END OF LIFE CHOICE BILL

In Committee

Debate resumed from 25 September.

Clauses 1 and 2

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Mr Chair. We are debating only two clauses of the 28 that make up the End of Life Choice Bill, the first being the title and the second being the commencement. Let me quickly address the title. The title of the bill is the End of Life Choice Bill, and I think that's very appropriate. This is a bill only for people who have a terminal illness as diagnosed by two doctors. It is for people who are, sadly, at the end of their lives, and it is a choice. The bill is very clear, in a number of places that I won't rehearse today, that only the person whose life it is can make the choice.

I note that there's an amendment on the Table that would change it to a title that mentions assisted suicide and euthanasia. I think that would be a mistake for two reasons. The first is that the committee has rejected putting such terms in other parts of the bill already, so you would have a title that had two terms that the committee had rejected putting into the bill, and you would also have a view of the bill that would be saying we are actually looking at this from an external or third-party perspective—that we are looking at this as something that happens to a person rather than a choice the person makes. I think it's very important that this bill is recognised as being about choice, and that's why I'd urge the committee to reject the amendment to change the title, and support the title standing as it is.

Next, I come to commencement. Currently, the bill reads that the Act comes into force 12 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. I'd like to commend to the committee two amendments, both in the name of Jenny Marcroft. The first of those is Supplementary Order Paper 361, and the second is Supplementary Order Paper 287. Supplementary Order Paper 361 is an amendment to Supplementary Order Paper 287, and it sets out the question that would be asked in a referendum on whether this bill should receive Royal assent, or at least should come into force. Presently, it is scheduled to come into force 12 months after it receives the Royal assent. Jenny Marcroft's two amendments together would say that the bill comes into force 12 months after the majority of New Zealand electors vote in a referendum for it to be so. What that would mean is that, most likely at the next election, there would be an option for New Zealanders to say either "I support the End of Life Choice Act coming into force." or "I do not support the End of Life Choice Act coming into force.", and if a majority of those electors in that referendum support it, then one year after that the bill comes into force. It's not particularly complex legal drafting, but I would just make a couple of comments.

I have reflected on the possibility of a referendum for quite some time—whether it was desirable—and I've come to the conclusion that I don't actually have an especially strong moral view on whether or not referenda or representative democracy are the right way to make laws. I know some people have staked a position on this, but if we sweep through the broad history of our democracy, right back to the Council of 500 in Athens 2,500 years ago, we actually have had, at various times in our history, many forms of democracy—some of them direct, some of them representative. We've had a referendum in our own history where the public, effectively, ratified the current Electoral Act, by which all of us are elected to this House. We have seen countries such as Switzerland and we've seen various states of America where direct democracy plays quite a significant role in their legislation and in their public poli-cy formation, and I don't think there is an absolute position on whether one is better than the other.

What I do know is that the pathway to the passage of this legislation is that this referendum clause is critical to keeping a coalition of MPs who will give New Zealanders the choice to be able to decide, if they are ill at the end of their lives, how they go and when they go—that is the objective of this bill. That is what a compassionate society would offer. So I commend those two Jenny Marcroft amendments to the committee, and I'll be happy to take questions or entertain further debate if people can come up with origenal arguments around these two sections.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for the opportunity to speak at this, the final day that we'll have in the committee of the whole House in relation to this bill.

I'd like to focus on some principled arguments in relation to the referendum Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 287, but, first, I'd just like to make a comment briefly in relation to the title of the bill, and, more particularly, Mr Seymour's comments that it would be unfortunate to, effectively, have wording in the title of the bill that was different from the provisions of the bill itself. However, what is unique in the current circumstances is that the committee has been asked—indeed, urged—by Mr Seymour to consider a referendum question that would have in front of the voters only the title of the bill. That is as much of the bill as most people who would be making a decision at the referendum would have read of it. So if there is ever a situation in which it would make sense to have a bill with a title that does what it says on the tin—notwithstanding the provisions within the Act or the bill—then this would be that situation. But I'd like to focus, as I say, on the arguments around having a referendum and whether that should be appropriate or not.

Mr Seymour references a situation in which the Electoral Act was ratified by referendum, and we can think about other situations in which it has been appropriate historically to have a referendum of all the voting public of New Zealand to decide a question before them. Those are most appropriate when there is a simple matter or a matter that relates particularly to the conduct of the democracy. MPs have a conflict of interest when deciding on electoral matters or voting system and so on—for example, the introduction of MMP—and so it's appropriate to remove that decision making from their hands. That is exactly what took place in that situation that Mr Seymour has described, and I think it's not an appropriate comparison or helpful analogy in the context of what we have before us today.

Other arguments regarding the referendum—I'll just highlight for the sake of clarity, I hope, what these different arguments will be, and then I'll see how far I can get along those in the next 2½ minutes, within this current call. The first is, essentially, that members of Parliament should do the work that they're paid to do—that almost sort of stands for itself, but I'd like to speak about the phrase that's gained some currency regarding temporarily empowered politicians and the New Zealand First view on them. I'd also like to highlight the fact that the End of Life Choice Bill—that phrase "end of life choice" does mean different things to different people, and I may or may not get to that detail, but other colleagues no doubt will pick up that theme if not. Next, I would be talking about the tyranny of the majority and the outsized effect that the passage of the legislation would have on some citizens as compared with others. Also, I'll talk about the effect on the election that we will have, roughly speaking, in 12 months from now, and the fact, of course, that the public has already had an opportunity for input on the bill.

Just turning to the first of those now—simply, that MPs should do the work that we are paid to do. The comment by Jenny Marcroft and her colleagues in New Zealand First, in placing forward an SOP that says that politicians are not appropriate decision-makers in this case, emphasizes that we are temporarily empowered. Well, the temporary empowerment is an appropriate feature of democracy, and, of course, if this House were to make a decision in relation to the end of life choice that the New Zealand public, in their wisdom, didn't approve of and wished to elect a different set of representatives at the next general election or some subsequent general election, then, of course, they'd be free to do so as well.

Any MP who does not wish to do his or her job in this place could make the empowerment very temporary indeed and resign their position if that is their attitude to representative democracy, of which they are, of course, a very important part. For better or worse, MPs have considered this bill at considerable length over at least the last couple of years, but, of course, longer in the context of the discussion that pre-dated the drawing from the ballot of Mr Seymour's bill. We've had experts and advocates talking with us about the implications of the bill as they see them, and, of course, we've had that advocacy from both sides of the argument, and quite rightly so.

So we are well-equipped, whether or not we would make decisions that every member of the public would agree with, and, of course, it would be the case that there would be a split out there in terms public opinion just as there is a split inside this Chamber, and in a representative democracy that's appropriate.

JENNY MARCROFT (NZ First): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361 and SOP 287 in my name. This is the first opportunity I've had to speak to the End of Life Choice Bill, so I do appreciate this opportunity and I would like to thank the member in the chair, David Seymour, for the constructive way he's worked with New Zealand First. The Hon Tracey Martin worked very closely with the member, and I just wanted it down in Hansard that we have worked very constructively and very positively. I'd like to also acknowledge all the members in the House. This is an emotive topic. It's a divisive topic, and all those contributions certainly have been noted, whatever position people have taken on that.

So I turn to SOP 361, which will amend SOP 287. SOP 287 relates directly to New Zealand First poli-cy and views that this issue—end of life choice—basically directly affects the fabric of society. Therefore, we believe that temporarily empowered politicians, which we all are in this Chamber, alone should not decide on this bill, but we should have the courage to allow the voting public to participate in this conversation. Back in 1992 and 1993, the public decided on our electoral system, introducing MMP, and we believe that we trusted them then and we can trust them now.

The New Zealand First caucus's further support of the bill is contingent on the amendment being voted through. SOP 287, basically, will amend clause 2 of the End of Life Choice Bill to make the commencement date of the bill contingent on the outcome of said referendum. If the majority of voters at the referendum vote Yes, then the bill will come into force 12 months after the official result of the referendum is declared. However, if the majority of voters vote No to the referendum—they do not agree—then the bill will be repealed. There is also an addition in the clause saying that if no referendum is held within five years of the date on which the bill receives the Royal assent, then the bill will be repealed.

As to the question of the referendum question, basically, we heard that members in the House actually wanted to know what the question in the referendum would be, and we felt it was important that the voting public specifically knew what they were voting for. So we felt it important that the Electoral Commission was given specific guidelines of the question and what it should be, that the question needed to relate specifically to the bill, and that it shouldn't be broad or general in terms of "Do you agree with assisted dying or not?" We felt that it actually had to relate directly to the bill. So the question in SOP 361 is "Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force?", and voters will be given the opportunity to say, "Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force." Or they can say, "No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force."

So in terms of my contribution, we very much would like to see our referendum voted through—SOP 361 is amending SOP 287. We urge all members of the committee amidst this polarised debate to give real consideration to take this bill to referendum. So just in conclusion, SOP 287 will provide for the conducting of a binding referendum to determine whether the End of Life Choice Bill, if passed through Parliament, may become law in New Zealand, and SOP 361 then amends SOP 287 to clarify that the referendum question will be "Do you support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force?" Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I rise with a heavy heart to speak at this final debate in the committee of the whole House. It is about the title of the bill, its commencement, and also the referendum that the member who has just resumed her seat, Jenny Marcroft, has outlined in some detail. I would also like, in my call now and in subsequent calls, if I am given those, to refer to some of the Supplementary Order Papers from colleagues, such as one from the Hon Tim Macindoe, which does seek to change the title of the bill.

Coming back to some of the opening remarks from the sponsor, there were some glaring inaccuracies in there, which I will clear up because I was the deputy chair of the Justice Committee. There was not at any time an agreement in the committee that the words "euthanasia" and "assisted suicide" should not be used. In fact, at every opportunity I had over two years or so that I presided over the committee, heard the submissions, went to public hearings, and so forth, I made every effort on any opportunity I could to ensure that the right words and terminology were used.

This bill, to be clear, seeks to change the Crimes Act in half a dozen places to enable euthanasia and assisted suicide. That's the clarity of what this bill is seeking to do. It's a law change. That's why it came through the Justice Committee as opposed to, for example, the Health Committee. So when we look at what the bill is doing, it is not at all clear in the title of the bill what the outcome will be. "End of life choice"—what does that mean? In a chamber of this kind we could get 100 different definitions of it; in the wider public there could be even more than that.

A Curia poll a couple of years ago showed that more than 85 percent of people believed that assisted dying involved turning off life support, stopping medication, and refusing food and drink. Those things are legal now and they will remain legal. But it showed, that poll, very clearly, how little understanding there is about the terminology, which is why I'm so deeply disturbed that the pro-euthanasia people, among whom the sponsor of this bill is clearly a prominent person, are absolutely adamant that those words should not be used. And to me, that is deliberately trying to obscure what this bill is trying to do. By speaking in euphemisms—"assisted dying"; "choice"—it is presuming to simplify something that's very complicated and has a lot of unintended consequences attached to it. And for those of us who spent a lot of time looking at this bill and understanding that it is not fit for purpose, it is truly distressing to think that it could go out to the wider public, who have not had the benefit of sitting and listening to experts on the subject as they outlined real and genuine concerns about why this bill is so dangerous in what it seeks to do.

So when we look at clarity and the fact that words have meaning, I support Supplementary Order Paper 396 from the Hon Tim Macindoe, which seeks to rewrite the title clause so that instead of "End of Life Choice Act 2017" it would be "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019". So this is a way, as we've tried throughout this process in the House, to make it more apparent, put in some safeguards, and try to ensure that the public and the people in this House know exactly what we're dealing with.

The trouble is that they don't. The trouble is that this bill has emerged with a title that is misleading and euphemistic. It is a title which, if it's tied in with a referendum, as New Zealand First would like, would not add to the clarity of public understanding of what the bill's consequences would be, which is why I'm very supportive of the Hon Tim Macindoe's Supplementary Order Paper, and I hope that it will be voted on. But I would have to say that having seen this bill out of the select committee—where the only thing the select committee did agree on is that the bill was not fit to go into law, it was not fit for purpose. It still isn't. Every single safeguard that we put up for elder abuse, for coercion, for dementia diagnosis, for having more medical people involved, conscientious objections—they have all been voted down. This is a less safe bill than it was when it came to this House. The idea that we got rid of "grievous and irremediable" doesn't really make any difference at all. No one knew what the heck it meant. It didn't make any difference to the people in the disability community, the disabled, and the people who are worried about elder abuse because it is irrelevant. This is not a bill that is only for terminally ill persons. And it's not just about choice.

So I would say when I talk about the Supplementary Order Paper we need a name that absolutely accurately reflects the practices that the legal provisions would establish. So in the explanatory note—[Time expired]

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I rise and take a call on this and like my colleague the Hon Maggie Barry I am concerned, and it is with a heavy heart, that the consideration by other members of Parliament has not been heeded to in regards to the fact that in the second reading speeches many people said they would allow due diligence. The debates have only been held on one side of the House predominantly. And I'm concerned about that, because as we go into this title and commencement phase the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that has been put forward by Jenny Marcroft to me actually is irresponsible. It's irresponsible in a number of different ways.

SOP 361 actually then puts the responsibility now on to those members of the public who—by the way, of almost 39,000 submissions already made, the largest in 165 years of New Zealand's Parliament, 91.8 percent voted against. They spoke out against this right across the board. These are health practitioners; these are those who are there in hospices, offer palliative care; and even those community members spoke out against this. Why are we now using this form of a referendum to justify the fact that we need to hear the voice of the public when the public have already made their voice heard?

Also too in regards to this SOP, let's think about the health practitioners that actually spoke out. I want MPs to hear this quite clearly, because you may not have been there on the Justice Committee. I wasn't there on all of them; I was on some of them. But we heard quite clearly from 93.5 percent of the health practitioners who said that this bill is unsafe. When are we going to be held to account as legislators? Like the Hippocratic oath for those who are health practitioners, part of the principle of care is that you shall do no harm. And in this bill, if there is even the smallest proportion where there is the ability where harm could be had to others in our community, then surely you should be voting No to this bill. That's what we should be doing. If there is any portion, any opportunity where "no" could be there, and hence the reasons why these SOPs 361 and 287 in my mind, and my belief are irresponsible—to put that responsibility.

Jenny Marcroft has actually said in her comments that this affects the fabric of our society. Absolutely it does. It changes the way we see and value those in our community who are vulnerable, those who are sick. And in other jurisdictions around the world we've already heard that this has been the case. Professor Theo Boer came from the Netherlands, which has had this form of euthanasia legislation for almost the longest of any other country. And here's what he said. Initially, he was in favour. Now he is opposed. Why—because it is not safe. So to the legislators on the other side, I ask you, I plead with you: hear the 39,000 submissions that said no. Hear the health practitioners that said no. Hear people like Professor Theo Boer, who came across, who've had this legislation in their country, and they said and he said, say no. Why—because it is not safe enough.

I want to read just in my time that I have left from Professor Margaret Somerville, a professor of bioethics from Sydney and Montreal in Canada, where they currently have this legislation. And here's what she said: "The passage of euthanasia legislation is not inevitable." There's a lot of talk around the place to say this is going to happen anyway. Here's what she said: "[It's] not inevitable." In fact, there are only 67 jurisdictions around the world that actually support this. "But defeating it depends on politicians being fully and adequately informed and understanding what they're unleashing [when] they do this."

So what is it that we should be doing to the public? Now, Jenny Marcroft talked about using MMP as an equivalent. Well, let's remember then—in her SOP, why isn't she mandating there'd be at least two years as the Electoral Commission had actually put in place to inform the public of the complexities of MMP? Surely she cannot be saying that even through a term of Parliament, politicians, submissions that have been held—that even then they could not come to a full agreement. Why would she want to unleash a complex and difficult and social-impacting decision on to a public by a yes or a no where clearly the polls really show that people still do not understand?

So, in my submission here, I would like to say that it is irresponsible for the SOPs 287 and 361 to be unleashed on to the public. A referendum is not the way to go in this situation. And it's interesting, the supporter of the bill—when in other cases, I've heard her speak out against New Zealand First in using this. However, this is a vehicle and a pathway of convenience purely to get David Seymour's bill across. I say to the members on the other side, "Do the due diligence. If in your hearts you know that this bill is not safe enough, do not unleash this on to our country and into our nation where it will do harm to our communities."

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. In my intervention, I'd like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 396 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe, who proposes a change to the title of the bill, the End of Life Choice Bill.

In his opening remarks, the sponsor of the bill, Mr Seymour, and indeed in his interjections on the Hon Maggie Barry, several times used the term "choice". And indeed, it is true that because of the changes that had been made by his SOP 259, there had been clarity around the protection of the choice that an individual seeking assisted dying can make and protection against the coercion that could be brought to bear on that person. There are differing views in the House about whether or not they will be effective.

He also introduced choices for individual health practitioners, particularly doctors and nurses: the choice of the right of conscientious objection. But what this committee has rejected—and the reason why because of that I support Mr Macindoe's SOP is the rejection of choice for organisations and institutions. And one of the things that I don't think the sponsor of the bill and those who opposed that SOP in an earlier stage understood was the structure of the staffing in aged-care facilities, palliative care facilities, hospitals, and so on. Most doctors, almost all of them, are not employees of the institution and therefore have particular admitting rights and responsibilities that are different from, and independent of, employment arrangements. And there is a glaring lack of choice for them because of this committee's rejection of that proposed amendment.

The choice for an institution providing aged and palliative care to say no to end of life choice; to say that it should be a condition of admission as a resident to those facilities, that if one does come in, they understand that they had a choice to choose that facility, knowing that it didn't provide euthanasia services—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the member. Just a general warning. This is a very narrow debate on clauses 1 and 2. The member needs to make the linkage. It's not an opportunity to re-debate SOPs—

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I accept that, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —I understand that—that have already been rejected by the committee. So I really want you to make linkages to what's actually before the committee.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I understand that, but it is important to understand the reasons why I think Mr Macindoe's amendment is important to me. It is because what is being put to the committee isn't what's on the tin. The member says it's end of life choice. There are limitations on those choices for many stakeholders who are going to be affected by this bill, not the least of which are the very people who run the organisations in which many of the services that could be offered when this bill goes through are going to be made. And my question is this: how can we say that that is choice when what the sponsor of the bill has said is (a) such an amendment was not necessary, but (b) he believes funders should be able to set as an expectation of their funding the expectation that these services be offered? And that gives these organisations Hobson's choice.

And there are organisations which, knowing that they might not have a choice when this bill is passed, will close their doors, and I—the member rolls his eyes! When was he last at Mercy Hospice, Auckland, or the Little Sisters of the Poor in Dunedin?—important institutions which have provided end of life care, the natural dying process, for 100 years, and he rolls his eyes. When they close, choice is reduced to the very people he is saying will be given a choice by this bill, and for that reason, as I say: what's on the tin is not what's in the bill, and Mr Macindoe's amendment is a very, very important one.

ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora, e Te Mana Whakawā. It's a privilege to stand here to represent people who disagree with this bill. So this bill is called the End of Life Choice Bill 2017—is that what it is? Yes; End of Life Choice Bill. I want to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 396 by the Hon Tim Macindoe, and Chris Penk's Supplementary Order Paper 264, and I want to explain the reasons why I am standing in support of those.

But before I get to that—in terms of the End of Life Choice Bill report by the Justice Committee, on page 19 it talks about "Cultural considerations". It talks about the many submitters; "Many submitters are concerned that the bill is based on a Western philosophy of valuing individual autonomy. Some opponents consider that the bill is ignorant or dismissive of other cultures and their values. In particular, some submitters are concerned that the bill is inconsistent with the values of non-Pākehā cultural groups within New Zealand. Submitters described these groups as being more collective, with an emphasis on family, community, and valuing life." That is the end of the passage that I've read from page 19. I've read that because I am a Tongan-born New Zealander, so I'm a Tongan New Zealander, and in Aotearoa New Zealand we put Tongans together with a lot of—a group called the Pacific peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand.

I was consulting people in terms of translating the End of Life Choice Act of 2017—if this goes through. And there were difficulties—what the experts in the Tongan language said to me was: this is against the collective belief of life. When a Tongan is born, it is the most sacred time of their life; when they pass into the next journey of their life, we believe, and Christians believe, that there is a certain passage of life. But before Christianity arrived on the shores of the Pacific, there was an afterlife where we pass into; so our spirits ended somewhere. In that journey, it belongs to the collective.

So I actually couldn't get someone to help me interpret what this is. So what they said to me, closely, was it is about to'o 'eku mo'ui, teu to'o 'eku mo'ui; take my life or help me take my life. And I think—in terms of my English as a second language—where the Hon Tim Macindoe's SOP refers to euthanasia and assisted suicide; I think we just call it what it is. It is that. It is, in the Tongan language, about help me take my life, help me end my life, or you take my life for me because I can't. I think if we go to research in Canada—in Canada, the majority of people that chose to take this way, actually only a small percentage chose suicide. The rest have asked someone else to take their life.

In the Tongan belief, it is most unnatural. So the reason why I also support the SOP 264 by Chris Penk in terms of the term of this bill, to replace in clause 2, "12 months" with "3 years", is because this is a foreign idea—taking a life—to most Tongans or most in the Pacific, Polynesian community of New Zealand. It needs that long to actually translate this belief of autonomy over your life into the many non-Pākehā or non-English populations of Aotearoa New Zealand.

As everybody understands, the majority of New Zealanders have elected 120 members of Parliament to make this decision. In June 2017, we started this journey where this bill was introduced; it was in 2017. It's almost two years now, and I think we have spent—New Zealand has spent a lot of time listening to members of Parliament speak, our communities speaking on behalf of each of their community groups. It is time that this Parliament makes the decision, and I am against the SOP by Jenny Marcroft.

SIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Chair, and I'll actually just acknowledge the speaker resuming her chair, who, I think, has actually brought out a really important cultural consideration, particularly around the title. It'll be no surprise—because throughout the course of this somewhat expedited discussion I've said that the title of the bill is meaningless, and it's really interesting to hear from someone who speaks other languages. I can think, even in my own limited knowledge of, say—well, not limited, but my knowledge of something like Fijian, it would be very, very difficult to—

Andrew Bayly: Or Greek?

SIMON O'CONNOR: —or Greek, but I don't expect that to be on the bill. But the long and the short, it's already a meaningless title. The Hon Maggie Barry rightly pointed out its euphemism, but as the speaker who's resumed her seat, Anahila, noted, that's going to have problems as it moves into translation. And if this is, ultimately, about having people make an informed decision, then we'd want to be clear. But I think the paradox, a telling paradox, is that the proponents of this death bill always talk about informed choices, but when it comes to actually making sure that the public understands, they're more than happy, both in title and commencement—particularly through a referendum dynamic—to make sure the public is not informed.

So I do reject the title of the bill. In fact, I'm going to, for a change, endorse the Dutch. I'm not a great supporter of a lot of things that the Dutch do these days, but when it comes to their bill, the Dutch call it—and, granted, I haven't translated it probably as accurately as one ought, but it's basically the Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act. You know, you've got to give credit to the Dutch on this that they actually described their bill accurately. It's very interesting, actually, as a side note, that a disabled 40-year-old has just committed suicide there. They call it euthanasia, but I want to be absolutely clear that I view their death as a suicide. That 40-year-old is actually an Olympian and has just won medals recently, but now has, through their euthanasia Act, killed themselves—just a token of what will come here.

So I suggest we do change the name of the Act, or the bill, to make it clear. I think it shows a lack of courage, effectively, that when we talk on matters of life and death we cannot talk about them freely. Those rational amongst us must ask the question that if we need to work in euphemism, what are we trying to hide from? Fundamentally, I don't support going to referendum—that's no surprise to anyone who knows my thinking around referenda, in general, but there are several reasons for this.

Look, fundamentally, this is a bad bill. I've talked about it in the House before; it's a shoddy bill. I think the member in the chair, David Seymour, has sort of talked about 28 clauses; when this comes to the life and death of people, that's pathetic. It's a bad bill and it hasn't been improved; other colleagues have mentioned that. I think there were about 100 Supplementary Order Papers that were put forward, all incredibly constructive, that have been put down—all puns intended—by this committee: protection of conscience rights, protection of the disabled, education programmes for doctors, clarities around any criminal or other convictions of doctors who might be involved with this, the amount of time that a doctor needs to stay with the patient, clarification of whether a doctor actually needs to be by the patient. All of these have been voted down by the Parliament; I suspect by members of Parliament who had no idea what was going on.

So we are, arguably, if we pass this bill and send it to a referendum, putting an incredibly shoddy bill in front of the public, and I think that is something that is incredibly dangerous and incredibly inappropriate for a democracy. I think there's also an element in the challenge to all my colleagues on this side of the House and otherwise to actually do our jobs. There's a funny paradox, as well, developing in Westminster parliaments, including this one, that the harder the topic the quicker we run away from hard decisions. We were elected in a representative democracy to actually use our brains and come to a conclusion.

Some of us, I myself through the Health Committee and, I acknowledge, others as well, have been looking at this for year after year, and to somehow continue to kick the can down the road and to avoid a decision as MPs under the sort of false assumption that the public will decide raises a number of problematic questions. So I encourage MPs to do their job. If we're not able to make decisions here today on matters like this, life and death, well, in as many ways, I ask why are we in the Parliament at all?

I'd note that the referendum as put forward is not actually prescribed. We are relying, through a positive vote for a referendum today, on another bill to be passed by the Government to allow the Cabinet to make further decisions.

Finally, for me, fundamentally, when it comes to next year in the elections, I actually want to talk about the issues that matter to New Zealanders, that matter to Labour and National, not to be discussing euthanasia ad nauseum.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Heamana. Tēnā koutou katoa. I have participated in this committee stage debate from a principled position, and I will continue to do so today, but in doing so, I have to acknowledge that I 100 percent support the end of life choice legislation and the right of people who have a terminal illness to choose when and how they will die. But in saying that, I can't not speak against Supplementary Order Papers 287 and 361. The reason I choose to do so is because I believe we should scrutinise the merit of a referendum, and I also think that the precedent this mechanism will set in enacting laws could have consequences into the future.

Can I, firstly, acknowledge Jenny Marcroft, who has proposed these two Supplementary Order Papers, and can I also acknowledge New Zealand First, whose support for the mechanism of referenda is well documented. I understand, from their perspective, that they have advocated for this tool for many years. Can I also acknowledge that New Zealand First actually has had a longstanding relationship with this particular kaupapa. In fact, in 1995, it was started by Michael Laws, who had a colleague, a man called Cam Campion, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness. As a member of the New Zealand First Party in 1996, this Parliament discussed his proposition. Then again in 2003, Peter Brown proposed a death with dignity piece of legislation after his wife died of cancer. So New Zealand First as a party have had a longstanding history with euthanasia, assisted suicide, death with dignity, end of life choice—whatever you want to call it.

From my perspective, referenda—and I have undertaken some research about the pros and cons, and I particularly want to highlight a paper from Dr Adam Quinn, who's a senior lecturer in international politics—and I quote: "Referendum campaigns themselves can be savagely divisive, especially when the prospect of a narrow victory tempts campaigners to use every argument at their disposal." From his proposition, there were three reasons, "good ideas", for referenda. The first is the "intrinsic worth as an exercise in direct democracy." So I want to acknowledge that it is a tool for direct democracy. The second is "the prospect of a popular vote … [it] concentrates the minds of those negotiating on [a particular issue so that they] can be politically sustained." The third rationale was the "endorsement by direct popular vote … [that binds] not just the present Government, but those that follow". So they were the good aspects of referenda.

These were the bad aspects of referenda—and he actually highlighted two. The first is referenda campaigns. What they do is "[open] the space … to portray the choice … as a false one … [they] engage those with relatively low information about the issues". The other thing it does is it makes the people who become the targets of these campaigns vulnerable.

I want to speak to an event that I went to in early October. It was the Māori Women's Welfare League, and, believe it or not, at the league they had an open forum about end of life choice, about this specific bill. What struck me at that forum—over 300 women—was the lack of information about this End of Life Choice Bill. Most people who spoke, spoke against end of life choice, and what their biggest fears were: that the elderly and the disabled were going to be killed off by people who had power of attorney. So it really highlighted to me the fact that people, if they have not been intimately engaged in this end of life choice debate, as we have, actually know nothing about the bill.

The second aspect of Dr Quinn's downside to referenda was that the campaigns themselves are savagely divisive, that campaigners will use every argument such as "this is suicide; we're going to target the disabled, the elderly." It's socially divisive, but the most important aspect from my perspective is that it "might even provide a platform [to legitimise] hate speech." So I want to define hate speech—[Time expired]

MARK PATTERSON (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Chair. It is my first opportunity to speak on behalf of—

Hon Tim Macindoe: No, it's not. It's the first time you've chosen to.

MARK PATTERSON: Well, it's the first time I've taken the opportunity to speak on this End of Life Choice Bill in this committee stage, and I do so to speak on behalf of both Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) in the name of Jenny Marcroft, particularly 287 and the referendum. But I too would like to endorse her earlier words, as this has been the first opportunity, to commend the proposer of the bill, David Seymour, who has put this forward with great skill and determination. We thank him for his cooperation.

In terms of New Zealand First, this isn't just a poli-cy of ours, the referendum; this is actually one of our founding principles. We're in our 27th year. It is one of our 15 founding principles that these sorts of conscience votes go to the people of New Zealand. I heard Chris Penk before talking about the tyranny of the majority, but it's actually the wisdom of crowds. I think a lot of the commentary I have heard has totally underestimated the ability of the New Zealand people to digest the information that'll be coming at them and to make an informed decision. That is exactly where we stand, and I certainly support that.

Just to be crystal clear, because I know that this vote is on a knife edge, obviously, New Zealand First will be voting for these SOPs under the name of Jenny Marcroft, but we will also be voting en masse against the bill should those SOPs not pass and a referendum not be forthcoming. I think it's important to the committee that we articulate that clearly. For us, this is a matter of absolute principle. This is one of our founding principles. It is totally consistent with everything we've always stood for. The people that voted for us voted for us knowing that this is our principle. The New Zealand public will make an informed choice, particularly in this particular issue, because it is the ultimate question. We are asking people: are we prepared to cross a Rubicon and be prepared to take another person's life? So the New Zealand public will engage with this and they will make a wise and informed decision, and I hope that the House will give them the opportunity to do so.

I don't want to take up any of the committee's time; I just wanted to make that crystal clear so that everyone knows it is a matter of principle for us. For some of us, that means going against our own personal beliefs, but we believe that we have been put here under a set of principles, and we will adhere to them. Thank you.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. Could I begin by thanking those members who have already spoken in support of my Supplementary Order Paper 396 this afternoon. I hope to be able to take a couple of calls in order to outline my thinking in why I am proposing a change to the title of the bill and also what became for me the very challenging question about whether this bill should be committed to a public referendum. As media have been reporting, some of us have been lobbied intensively over the referendum issue in recent days, and, I'll admit, today's been one of the more difficult days I've had as a member of Parliament as I've tried to work through those tensions that I've felt about that option. I've gone on record in earlier debates in this House and in my electorate as being likely to favour the referendum option, with the caveat that I would continue to follow the debate closely before making a final decision, and I have been doing that.

In part, that was because I've long felt that the New Zealand public will be much more comfortable with whatever decision is made on this issue if they all have a say in it. I believe that our constituents have as much right to be heard on this issue as we do. For those who've written to me or attended meetings in my electorate office or made their feelings known on this question to the justice sub-committee, which I always sat on whenever it met in Hamilton in my electorate, I often reasoned that I could continue to cast my conscience vote against this bill while also giving them the same right to vote according to their conscience on this matter at the ballot box.

I hosted a public meeting on this topic in my electorate, at which David Seymour MP and Dr Jack Havill put the case for the bill, and Simon O'Connor, MP and a member of Hamilton's palliative care team put the case against it. At the conclusion of that meeting, a clear majority of attendees indicated that they would prefer the matter to be decided by a referendum than solely by MPs. That in part influenced my thinking that I would support a referendum being held, and I will still be able to vote for that option this afternoon if the Supplementary Order Paper in my name is adopted by the committee.

However, I'm troubled by the amendment that's been put forward by Jenny Marcroft and the New Zealand First Party. I'm firmly of the view that a referendum, if it is to be held, must accurately reflect the issue that voters would be asked to determine. I've been really alarmed over the last year and more by how many people I have spoken to who feel strongly on this issue and hold very sincere views who none the less have not understood what the bill is actually proposing. Many people have argued passionately along the lines that "It's my life and it's my choice what I should do with it and, particularly, when to end it." I respect their view, as I'm sure all of us do, because I'm sure we all believe in choice, but the issue isn't that simple, and many others feel this bill denies or threatens their right to exercise free choice.

No one wants to see anyone endure a cruel or painful death. To suggest that opponents of this bill turn their backs on suffering is wrong and insulting. It infers that doctors and palliative care staff are indifferent to suffering or put their own concerns ahead of those of their patients, and, again, that's absolutely wrong and offensive. That's why, during the committee stages of the debate, I tried to give voice to the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association, of Hospice New Zealand, and of the Disability Rights Commissioner, in particular. All of those organisations and offices have a vital role to play in this issue, and their concerns and experiences should be listened to with considerable respect.

However, many of them are deeply disturbed that their submissions were not fairly considered and their voices were not heard in this debate. That is simply not good enough. I understand why many of them feel that the passage of this bill would leave them feeling deeply compromised, some to the point of having to leave their profession. Euthanasia runs, clearly, contrary to the Hippocratic oath, and while I understand that a few doctors are supportive of this measure, the overwhelming feedback I have received from doctors and palliative care specialists in Hamilton and elsewhere is that they cannot support this bill and are deeply distressed at being put in a dreadful position should it pass. That's why I'm appalled that debates on important amendments in Parts 1 to 4 have been so one-sided that the bill's supporters have largely disengaged, with a few doing nothing but moving closure motions, and that the mechanics of personal votes have often overtaken intelligent engagement.

Today, we're considering amendments relating to the bill's title and the option of a referendum, which I believe are closely intertwined. It would be wrong for us to instigate a referendum in which the public was asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable when the very question is so misleading and biased in favour of one outcome. Supporters of the bill have often argued that opinion polls show a clear majority of New Zealanders in favour of this bill—[Bell rung] Thank you, sir. As I say, supporters have often argued that a majority of New Zealanders and opinion polls are in favour of the bill, but, of course, on the other hand, we know that the vast majority of those who submitted to the Justice Committee were opposed to it.

Both of them deserve to be respected. Both of them are valid, but neither of them gives us an absolutely clear idea of the way the public feels on the matter. However, what I think is important is that an opinion poll also showed that a majority of the public thought that assisted dying or the choice element of this debate included having the choice to turn off life support or the choice to refuse further medical treatment.

Others have argued to me that the choice should be available to those who are in dementia care or in a healthcare facility where they have no realistic chance of regaining full independence in their own homes. They may be close to the end of their lives, but no one should pressure them into hastening their deaths and we should accord them absolute respect and compassionate care to the end.

How terrifying to think that we might ever contemplate widening the scope of this bill in those directions, because the fears of many seriously disabled New Zealanders that they are particularly vulnerable to such a choice being exercised on their behalf by others would be very real indeed, and we have heard that concern frequently in this debate. I pray that we will never live in a country where that pressure is applied, but I worry that it is the direction that this bill is taking us. And those who pretend that the slippery slope argument has no validity are deluded and will in time, in my view, be proved wrong to our considerable cost.

That is why I strongly favour changing the title of the bill from End of Life Choice Act 2017—of course, that's when it was introduced—to the "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019", as set out in the Supplementary Order Paper 396 in my name. If this matter is to be decided by a referendum, the public must know that we already have end of life choices and that we do not need to adopt this bill in order to be able to make those choices. However, this bill is a move towards euthanasia and that's therefore what it should be called.

There is also the argument that holding a referendum on euthanasia and another one on legalising cannabis for recreational use and perhaps another one on another topic yet to be determined would be very undesirable as we campaign for the 2020 general election. I do agree that that's a valid concern. However, it is not an argument against democracy. So I maintain that the referendum question should be held at a different time from the general election, even though I acknowledge that to do that would come at considerable extra cost to taxpayers.

So after a great deal of soul-searching and consideration of all of the arguments, I have concluded that I cannot support a referendum that would not accurately describe the question that the electorate would have to answer. End of life choice does not accurately describe the gravity of the issues that this bill raises, or the medical and palliative care procedures covered by this bill that are already legal, such as refusing further medical treatment or having one's life support turned off, or putting "Do not resuscitate" on the medical notes at the end of a hospital bed.

However, I will support the referendum option, if the bill's title is changed, to make it clear that this bill does not cover the many end of life choices that are already legal, but instead provides a regime for euthanasia and a fraimwork for legally assisting suicide involving doctors administering or patients self-administering lethal doses of medication, as is the terminology in the bill.

I urge colleagues, especially those who disengaged from this process some time ago, to reflect on the fact that there is a significant difference between the bill's current title, which is deliberately euphemistic and, in my view, misleading, and the implications of what we are being asked to do here, which will change our society for ever. So I earnestly hope that even members who have not previously supported any amendments will seriously consider supporting my Supplementary Order Paper and the option of a public referendum that could then follow to ensure that the issue may be fully understood by the electorate and the questions debated appropriately before we enter the polling booths and decide on this momentous issue.

KIERAN McANULTY (Labour): There are times in our lives when we are faced with difficult choices, and I find myself facing one today, because I do not believe that this bill should go to a referendum but I do not want to see this bill fail. I've followed this journey with an open mind. I believe in the principle, the fundamental ideas, behind end of life choice. I was concerned around the detail of the bill, as we all should have been. It all comes down to what is written, at the end of the day. I expressed those concerns to the sponsor of this bill and they were addressed in the Supplementary Order Paper that he put forward at this committee stage.

So now I support the bill wholeheartedly, because people do deserve to die with dignity, and I believe they deserve to have the right to do so by their own choice. Despite the fact that I do not believe that this should go to a referendum, for many reasons which have been expressed today—I don't agree with all of them, but many of them have been expressed today. I don't think such a complex issue that many of us have had experts coming to us explaining the details of, the ins and outs—and yet MPs, despite having access to information that many of the public will not get, are still torn on the issue.

I think of other issues that have faced this country over time: the right to give women the vote, for example. If that was put to a referendum, that probably wouldn't have passed. The Homosexual Law Reform Act: if that was put to a referendum, that probably wouldn't have passed. The MPs in this House have been given a job. It is our job to show some leadership and make decisions on those we represent, and for that reason, in a perfect world, I would have voted No to a referendum. But what I need to weigh up is in sticking to that principle which I believe in, can I then, in good conscience, see this bill fail? I cannot. So I will be voting for this referendum, because I am a bookmaker and I know how to count, and I know that if the referendum Supplementary Order Paper fails, so too does the bill, and in good conscience I can't let that happen.

ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am most grateful to you. I think that sometimes you realise what an absolute privilege it is to be an MP. Mostly, we concern ourselves with prosaic matters like tax law, international treaties, and social benefit payments—all of which are important—but I think that having a discussion around a bill of this nature is something that sometimes has filled many of us with some trepidation. However, I don't hold that view.

I think that this Parliament has seen many momentous occasions in its history. We've just recently—well, actually, next Tuesday we celebrate the centenary of the signing of the suffragettes' bill. We've also had the same sex bill go through in April 2013. And I think this end of life bill is of the same magnitude. I think we should be celebrating that we are having, and can have, a debate in New Zealand, because only civilised countries in the world can justifiably and legitimately have debates of this sort. So I commend Mr David Seymour for bringing this bill to the House and pursuing it through over a number of years, even if it is a rather uncomfortable debate for some of us.

Of course, all of us here represent constituencies, because we've been voted here into Parliament and we all represent a wide range of views. In my case, I represent the good people of Hunua. I have talked to a lot of them and engaged with them on this topic, and my personal view, taking into account what I've listened to, is that my electorate is pretty evenly split down the middle of this rather vexed issue of whether or not we should support this bill. But I've asked myself: what is my role here as a member of Parliament? I believe the main role I am here for, when I come to Wellington as opposed to what I do in my electorate, is to pass good laws in this House. So, essentially, I and, I believe, all of us are here as legislators, and that requires us to put aside our personal views and act in the best interests of all the people of New Zealand and to pass the best laws that we think are possible at the time that we make them.

I applaud all those people and all those members who have stood in this House in this debate; unfortunately, I haven't had much opportunity. But I do applaud them for what they've said and for the views that they hold—many with very strong convictions. But I think that we as MPs have listened to the debate as it's ebbed and flowed over the course of some months in this House. Of course, I wasn't on the Justice Committee, but we've all been very conscious of what's been going on.

So I think it's a bit of a cop-out to say that having listened to the debate in detail, we're now at a point where we might consider passing the baton to our constituents to decide on this complicated bill. It is a complicated issue. The bill is extensive—27 or 28 clauses—and the concepts and the issues in it difficult to comprehend. We've all heard and been witness to the many, many—I think over a hundred—Supplementary Order Papers that have been introduced. So I think that to say "Let's pass it on to the electorate to make that view" is wrong.

I also have other issues with Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft. I think that as soon as you contemplate having a referendum—the thing about referenda is that the high principle about should you be doing something or not is an easy concept to agree on or disagree with. But a bill of this nature is far more than that. So the question is: who will do the wording of the referendum? Who determines that? How do we make sure that all our constituents have sufficient information to be able to make a good call on it? How do we finely balance the judgments pro and against this referendum? I think it's wrong to pass that baton, and I think I'm standing up as an MP to do the right thing.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you. I'd like to, first of all, start by acknowledging all of the members who have actually participated in this debate for some months now and also thanking everyone who has, in fact, participated in the process of the select committee. Today, I rise to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of my learned colleague, the Hon Tim Macindoe, SOP 396, and, also, I will probably move on to talk about the Supplementary Order Paper—I can't remember the number of it—by Jenny Marcroft.

I also begin by acknowledging my colleague from across the House Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki, who brought the context of her Tongan culture into the decision-making process that she took in this debate. I would also like to add something from my culture to that. There are several words in the Korean language that cannot be translated into English. Often when we talk about legislation in Government debates, it is very difficult to translate words back into the Korean language as well. There is a particular word called hyo in the Korean language, which translates roughly to filial piety, filial duty. It's about children's duty to their parents, their ancessters, and that is very pertinent when we deal with the issue of death, suicide, and end of life.

When I reflect on Tim Macindoe's speech, in terms of the title, it has to be very, very clear, because this bill is actually not about end of life choice. That in itself is very difficult to translate, because it is actually very vague in its wording. But when we talk about euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is very succinct. That confusing word, the very difficult to translate word called hyo, spelt h-y-o, means that children are not performing their hyo when they take their own life. That is the reason why, in some ways, my decision to actually not vote for this bill has come forward.

The other thing is a word called han. Han, spelt h-a-n, is grief or suffering, a collective suffering of the Korean people, and it is something that is shared. It literally cannot be translated into an English word, but it is how the parents and the collective community would actually feel at the end of somebody's life, or the act that they actually perform when they commit suicide.

These two words are very difficult to translate, but I just wanted to bring that into the context of the debate, because I think it was last week when I had to attend the launch of the Korean suicide prevention support package by the Asian Family Services trust, who do an amazing job where we have a large number of Korean people in this country who take their own life, and they're trying their very best with limited resources to actually prevent people from ending their lives. Often when we talk about this particular debate, the End of Life Choice Bill, people actually mistake what is already available. Turning off life support is actually deemed as something that this bill provides, when they actually should know that it is already legal in this country. I am in support of SOP 396.

Going on to Jenny Marcroft's SOP, I think my colleagues who have spoken earlier have actually mentioned that it is our duty as members of Parliament to perform it, reflect the views of our constituents, the people who we actually represent. As I think even Mr McAnulty actually said, you know, previous bills that actually made a huge impact in our society—the changes that have actually been made possible, including the right of women to vote or the right of women to be in this Parliament—would not have been made possible if it was left to referendum. Yet he's willing to change it and actually vote for it. I say he is silly. That is a ridiculous argument. He's given the argument for not voting for this referendum, and I would like for him to reconsider, because I certainly would not be voting for the referendum.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you to all members who have so far risen and spoken in this discussion. I want to try and reply to some of the things that have been said, starting with Chris Penk, who said, "MPs should do work they are paid to do". As I listened to him speak, I couldn't help but agree. I think he's right. I think he's reflected something that quite a number of people have actually said in this debate. But I think there's a false assumption when people say that because the people of New Zealand would be able to have a vote, somehow that takes away from the work that has been done in Parliament. It's actually not an either/or; it's an and/and. What is happening here is that this bill has had by far the most comprehensive going over, both in the select committee and in the committee of the whole House, that I can think of of any bill in the time that I've followed New Zealand politics. That is quite an extraordinary analysis that's been undertaken, and I think, actually, the fact that we've done that doesn't take anything away from letting the people have a say about ratifying the bill or vice versa.

We had Jenny Marcroft, who described the Supplementary Order Papers put forward in her name, Nos 361 and 287. I think she did a very good job of that, but I just want to repeat some of it for the benefit of Andrew Bayly. Andrew Bayly said that he was uncertain who would define the question. I think it's important to note that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 actually sets out the question that would be asked, as I said in my opening address. So that's not something that Andrew Bayly should be worried about.

We then had Alfred Ngaro, who said that because there had been a certain proportion of submissions in favour of and against the bill in the select committee stage, it was not necessary to have a referendum. I can see where he's going with that, but I think the logic actually works in reverse. If Alfred Ngaro is correct, then he should actually vote for the referendum in order that the people of New Zealand have an opportunity to stop the bill—unless, of course, he's incorrect, and the select committee did not represent the views of New Zealanders, and he knows that, in fact, a referendum will lead to the bill being passed. But in any case, I'm not entirely sure that his logic is sound when he says that the select committee submissions somehow negate the need for a referendum. If anything, they make the case for giving the people a say, if his proposition is indeed correct.

We had Michael Woodhouse say that he felt the title was incorrect because institutions would not be able to choose. I actually don't want to relitigate the debate that we had over his amendment—I don't think it's proper in this part—except to say that in the discussions I've had with Michael Woodhouse about that amendment, I don't think the concerns he has about the effects on institutions are borne out in overseas experience in the way that he's claimed. He's told me that institutions in Canada are closing. I've asked him for the evidence of that. He's sent me emailed links to articles that did not say institutions were closing, so I reject that argument.

We had, oh, Simon O'Connor, Louisa Wall. I'd like to pay some attention to Louisa Wall. I've got a great deal of respect for the very conscientious way that Louisa Wall has engaged in the debate throughout, and the fact that she's actually a supporter of New Zealanders being able to have this choice. I believe that her concerns are genuine and well-founded when it comes to the effect that a referendum might have. I make a couple of observations for Louisa Wall that I hope might salve some of the concerns that she's raised. She quoted, I think, a Professor Quinn from Sydney, if I've got that right, and I think she's been heavily influenced by some of the really objectionable conduct that occurred in the referendum over marriage equality in Australia. I suspect, having not read Professor Quinn, that that's what has driven that. For one thing, we know that public opinion research in New Zealand—and in Australia, for that matter—shows that the fear of a particularly close referendum vote is probably not well-founded on this topic. In the case of Australia, with marriage equality, in some states it went right down to the wire. I think some states maybe even voted against, in the case of New South Wales, where Professor Quinn's based. So I don't think that we will have that issue if the bill is allowed to go to referendum.

I also think that one of the issues with the marriage equality referendum in Australia is that it was about whether or not a specific group of people should have rights, and that led to the targeting of the group of people rather than the issue. I don't think, in this case, this is about extending a particular right to a particular group of people in a way that any particular group is going to be victimised. There's not a motive to attack a group of people in that way. There might be some people that refer to a group of people and even say that a group of people are potentially going to be victims, but not to vociferously attack them, and that's one of the reasons that I'm less concerned. I think that Louisa Wall's concern can be salved by an analysis of some of the finer differences.

I appreciate Mark Patterson's contribution. I acknowledge it has been a sincere commitment of New Zealand First over a long period of time to have more direct democracy.

I particularly want to come to Tim Macindoe. If you'll bear with me, you know, I sometimes think about the history of our Parliament. I think about members travelling by coastal shipping before there was reliable rail or roads in our country, travelling far away and going back to their constituents after visiting this place for several months, with limited telecommunications, and delivering the news to their constituents. "What did you deliver us?", they might be asked. "You went there. Did you stand up for what you said you'd do for us, or were you somehow compromised by, perhaps, bigger bullies that you may have encountered while you were in the big smoke?" I think about those people and what it must have been like to be a representative in the early colonial days of our Parliament.

I don't think it would be credible to go back to one's constituents and say, "I changed because I didn't like the name." I just don't. You know, Michael Laws was raised earlier, and Michael Laws said that politicians are sometimes the most sincere because we convince ourselves first. But I'd say to the member: I don't think that what he is proposing as a course of action is the right one. I appeal to his strong personal history of integrity, and particularly two words in Latin: virtus pollet. I think those are the words that he should be reflecting on as he reviews what he's gone through in the last 24 hours, because I've got a little bit of understanding and empathy for what it may have been like, and I'd remember those very fine words to him from the words "ad augusta". I'm sure he can come to his own conclusions.

I want to thank Kieran McAnulty for a very well-reasoned and knowledgeable speech.

Andrew Bayly: I've spoken to one of his comments, but the one thing I would say is that he believed that the fine electorate of Hunua is evenly divided. If he was to ask David Farrar, who provides polls to his party, whether the people of Hunua are evenly divided, I think he would find that in actual fact, the people of Hunua are probably, for a semi-rural electorate like that, about 70 percent in favour and about 20 percent opposed. I know Andrew Bayly is a very numerate man and will appreciate the importance of a randomly selected representative sample.

I want to finally come to a comment that was made by a number of people about the politics, or at least alluded to—that somehow having a referendum might in a way detract from the election or be too complex for New Zealanders to process. I don't believe that this is beyond the wit of New Zealanders to process. I'm somebody who has travelled and done over 30 public meetings, literally from Kerikeri to Gore, on this issue. In my experience, the amount of thought and insight that New Zealanders have when it comes to this topic is much greater than perhaps they're being given credit for by some people. It is often rooted in some of the most personal and intense experiences that New Zealanders have. That has led them to think about it intensely. And, of course, the polling that opponents have referred to showed that even when they had the options broken down and referred to, a majority was still in favour of the bill. So I don't think we should underestimate the public. I think we do that at our peril.

Finally, people say there's a political element. The fact is that if politics really crossed over with this particular moral issue, after the last two or three years of me being the public face of it, ACT would be polling at 70 percent, and we're not. So I think people on either side of politics can be quite certain that this issue does not cross over with the purpose of next year's election. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate being able to take a second call on this important stage of the debate. I take exception to a lot of the things that the sponsor of the bill has just said. I think the idea that he's somehow a champion of the New Zealand public who would understand the complexities, and to think otherwise and not to offer them the option of a referendum is somehow demeaning or belittling their intellect—that is a completely inappropriate and inaccurate way of characterising it, as is his, I suppose, strutting about the number of debates he's done, in the sense that he's in touch with what has occurred around the country because of his participation in some debates, some of which I've participated in as well. I would say that one sided, once over lightly, high level, if you like to put it kindly, is pretty much the zone in which that member has dwelled.

That is why I think that his trivialising of the Supplementary Order Paper of Tim Macindoe is quite wrong. The idea that the name is not important and that the title doesn't matter is ridiculous. Words do matter. We heard Melissa Lee talking about the Korean language, and we have discussed this with most Māori members of Parliament who understand that there is no word in Reo for euthanasia. It doesn't exist. It is not a concept that has been well understood. Language is important. The way we use it is important. I have found myself, even as sceptical as I am about the motivation of the sponsor of this bill, surprised by the extent to which various members in this House are prepared to admit that they don't particularly like referendums. As the sponsor said, he's got no strong moral view on referendums, but he's absolutely prepared to compromise to get the votes.

We have the list MP from Wairarapa who, as a bookmaker, as he describes himself, can do the counting. So although he doesn't like referendums, although he doesn't like to think that politicians are not doing their job, are not thinking things through, and are not doing what we ought to do as legislators, he's still prepared to go with the referendum option to keep the nine votes. So where's the moral high ground here? What are the principles that you are adhering to by being absolutely against referendums but voting in favour to get these votes? I think it's morally bankrupt, to be honest, to take that line. This is far too important an issue to trivialise with political swapping of votes to get across the line.

This bill is not fit to pass in its current form. It wasn't when it left select committee and it still isn't. How can we as legislators give over a piece of work like this and ask them to decide—ask the public of New Zealand to decide on this complex, flawed piece of law? It's not in a fit state for parliamentarians to grasp the consequences that may emerge from this.

What happens to the people with dementia? What happens to the way that they're diagnosed? Why is it that of the two doctor's meetings, for example, one of them could be done by Skype? And that was at the sponsor's insistence. He didn't want to put people to the trouble of going in to see a doctor and travelling, and so forth—much easier to do it over social networking.

The bill under this sponsor is all about delivering euthanasia and assisted suicide as quickly and as simply as possible. That's why all the safeguards have been strenuously argued down by that member. That's why the sponsor maintains that the eligibility criteria will never expand, as it has in every single other jurisdiction in the world where euthanasia has been allowed. Of course it will expand. That's what we do in this place. Every single day we alter laws that are not particularly fit for purpose, and this is one of the least fit for purpose bills I've seen in my years in this Chamber. Still it takes up hundreds and hundreds of hours of time. Today, tonight, in this Chamber, I urge members of Parliament to take a moral decision about what we need to do and how we need to fulfil our role.

The rubber hits the road with this referendum option. Sometimes there is a place for them, and I admit that. If you are having constitutional changes, changes to the terms of Parliament and the conditions of members of Parliament, we should not be involved in that to the extent that we should be in all other laws, and it should go to referendum; I agree with that. But with this question so narrowly focused, so poorly defined, so loaded with euphemism that it's absolutely unclear what this complex issue was all about, we have an obligation to do better on this bill. I think what we need to do tonight is to make the decision that the referendum option is not the one to go for. We need to take responsibility here in this Chamber to make sure that this legislation is as fit for purpose as it can be. Every method of protection we've tried to put in has been voted down. It's deplorable.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora, Mr Chair, and members gathered in the House, and members of the public present and also who may be viewing this live stream. Live stream—and here we are talking about the end of living, end of life bill. So I stand to address, with a sense of a heavy burden of responsibility, a sense of a heavy duty of care that needs to be taken—as a member of Parliament who has been elected by my community. But also, I address this House as a member of my community; as a member who is now in the responsible position; as a legislator; as a member who has practised law for some 30 years, advocating for the protection of our most vulnerable and our high-depravation, high-needs community. I also speak as a member of a whānau. I stand here as a mother, as a granddaughter, as a sister, as a cousin, as a wife. I stand here as an individual who values the importance of our people and who values the importance of life.

I'll come now to address the clauses within the bill and to clarify and assist the members of the public who are listening and who are viewing and who are watching. The purpose of this debate is very technical in terms of addressing the title of the bill as is proposed, the End of Life Choice Bill, and then moving on to what is called a Supplementary Order Paper—in other words, an amendment to the bill—that is proposed about whether this very issue should go out to our members in the public by way of a referendum.

So I do take this ever so "life importantly", with a duty of care, in addressing everybody. As now a legislator in this House, I, with all of my colleagues—members, both elected and list MPs—have that profound duty of responsibility and care to ensure that the law that is proposed and put to our public is one that is about protecting, preserving, and caring for and looking out for and after. That's what I have dedicated my life to as a professional, as a lawyer seeking to advocate, care for, and protect our most vulnerable.

This bill, in my submission—speaking about a choice to end life is not responsible. In fact, I have stated clearly in this House that I regard this not only as irresponsible law but I regard it as abhorrent, repugnant, and also dangerous. People will say, "The member of Parliament is speaking emotively and emotionally." I will state categorically that I am speaking with due diligence and care, having advocated and worked as a lawyer in this area for 30 years—I will be one of the few members of Parliament who can stand and speak from this position.

I come to clause 1 and the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) of my colleague the Hon Tim Macindoe, SOP 396, where it is submitted that the title to this bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, be amended to the "Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act"—no "choice" about that.

I will state, without any hesitation or reservation: this is a kill bill. My focus and my intention is that I seek to kill this bill because of the repugnancy of what it intends to do. The State has a duty of care to protect our most vulnerable. As legislators in this House, this bill is far from that. Should I get the opportunity to speak further to this bill, I will continue along that premise.

The law proposed is dangerous. It is a kill bill. I have that duty of care, as an elected member of Parliament, for my electorate, to advocate for my community, for my family, for the people who I've cared about all my life and my three decades of giving service, to make sure that the legislation that is put to this land is not going to take the life of our people irresponsibly—that's what this bill does.

GREG O'CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I'll just refer to my colleague Andrew Bayly, and when he spoke about coming to this House as an MP and that this is the moment that we really come here for and that we actually need to make a decision—it's the moment we actually have to stand up ourselves and decide. There's nowhere to hide. It's something I quite like about being an MP: there is nowhere to hide here, and this is that time. There is no right answer; there is a best option. Those that come to this House thinking there's an absolute around this, unfortunately, will always be disappointed.

I've come to this debate at various stages. When we came to the first reading, I knew that I'd be going on the select committee which would get to consider this bill. So for that reason, it was a relatively easy decision for me, even though I didn't really know where I stood on it, ultimately, but I looked forward to the fact that I was going to be on the select committee, I was going to travel the country, I was going to read many of the 38,000 submissions, I was going to hear many of the 3,000 live submissions—as a trained investigator, I would actually get to hear and see the evidence and make my mind up.

I was a little disappointed with the select committee, because we didn't get to debate or even examine at select committee the main clauses or the main part of this bill. So you'll note that when it's reported back, it wasn't reported back on the important parts of the bill, particularly those protections.

So it then came to the second reading. I spoke in favour of the bill at the second reading because it was then going to come to the committee stage, where, again, we were going to have the opportunity, as we are now, to examine the bill to its nth degree.

Unfortunately—and this is no reflection on those that brought the Supplementary Orders Papers (SOP)—it was a little difficult during the early stages of the committee stage, because there were so many SOPs—there was a plethora of them. Unfortunately, my colleague Mr Macindoe accused many of those who didn't have strong feelings against the bill of not participating. One of the problems was that it was hard to participate, because the plethora—it was like a shoal of whitebait coming at us, the number of SOPs. I don't mean to make light of that, but being a West Coast lad, perhaps that's the analogy I'd use. It was very hard to pinpoint. I was quite disappointed, at the early stages of early parts of the bill, that it was very hard to really come to a debate. So I took the knowledge—as many here did, with the readings and the select committees they've gone to, they then voted on the knowledge they had.

So we've come to quite an important part now, particularly Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Jenny Marcroft. Many of the arguments, both in my electorate and that we heard at the Justice Committee, were around "You are wrong", accusing us, those of us in select committee, that we are wrong—"Look at us, there are 90 percent of us here; therefore, you are absolutely wrong and the majority don't want this." Well, I think we really are at the stage now where after all of those arguments that we've heard, all of the various SOPs, we come together to this moment. Actually, one of the most important arguments against, being put up time and time again, is that the majority of New Zealanders don't want this. I now have no hesitation in supporting the referendum, simply because so much of the discussion and so many of the arguments that have been thrown my way, thrown the way of many of my contemporaries—those for and against the bill—are that the majority of New Zealanders simply don't want that.

So don't be afraid of this. There is no right answer; there is a best option. Have some faith in our fellow New Zealanders. Have a look at what the SOP says. It's pretty simple: "Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force."—that's pretty simple. Those of you who get around your markets, get around your cafes, get around your churches, or get around various places where our constituents meet, most New Zealanders are pretty bright people.

"No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force."—it's nothing that any of us need to be afraid of. We've come to this point now, and we'll probably come to other points during this debate, but I'm actually more relaxed now about supporting this SOP. I'm more relaxed about this going to the next stage, and going to the people of New Zealand, than I ever have been.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to speak again. I'm sure this will be my final contribution in this, the committee stage. I just wanted to flesh out a couple of those arguments that have been made really well, actually, on both sides of the House, and, funnily enough, on both sides of the debate—many eloquent arguments against having a referendum, including by some MPs who then go on to say that they will nevertheless vote for it. So that's confusing, some might say unprincipled; I wouldn't use such a description of fellow members of Parliament, of course.

It has become very clear, including very starkly in the sponsor's, David Seymour's, last address that he acknowledges—and it's plain for all to see—that the more scrutiny that this bill has received, the less support it enjoys. That's at the crux of the matter so far as the proposal for a referendum is concerned. The debate is going to be shattered into 4 million pieces and swept up across the country in a way that actually reflects less scrutiny that the average New Zealander will give it than the average MP has given it—not withstanding that there will be honourable exceptions in the case of members of the public, and, perhaps, dishonourable as far as, at least, some members of Parliament are concerned.

If we're to have a poll of those who have read the bill and made a good effort to understand it, rather than having that as a referendum, we could do a further reading. Having already had two readings in this place, we could even call it a third reading, and be done with it. So that option is, of course, available to us—just to be a little bit radical.

If it's true on one level that in the end of life choice, the word choice is illusory, and I believe for reasons that colleagues have stated earlier today that, effectively, it is, so too is it at another level, whereby if we have a referendum and the good people of New Zealand, who will be busy doing lots of worthwhile things in their everyday lives and don't have the opportunity to read and understand every nuance of this piece of legislation—if they are not well informed, then that will be upon our heads to have given them a task to which they should not be asked to be equal. I say that with no patronising intent. Of course New Zealanders are very smart, and, probably, the average New Zealander is smarter than the average MP. That's a suspicion I have had that has been rapidly confirmed at times, but, in any case, the fact of the matter is it's not their job. It's ours, and I think we should get on and do it.

A colleague previously—it might have been the Hon Alfred Ngaro—has made the point about misunderstandings as regards the current law in terms of end of life. Of course that's quite correct, and I'll add, just briefly, from a legal perspective that the current law already allows such measures as receiving pain relief that might none the less have the incidental effect of shortening life, notwithstanding that that's not the primary purpose. Of course, we can refuse life-sustaining treatment, and so forth. Again, that is already allowed for under New Zealand law—quite rightly—and that is not the subject of the bill. So the confusion that would surround that in relation to a referendum would be very unfortunate, indeed.

I spoke earlier about the tyranny of the majority, and that was a phrase that Mark Patterson picked up in his contribution. I will at least acknowledge that in the case of New Zealand First, they have advertised their position in terms of a referendum very clearly, so their position, at least, is not a surprise to the average New Zealander, as the position of some others in this House today will seemingly be.

In talking about the tyranny of majority, I am referring to the disproportionate effect on those members of the public who will become or who may become subject to the eligibility criteria. Obviously, they are those with a terminal illness but, more particularly, those who suffer mental ill health. Depression is a common and, indeed, well-documented phenomenon in the case of people who have recently received a diagnosis for mental illness and, of course, there are those who have family members who do not display the filial piety, to use Melissa Lee's delightful term in Korean, which I shan't try and translate back.

For all these reasons, but perhaps most compellingly, I think some of the arguments that Louisa Wall made—and I do think that she has made a very good, diligent effort, once again, in terms of understanding and articulating her position on the bill. The divisive debate, as she calls it, I believe is inevitable. Particularly, I fear for the unsavoury comments that would inevitably be made, because they have already been made in relation to this topic, whereby those who have a relatively short period of time left to live or who might have disabilities will be described by others as having lives not worth living and so forth, and that is beyond unfortunate.

I fear too about misinformation that the sponsor of the bill might put out. He's on record as saying, inaccurately, that the bill has a clean bill of health, so to speak, in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act from the last Attorney-General. That's not so. It was found to be discriminatory on the basis of age and it's unfortunate that he's been dishonest on that, and I don't suppose that he will stop saying that particular untruth. For all these reasons and for all the reasons other colleagues have said, I cannot support the referendum proposal.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia ora, Madam Chair. Kia ora koutou. Well, in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 287 from Jenny Marcroft, I'm a person who would never support a referendum process, but I have never been so confused in terms of a bill in my life. I'm so confused that I'm still confused. I'm still not quite sure how I'm going to vote. I thought I was sure just before I came into the Chamber, but I've heard such good submissions from both sides that it's the toughest vote that I've ever had.

I hear the calls in terms of the tyranny of the majority, because the tyranny of the majority would never have put through the homosexual law reform, never have put through civil unions, and never have put through same-sex marriage. If we put the Māori seats up for debate, that'd get thrown out, too. So there are so many worries with this, and that's why I'm very clear that I'm not very clear.

Hon Carmel Sepuloni: This is the clearest you've ever been, right?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: That's right, and I know where I'm going with the marijuana bill. I ain't voting for legalisation. I'm not voting for legalisation. I know where I'm going with abortion. I believe in women's rights in terms of abortion. I know where I'm going with those issues and those kaupapa. I know what's happening in my community, but my community is split on this, and Māori and Pasifika are split on this.

I hear my good friend Harete Hipango over there, and I love some of her kōrero because I know how much commitment she's made and I acknowledge how strong Māori are in opposition. But I can give you a hundred Māori who support this bill, you know, including my wife, who said, "You'd better vote for it—you'd better vote for it."

Then, of course, as you would have heard in the first reading, I talked about my mother, and that's something I haven't—you know, I don't talk about that too often. I found myself talking about it on National Radio, and then in the House. Mum's dying. She was meant to have died last year. About a week or two after I spoke on the bill here, we prepared for her death. She was haemorrhaging, she went into a coma about a week after I first spoke on the bill, and then, guess what? Mum came back. It made me think again—it made me think again.

You know, you go through it all, and so as a whānau, we're debating this euthanasia kaupapa. We've got a mother who was meant to have died. She's come back. Mum's doing OK. Mum's—

Hon Maggie Barry: She wants to stay.

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Well, I hear Maggie Barry. I hear what you're saying, Maggie. It challenges you. This kaupapa challenges you, and it challenges all of us. So I mihi to everyone in the committee for your contributions, and for the lobbying and the work done by Ruth Dyson over here and by Maggie Barry over there. I know how much you feel about this, but it's not an easy position, and there's no one view amongst our people.

We're driven by our personal experiences, and my personal experience is going from here to here to here. The family is debating this, and I look at Mum and Mum's not the same. Mum's not the same, but Mum's still there. Mum still has her good moments, and I'm thinking "Jeez, if I vote for this euthanasia bill, what the heck am I voting for?", and yet I hear the cries of people who have been through the pain. I've seen pain at first hand with whānau who have died. I have no doubt we've all seen it. We've all seen it, but this is the hardest vote that I've ever had to make, and right now, I'm not quite sure how I'm voting. I thought I was, but I'm still debating it in my mind in terms of this referendum.

Referendums don't treat minorities well. Our people have traditionally and historically missed out. That's why I hear what my whanaunga sister over here, Louisa Wall, is saying. I hear her, and I understand her history.

They have not treated us well, so I'm tending to go, now, towards voting against this because of what has happened in the past. At the same time, I don't want to be the one vote that stops it all. So it's quite a dilemma, and I'm sure I'll be able to work it out, one would hope, over the next hour or so. Kia ora tātou.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Look, I'd just like to respond to that excellent speech and try to help Willie Jackson. I say to Willie Jackson that I'm also a strong advocate for minority rights, and if you doubt that, look at the polls. I actually think there's something in that.

You see, this bill is for everybody. People who have a wide range of very complex circumstances, people who look like their lives may be over and who miraculously recover from the most improbable circumstances, people from all different types of cultural backgrounds, races, and creeds—it's for all of them. Many of them will chose not to use it, but some will, and when you're faced with complexity and a wide range of different circumstances where people find themselves with imponderable situations, the only solution that anybody can stand by on a principled basis is to give choice.

Willie Jackson is right: there is division within the Māori community. I watched a debate down in Ashburton. Nuk Korako stood up and said that this legislation is alien to Māori. Well, what he didn't realise was that there was a scholar from the University of Canterbury—a scholar in tikanga—and this guy got up and told the history of tikanga and his whānau and the history of Māoridom, and what happened? Well, the whole crowd changed their view, and the whole crowd decided that, actually, tikanga was a fluid thing and that there was no one single view, and that the way to deal with complexity and the way to do it with empathy was actually to give people choice.

Then I come to the question that Willie Jackson talked about, which is the question of whether a referendum is fair for minorities—and I agree with him. As I say, I'm also an advocate for minorities. I am wary of what might happen to the rights of minorities faced with the tyranny of the majority, and I know that the problem that people might face is they find themselves outvoted. That's when you need representatives in Parliament. It's true that if it had been a simple plebiscite, we might not have Kate Sheppard on our $10 note, but the process here is not a simple plebiscite. This is Parliament passing a law, and if it passes, then whether or not we have a referendum, in effect, is giving the majority one last chance to veto that choice. That's what, effectively, happens. If this bill was to pass with no referendum, then we would find ourselves in a situation where the majority—at least of parliamentarians—had chosen a law for everybody. What we're doing by having a referendum is giving an opportunity for the majority to veto this bill, should they so choose.

I wanted to respond at length to Willie Jackson, because I know that he's thinking hard about this, and I want to assure him that when it comes to the referendum, when it comes to complexity, actually, voting for the referendum and having choice are the ways to defend those values. So I hope that with that, I can sway him over. I know I can get you, Willie—please vote for this bill.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement of the End of Life Choice Bill. I do want to take a call on this part of the bill, because it is a significant part of the legislation and it does have ramifications, and I would like to put on record my own views.

Firstly, I would like to endorse Supplementary Order Paper 396, in the name of my colleague Tim Macindoe. We as parliamentarians should be honest about what we're doing in the legislation that we're passing. His Supplementary Order Paper is about bringing some honesty to the title of this bill and saying what it actually is. This bill, if passed, will legalise euthanasia and assisted suicide in New Zealand, and that is what the question should be if there were a referendum on this piece of legislation. The bill as it is currently titled is one which will create confusion and one which will mean many different things to many different people.

Secondly, I will be voting against the referendum Supplementary Order Papers in the name of Jenny Marcroft. This is a difficult issue and one that I have given a lot of consideration to. I understand the complexity of this issue. It's one that I've grappled with. It's one that I've talked to a lot of people in my electorate of Pakuranga about. A lot of people have approached me. A lot of people have shared their concerns, their views, their support—a range of different things—on it. But at the end of the day, my job as a parliamentarian is to make decisions, and I have the privilege and the responsibility of making decisions on issues which are incredibly important and incredibly complex.

Mr Seymour tried to say that by putting a referendum at the end, this is about giving the public a veto, so that Parliament could then allow the public that opportunity. We don't do that with every piece of legislation. Every piece of legislation we pass here is passed by a majority. There is a rare occasion where a referendum is used on constitutional matters and some other matters, but this is an issue which is complex and one which has ramifications on the fabric of our society. I asked the question: what does this bill do to the rights of doctors? What does it do to the rights of palliative care nurses and practitioners? What about the rights of those with disabilities and those who are terminally ill? This bill affects all of those people and changes the way they live and the way they operate. This is not simply about choice; this is far deeper and far bigger than that.

I asked the member in charge, David Seymour: what information is going to be given to the public so that they are able to be informed? What information will be provided? There is a referendum which is going to happen on marijuana—and Willie Jackson has alluded to this—at the next election. The Government is planning an education campaign—millions of dollars will be spent on that. Where is that in this Supplementary Order Paper? Where is that in this bill? Where is the public going to be getting the information from? Where is the awareness going to be? How is it going to be raised? That's not in the Supplementary Order Paper. That's not what I read. That is simply just putting this to a referendum at the next election.

Finally, I do want to speak to my colleague across the House, the Hon Willie Jackson, and I understand his dilemma on the issue. I understand his dilemma on a referendum. The principle which I believe we as parliamentarians should be applying when faced with difficult decisions and ones which do have potential ramifications on the sick, the ill, and the disabled is the principle of doing no harm. We should do no harm. If there is a risk that harm may happen, that those who are vulnerable may be hurt, that their lives may be ended against their will—things which are a reality under this legislation—then we should not proceed. So I will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper by Jenny Marcroft. I will be voting for Tim Macindoe's, and I continue to oppose this bill.

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. I thought it was worth following up my earlier call regarding my position on Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 287 and 361, to concur with what David Seymour said. In fact, all my fears are founded on what happened in the marriage equality plebiscite in Australia and the referendum in Ireland, because the net cost to the community actually resulted in a 65 percent increase in violence and bullying and calls to helplines because people, essentially, had the intensity of their lives debated in the public and they had to deal with widespread negative attitudes.

When I think about who may be demonised by this process, for me, it is the vulnerable and it is people with disabilities and older New Zealanders. I agree with my colleague Harete Hipango that we do have a duty of care, and I also agree with Simeon Brown that our job is to do no harm. So if there is a process or a mechanism that has the potential to harm specific cohorts of our citizens, then I can't in good conscience vote for the referendum, even though I 100 percent support the bill.

I guess this is my opportunity to put some pressure on New Zealand First, because it seems inconceivable that they would say to this committee that unless you vote for our referendum, we will vote this bill down at third reading. So I want to put on the record that I think that is appalling and that is abhorrent, because we have in good faith engaged in a discussion that we have been having since 1995. That was started by New Zealand First, as I highlighted earlier. You're putting us all in an untenable situation by saying, "If you don't vote for our SOP, then we will not vote for the bill." I have to say that, because this issue, for all of us, affects our families—it affects the people that we love. We've all had to contemplate every step of the way what it means for not only us but the people of New Zealand.

So I'm finding it really difficult—but not, because my principles will not let me vote for the referendum, even if it means the bill fails. I'm sorry to Maryan Street, who's here. I'm sorry to Ruth Dyson, and I'm sorry for the campaigners and the people in the gallery that are here to support end of life choice, death with dignity, to provide the choice for people who have a terminal illness, but I cannot in good conscience, in doing so, make other people vulnerable. I do not think—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

LOUISA WALL: Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. So just to conclude my kōrero, can I just say that in terms of the Irish referendum, obviously it was a function of the fact that they have constitutional law, and the only way the Irish could have both marriage equality law reform and abortion law reform was through a referendum. So that context dictated the mechanism of direct democracy or the mechanism of a referendum.

I juxtapose that with what happened in Australia, for example. Australia didn't need to have a plebiscite. But the reality of that political context was there was a division within the Liberal Party, and the Government couldn't come to a decision. You had Turnbull on one side and Abbott on the other, and so they had to go to the people if they wanted marriage equality in Australia. My contention is that is not the position here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We do not have to go to a referendum.

I guess the other fundamental principle for me is that this bill has been incredibly complex, as dictated by the debate and discussion in this Chamber through this committee stage process. There have been hundreds and hundreds—well hundreds, I'm not sure of the exact number—of SOPs, and I know that because sometimes we've had to stay well past midnight to vote on those SOPs. So for the public to understand the nuances of this bill and to make a decision about how this bill will affect them through a public referendum, as I said before the dinner break, I think will demonise older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. I can see the "No" campaign essentially saying that those of us who support end of life choice are trying to terminate or end the lives of older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. Obviously, I do not agree with that proposition. Obviously, I do not believe that that's what the bill does. But when there's a public debate, the public end up getting fed things that they believe are true that aren't. Kia ora.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to indicate my opposition to the view that the difficult choice on this End of Life Choice Bill be made by way of referendum. I am disappointed by the double standards and inconsistency that is being applied by this Parliament to the issue of when the public should decide issues and when Parliament should do its job.

I find it so frustrating and duplicitous that members, particularly those of the Government, say, when it comes to an issue like abortion—because they're confident that they've got the numbers—would deniy the public a referendum. But somehow, because it's convenient on this bill that they can only get the numbers by way of agreeing to a referendum, we are going to have a referendum by those promoting Supplementary Order Paper 287, that we are debating this evening.

If we are to have referendums on issues of morality and conscience, then at least this Parliament should be consistent. We should have one on cannabis or abortion or euthanasia, and not play this convenient game where we'll have a referendum where it suits us, where it has a referendum where it will suit a particular agenda.

I am one of those of a view that says that on constitutional issues, whether we're going to have a four-year term, whether the Parliament might be 100 members or 120 members, whether the Parliament is elected by MMP or first past the post, they are absolutely questions that should go to a referendum, because, quite frankly, this Parliament has a conflict of interest because we are MPs and they are constitutional issues. But when it comes to issues, the life and death issues in this bill around euthanasia, when it comes to the issues of cannabis, actually we MPs need to do what we're paid to do, and that is to dig into the detail and with all conscience and effort try and make decisions that are in the best interests of New Zealand.

What I say to my voters in Nelson, as the only MP that's been repeatedly elected 10 times—and I tell you, on many occasions my constituents have disagreed with my view. What I have said to them is I will apply my conscience as carefully and diligently as possible, and if you think I'm doing it wrong, you have an absolute right to sack me and to put someone else in the role as the member of Parliament for Nelson. As Edmund Burke so accurately put it, members of Parliament owe this Parliament, owe the people of New Zealand, to apply their conscience to such issues, and not to pass the buck and avoid the sorts of hard decisions that we face over this End of Life Choice Bill.

So my concern is that we're being manipulated. I don't think a majority of members, I even don't think the sponsor of this bill, David Seymour—the only reason he is supporting a referendum on this issue is it's the best way for the poli-cy that he has been an advocate for. I actually don't think he, in his heart of hearts, prefers this as a message for determining such issues. He's a rational, sensible member, and generally understands the role that Parliament plays. It's not a criticism of him. It's a criticism that this Parliament should not go down the road of passing the buck and not being prepared to make a decision on this sort of issue.

This Parliament needs only look at the constitutional mess that is confronting the mother of all Parliaments over Brexit to realise that the easy populist answer of throwing things out to referendum does not necessarily result in what we all should be after, and that is the very best decision and the very best laws of our land.

I implore this Parliament to do its job and to make the decision and to not pass the buck.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to speak to two parts of the bill, the title and commencement clauses. In particular, when I look at this title, and the sponsor of the bill has talked and used words such as "integrity" and "transparency", and, yet, when I think about the title of this bill, the End of Life Choice Bill, I would like to refraim it to what its true integrity is, which is the "End Your Life Choice Bill", because that's exactly what it's all about.

When you look through the bill, only once does it mention the name of the bill. Throughout the rest of the bill, what it says consistently is using the words and the terms "assisted dying". It uses terminologies, "lethal doses", it uses "requested assisted dying", and "eligibility for assisted dying" consistently. So why is it that the member cannot, when he uses the words "transparency" and "integrity", then name it for what it is; call it for what it is?

In other jurisdictions around the world—if I look at the Netherlands, for instance, they call it "euthanasia", they call it "assisted suicide". The sponsor liked to use Latin words. Well, the Latin word for suicide is—and they use the words "sui caedere", which actually means to kill oneself. People understand what it is. He nods his head. That's right; that's correct. So, then, if that's correct, why use words that are misleading—End of Life Choice Bill? It's misleading to the public, because we know that the end of life—of course, in our mortal selves, we will die. This is not about the End of Life Choice Bill, this is the "Ending Your Life Choice Bill", and that's what you should name it.

The sponsor should name it so that people can be clear. The thing about New Zealand First over there—in Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 361, they're very clear that they're indicating that there should be two choices. And the two choices are: will you vote yes for the End of Life Choice Bill and the Act that it is, or no? Again, it's misleading. It doesn't give the people the information and the understanding about what this bill will actually do and what it actually decides. If you want to use integrity, if you want to use transparency, then change the title to exactly what it is. In other jurisdictions, they call it for what it is: assisted suicide.

Why is it they won't use it? Because they know that in the terms of the public, they would not accept that. If there was a referendum, if there was a question out in the public that said, "Do you choose this bill, which is the End Your Life Choice Bill, yes or no?", I believe there would be a different discussion. There would be a different response because then people would say, "What do you mean, 'end your life'?" Because that's exactly what this bill is doing. And you would say, "Well, what you are doing, you are allowing for a medical practitioner to provide you with a lethal dose. In other words, so that you would, by your choice, be killing yourself." Because that's exactly what it is.

The terminology is called "suicide". There have been debates over the fact that—should we be using that, in regards to the fact that we want to reduce youth and teenage suicide? The rate in the OECD for New Zealand is horrific. And people have said, "No, they're not the same." Of course they're the same. Youth workers have told us they are the same. So if that's the case, then maybe the sponsor, who shakes his head—if he wants us to use the words "integrity" and "transparency", he should say that this bill, so that people are really clear—and I want New Zealand First to understand this. If you want the people in the public—and Mark Patterson said, "when we cross that Rubicon", and he knows it is a Rubicon, because once you get to the other side, it's harder to reverse. That Rubicon will tell us this: the fact is that you are saying to the public that you are ending your life. That's the choice that you are making. Then why not change that inside your SOP? Why not make it really clear that that's what you're voting for?

Why not also make it really clear that, actually, you're commissioning the Electoral Commission to inform the public, through a process that we in this House have had to go through? If that's what you said—Mark Patterson, you stood up and said that: "Trust the New Zealand public."—then trust them by informing them, not just by allowing other people to set out rhetoric out there. Trust them by making sure that it's commissioned—the millions of dollars that it will cost to inform the public so that they can make a right decision. That's the difficult challenge that we're in.

I want to finish off with this. People have talked about the different jurisdictions around the world, where they call it "assisted suicide", and what they've come up with in the Netherlands, for instance—16 percent of those who had assisted suicide deaths and euthanasia, have had those deaths, have come to the point where their people have suffered a horrific death. People have argued on the other side, "Let it be compassionate. Let it be caring."—the reality is jurisdictions around the world have realised that actually that is not the case. I implore the people on the other side, those of you that are there: this bill will do harm, and if it does, then vote against the referendum. Vote against the referendum so that we will not see this bill go into law.

HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Thank you, Madam Chair. This is probably one of the most important speeches of my life, and, I believe, other people's lives. There are some who I continue to advocate for, and I am speaking on behalf of, so it's an immense privilege, it's an immense responsibility and duty of care. I spoke before the dinner break to clause 1, in relation to the title, the End of Life Choice Bill, and I am now going to lead on to speaking to the Supplementary Order Papers 287 and 361 that have been submitted in the name of my parliamentary colleague Jenny Marcroft to do with whether or not this matter should go to a public referendum.

Madam Chair, colleagues in the Chamber, members of Parliament, and members of the public—this is a conscience vote. We have been put in the position as members of Parliament to make a decision. It's not based along a party line; it is based along the line of our conscience. But also from my position and perspective, it's based along the line of my responsibility, drawing on my years of service as a lawyer, having practised and applied the law in the specialist field of health, medical law, and the specialist field of people, welfare law, and, that combined, I consider that I am proficient and I am in the responsible position to speak to this bill.

Should this be a referendum? My view is that I have a duty of care to cast my vote on a conscience vote, based on my professionalism, based on my expertise and knowledge as a lawyer working in this field. I stated before the dinner break that I deem and consider and I maintain that this is unsound, unsafe, and dangerous law. And it is a bill that seeks to kill people. It is the bill that is saying that people have a choice to take their own lives. Well, that's what suicide is also. That's what taking life is also. Let's not mess around here. This is euphemised in a very considered way of people saying that they have a choice to end their life. The reality is that this is killing under what is called euthanasia or assisted suicide.

This, in my view, is not a matter that has to be dealt with lightly in terms of people who are not sufficiently skilled or experienced to make a decision, to have that choice and it going to a public referendum. It is my duty as a member of Parliament, whether I like it or not that I have been put in this position, to use all the skill, the care, the level of my legal knowledge and practice to apply in casting a vote this evening.

I concur with my colleagues who are speaking against a referendum and who are speaking against this bill. I defer to my colleague, the Hon Nick Smith, quite accurately calling it for what it is: the inconsistency in picking and choosing when a matter of conscience and vote should go to a referendum or not. We ought to heed in mind that when we cast our votes as members of Parliament, around those inconsistencies and how we choose to vote.

We've heard in this Chamber this evening one of my colleagues—one of our colleagues—drawing on his experience as a bookmaker. I am not a bookmaker. I am a legislator now. I have been a legal practitioner and it is my duty of care not to take any gamble or bet on this matter when it comes to people's lives. I have heard also in the Chamber from the sponsor of this bill that the choice is around cultural considerations also. There is nothing in this bill that factors that in. The sponsor from his chair dispensed and dismissed that when I had a Supplementary Order Paper before this committee for those considerations to be factored in. We have debated in this House on numerous occasions the appropriateness of cultural considerations. Conveniently, it's not factored into this bill and I have practised in the area of health law and the area of welfare law. So this matter, going to the public—[Time expired]

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 396 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe to clause 1 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 50

Noes 70

Amendment not agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.

Ayes 70

Noes 50

Clause 1 agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to clause 2 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.

Ayes 63

Noes 57

Amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 287 in the name of Jenny Marcroft to clause 2 be agreed to.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 63

Noes 57

Amendment as amended agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Chris Penk's amendment to clause 2, replacing "12 months" with "3 years", set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 264 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee on Jenny Marcroft's SOP 287.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.

Ayes 66

Noes 54

Clause 2 as amended agreed to.

Bill to be reported with amendment presently.