Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to say good choice but there were some lovely choices over there so hopefully they'll get to speak on their Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) as well. I have four Supplementary Order Papers in my name and I'd like to move them and potentially speak to all of them but I'd like to start off with SOP 367 in my name specifically because the member who sponsors this bill David Seymour has actually talked about how some members in this House have actually misconstrued or have misconceptions in regards to the offences in this bill. He actually tried to make light of the fact that there were some offences in this bill which refer to if there are some administrative errors which are actually no big deal. I'd like to reiterate some of the things that I have actually previously said in this House regarding this bill. This is about life and death. If there is in fact an administrative error it could potentially result in the death of an innocent person because someone was not fulfilling their duty to the utmost that they could potentially perform in. When we are talking about an offence in this bill we're talking about killing someone who may not necessarily have wanted to end their life. If that is the case to me that is actually murder and that has to have the biggest most powerful and effective administration of what the justice system can actually give this person who has offended. It's a criminal act. What I am actually suggesting is that instead of just having a light touch—three months' imprisonment and a fine not exceeding $10000 for that which could effectively kill someone—I am wanting to amend this clause to suggest that the person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction [of] either or both of the following: (a) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years: [or] (b) a fine not exceeding $250000." I believe that is actually what the justice system has on offer for people who commit that crime. There are a couple of other things that I just want to say in relation to what this—perhaps a question for the sponsor of the bill. When people are wanting to know if there is actually an offence committed the sponsor suggested that maybe we should have had a conversation with the sponsor. In a hospital when a person is actually wanting to die that person cannot necessarily turn round to Mr David Seymour and say "Am I actually doing the right thing? Am I actually committing murder?" I don't think Mr Seymour will be called on to assist in the decision-making process. I think the law has to be very very clear and if offences are listed in our legislation it has to be very clear as to what the offence is. There cannot be an error which is administrative—an administrative error a simple mistake in their judgment ends up killing someone. I think the member has to be very very clear. So is it an administrative error? If that is the case why are we sending them to a three-month imprisonment? The law needs to be very clear and I think this bill is not very clear in terms of the punishment that people will get if there is an error in their judgment or a mistake that they actually make or an offence of murder in effect. I think this law is lacking in the detail and I think the member probably needs to amend and I'm trying to assist that member by changing the category of the offence. It is murder in my opinion."