we too shall do no harm. The question that we need to put to ourselves in debating this—and hence the reason it needs and deserves a robust process in this House because at the second reading people talked about the fact of what couldn't be achieved in a select committee process of 39000 submissions of over 400 meetings up and down the country around a number of people actually coming and providing their submissions—that what couldn't be decided there should at least have a robust process in this House. So I hope that that will continue that we will allow for that robust process. This is not about filibustering. This is about as serious as it gets and a number of us are taking these calls not only because we personally hear from people in our community but because we know the importance of this bill and what it will set as a precedent in this country. So I like others am willing to be able to do that. We want to take that on board as we continue to progress through the House.When we begin the process of Parliament there is a prayer that has been prayed for over 165 years. It began on 24 May in 1854 when Parliament was actually constituted in Auckland before it came down here to Parliament and inside of that prayer it says this: Laying aside all personal interests we pray for guidance in our deliberations". I know that there are personal interests. As the Rt Hon David Carter said there are a number of stories. We've all got personal stories of family and friends who've suffered at times through a difficult process and at times through a difficult death as well but we cannot allow a personal process like this prayer says—"Laying aside all personal interests we must pray for guidance". I do hope that we will look for the guidance of deliberation the evidence that we can put forward in regards to this issue that is before us. It doesn't get any more serious than this.In talking to Part 1 of this bill in proposed new clause 2A(b) of Supplementary Order Paper 259 it states this: "to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option." I want to pick up the point and the word that talks about eligibility and in this case in eligibility the age of eligibility is set at 18 years. Now the Attorney-General's report—when he wrote he regarded three areas of recommendations. The one area that he stated was inconsistent with section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was in regards to the age of eligibility. In New Zealand we've set that age of eligibility through this Parliament at the age of 16. So already we see that there is a weakness in this bill because what it does do is it leaves an open door for an opportunity for litigation around opening the opportunity for this in this regards to not just being 18 but 16 17 and maybe even further.I can remember that when we were debating a number of those who spoke on behalf of euthanasia in New Zealand who stated quite clearly "Well we'll not go to the discussion and the debate around age; that may be a bridge too far right now." but later on it could be a conversation. So when people talk about the slippery slope maybe we'll call it another name: there's an open door that's now made available for litigation to now see that in other jurisdictions—as I read from some of the summary of the 39000 submissions that were supported there were a number of submissions there that talked about countries like Belgium other countries that have now opened that door where now the eligibility criteria has not only been challenged but now has been reduced down to even the youngest of children.So people need to understand and know not only in this House but also in the public if our intent is not to do harm then we could be opening the door around the eligibility criteria not only at 18 but later on as others have said. Right now it's a bridge too far but the door will be open for that eligibility to go even further. I think it's important that the consciousness not only of Parliament but of the nation needs to understand the importance of this point that we're raising right here now."