End of Life Choice Bill

I move, That the End of Life Choice Bill be now read a third time.

New Zealand has never had a well-funded, well-oiled lobby for assisted dying. The End-of-Life Choice Society, four previous members of Parliament with similar bills—and I acknowledge the Hon Maryan Street here today—and advocates such as Lecretia Seales have all been passionate grassroots campaigners. And yet, New Zealanders have come to their own conclusions on the matter. Analysis by Jessica Young from the University of Otago has found that over 20 years, support for such a bill as this has run at 68 percent to 15 percent, with 17 percent undecided. For context, the biggest audience the All Blacks have ever garnered was only 40 percent of New Zealanders. Such a deep and unsolicited conviction can only come from one place: life experience. And I’ve listened to New Zealanders talk about their experiences, literally from Kerikeri to Gore. Overwhelmingly, they’ve said to me, “I’ve seen bad death. If my time comes and I’m not doing well, then I want choice. And, by the way, it’s nobody else’s business but mine.” They’ve thought deeply about harrowing events in their own lives, and I caution members of Parliament that we should not underestimate or belittle the public’s understanding of this issue.

I want to thank colleagues who supported amendments to this bill at committee. Those amendments have delivered on promises I made to fellow MPs during the second reading debate. There is not time to describe every improvement, but I will summarise some of the key ones now. The bill previously allowed people with a grievous and irremediable medical condition to be eligible for assisted dying. That term was lifted from the Canadian legislation, where it works successfully. But, nevertheless, members of Parliament indicated they could not support a bill with that feature, and it has now been narrowed. Only a person whom two doctors judge to have a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months can be eligible. I acknowledge supporters of the bill who lament that narrowing, but I also say that it places a black-letter objectivity in the bill that only the most fundamentalist opponents can deny.

Several provisions have been introduced for the avoidance of all doubt. It is now explicit that nobody can become eligible for assisted dying simply due to age, disability, or a purely psychological condition. Similarly, no written consent or advanced directive can substitute for a person demonstrating their eligibility in real time. These avoidance of doubt clauses don’t change the underlying function of the bill, but they do clarify its intentions.

Several improvements have been made to the qualifications required of health practitioners under the bill. The independent medical practitioner, or second doctor, must now have five years’ experience. The medical practitioner who gives the third opinion, the potential psychologist, can no longer be a psychologist and must be a psychiatrist. Nurse practitioners may play some roles under the bill, but all decision-making functions remain with doctors, and, ultimately, with the patient. The employment rights of health practitioners who must play a role under the bill and conscientiously object to that role are now explicitly protected. And the test for mental competence has been upgraded to align with that in other legislation, requiring a person to understand, retain, weigh, and communicate information. It’s been made explicit that no medical practitioner can initiate any conversation about assisted dying, and rules have been added to balance privacy and responsible public reporting of death in accordance with other legislation. Finally, the immunity protections for a doctor carrying out acts under this law have been made more specific.

That’s a very significant list of improvements to the bill, but I remind members they are in addition to the already robust regime of safeguards and reporting that was in the bill, and debated at length in the first and second readings. One final change made by the committee is to add the requirement for a referendum to be held before the bill comes into force. I’d like to address some criticisms of this feature, including those who say that we in Parliament are abdicating our responsibility by adding a referendum. That criticism ignores that Parliament has to pass the bill before the referendum is possible. Today is exactly 23 months since we first debated this bill in first reading; nobody can ever say that Parliament hasn’t done its job. In fact, the net effects of the referendum is that the public will have one last chance to veto Parliament’s work, should we choose to pass it tonight.

It’s impossible to ignore the voluminous debate that has surrounded this bill, not just in the last two years, but in the last two decades. Some of the arguments have been, frankly, disgraceful. Let me put on record again, there is no connection between legalised assisted dying and suicide anywhere. To see people in the New Zealand Herald this morning saying that there is “suggested evidence”, well, I’ve heard that academic standards are falling, but “suggested evidence” is a new low.

People have tried to play on New Zealanders’ natural protectiveness of those with a disability. Let me be clear that no iteration of this bill has ever allowed anyone to be eligible for assisted dying by dint of a disability. I have some personal experience with this. My own mother was one of the last people in New Zealand to contract the polio virus and, like many with a disability, she fought all her life to assert that her disability did not diminish her as a self-determining person in every other respect. The underlying premise of some opponents is that people with a disability are somehow vulnerable to the mere existence of choice. It’s an argument that I have found deeply and personally distasteful.

Others have argued more generally that choice for some would mean undue pressure for others. The bill includes stringent safeguards to ensure choice is genuine though, and these include requirements for two doctors to independently verify that the person is somebody who feels, in their own belief, that assisted dying is the only way to alleviate their suffering. They must also talk to others involved in their care, and they must also cease taking any action if undue pressure is even suspected.

But we can also look at the international evidence. Who is likely to use assisted dying laws? Is it those who are less articulate, less assertive, and have fewer resources in life? No. It should be intuitive, actually, that it’s those who are used to navigating severe bureaucracy, who are more assertive, who navigate the stringent safeguards under assisted dying laws overseas at a time when they are ill.

And, finally, opponents who run out of sound objections to this bill try arguing against some other bill, a hypothetical one. They call it the slippery-slope fallacy, and they say, “Ah, but it will change.” Well, let’s look at what that would require in context. An MP would have to bring a new bill to this House. A majority would have to agree to any changes, and all the same arguments that led to the narrowing of this bill would emerge again. That’s one of the reasons those who have studied assisted dying laws overseas, the Supreme Court of Canada, and the Western Australian and Victorian parliaments have roundly rejected the slippery slope fallacy. The objections to this bill hold no water even with endless repetition. They evaporate when confronted with the details of the bill and the reality of overseas experience.

Members would do well to ask themselves why it is that after 15 years, 88 percent of Dutch people support their law. If half the things that the opponents have said were true, then that couldn’t be possible. And they might also reflect on what it’s like to be a Dutch MP who was around voting against such a law 15 years ago.

So much for the arguments of opponents. We must remember why we are doing this. It’s about how we treat the most vulnerable in our society. If some people are suffering at the end of their life, do we say to them that they must suffer some more because we in this House lack the courage to make better laws or even let our fellow New Zealanders have a say in a referendum on that law? No. We must give them choice.

I leave you with the words of Lecretia Seales, who said, “I am simply saying that I, Lecretia Seales, a human being confronted with the inescapable reality of my death, and the prospect of great suffering—for me and those who love me—must have the right to determine when I have reached the end of the road. This right belongs to me and none other.”—or the words of Martin Hames, a parliamentary staffer who briefly lived after a botched suicide to end his Huntington’s torment. When he came back alive, he said to that MP, “Boss, change it. Change for all others.” That’s what we must do tonight, colleagues.

The End of Life Choice Bill, so called, seeks to establish a regime—let us be clear—to facilitate euthanasia and assisted suicide in this country; respectively, the act of ending the life of another through a lethal dose of medication, or to do it to oneself. There are a number of questions we should ask ourselves in this House today.

The first is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. Put another way, the question is not whether it is possible to imagine whether a person who is competent, in good mental health, has a supportive family, and whose first language is English, the language of the death transaction, might be able to make a choice and not be bullied into an early grave but, rather, whether it is possible to imagine others who lack such natural advantages. I can think of constituents in both categories, and I acknowledge them all.

The next question we might ask is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise the so-called choice, absent other choices? A further question might be not whether the bill is better than it was before—less dangerous, in other words—but whether it is good enough now.

With regard to the referendum proposal that was inserted at the committee stage of the debate, we ask ourselves: is it responsible for us as lawmakers to hand a loaded gun to fellow New Zealanders and say, “Don’t worry, I have applied the safety catch.”, knowing very well that for many New Zealanders the only words of the bill that they will ever read before such a referendum will be the title of the bill, containing the euphemism that it does?

Recent polling has indicated clearly that members of the general public, quite understandably, given that it is not their job but ours to understand and interrogate the details of such legislation, misunderstand the nature of what it is that Mr Seymour is proposing. Seventy percent believe that the bill concerns itself with “Do not resuscitate” orders. In fact, this is already legally and ethically accepted in New Zealand today. Seventy-four percent believe that the switching off of life support is within the remit of the bill, notwithstanding that, again, legally and indeed ethically, as far as the medical profession is concerned, this is already perfectly legitimate in this country. Some seventy-two percent believe that the bill contains an exclusion for mental health, precluding those who are suffering perhaps from depression having received a terminal illness diagnosis in recent times, for example, from accessing the provisions to make the choice as referred to in the bill.

Even advocates for the bill—and I do not blame them for this; again, it is our job and not theirs—often do not know the detail of the bill. I was speaking recently with one who spoke very passionately and articulately and, frankly, very well in support of the bill and urged me to support it. But she did not believe me when I said that it would be possible for a person to receive a diagnosis of terminal illness on a Wednesday, gain the necessary approvals under the bill that same day, and be dead before the weekend. I have double-checked, as I had promised that constituent I would, and I can confirm, having read the bill, that there is no stand-down period, no time frame involved other than the 48 hours between the approval and the lethal dose of medication being administered.

In the context of the referendum still—before I move on—we must face the prospect of misinformation by the sponsor of the bill, David Seymour. He has previously said in this very House that the bill has received a clean bill of health from the Attorney-General. That much is not true. The Attorney-General was explicit in stating that it discriminates on the basis of age, opening the possibility of a challenge through the courts. And this is the missing piece in the constitutional jigsaw puzzle that the sponsor of the bill has recently exposed his own ignorance upon. It would not be required, as he has just said, that a member of Parliament necessarily would have to in the future bring such a change to this House.

There is misunderstanding by supporter MPs too, who have claimed that it would be a matter for the family doctor of a person. There is no such provision in the bill, requiring that a doctor who signs off the person, whether the first or the second doctor, need ever have met the person themselves before. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it was the subject of a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that was put forward by a fellow MP who was concerned about the lack of meaningful safeguards. That SOP was not supported by the sponsor of the bill. It failed, and, accordingly, the bill retains that outstanding requirement, that shortfall.

These are the myths and misunderstandings, my fellow parliamentarians and my fellow New Zealanders, that we will have to contend with if the sponsor’s approach of full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes is adopted. It is not good enough.

The support for the bill, as expressed by its sponsor, is predicated on a false choice. There is improving care, and technology and pain management techniques allow the improvement naturally to continue. The words “There is no alternative” ring hollow. So too the syllogism that says, “We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it.”

There are other things that we can and should do in the context of end of life care. And there are things that we should not do as well—certainly those things that seek to solve one problem but substitute in its place many others. Whatever the result today, it will not be available for members of this House to claim later that they did not know. Numerous SOPs, proposed amendments, have highlighted the outstanding defects, and this has been the purpose or at least the result of the committee stage of the House.

Key issues remain, and I make no claim that this is an exhaustive list but merely some of the more important. No independent witnesses are required at any stage of the process, including at the death—independent witnesses being, of course, those who are not involved in the decision-making process, and, of course, the person themselves, for obvious reasons, would not be available as a witness later. In contrast, Victoria’s equivalent law requires at the administration stage, both the request and the lethal dose, a witness. So too in Oregon—in fact, two witnesses in that case—and likewise in Victoria and Canada.

Another such point: the person eligible doesn’t need to be mentally competent when the lethal dose is administered. Thereby, we’ve passed up an opportunity in this House to rectify the bill such that a person is now denied the opportunity, effectively, to reverse their decision, having made it when they were deemed competent—noting, of course, that the threshold for competence is so low as merely being that they understand the nature and consequences and can express that at some time.

There is no prescribed cooling-off period. Forty-eight hours, merely, between the administration of the lethal dose of medication following the initial approval, as I have stated earlier, is a common misunderstanding, whereas, by contrast, in Oregon, it is some 15 days; nine days in Victoria; and 10 in Canada. Again, if this sounds familiar, it’s because we made this very proposal in the committee stage, and, again, it was rejected by the sponsor of the bill and others who supported him in doing so. So it is that we do not have that sort of cooling-off period, that protection, and it is particularly relevant in the context of evidence that we have heard that mental ill health—particularly, and explicitly, depression—often follows immediately after the diagnosis of a terminal illness, only to pass, at least in some cases.

Contrary to the claim of the sponsor of the bill, only the attending medical practitioner needs to check for coercion. The second doctor—the independent medical practitioner, so-called—has no such requirement under the bill.

I could go on. Given time constraints, I will not, but even if there were no other defects—and please believe me when I say that there are—these alone would be sufficient to indicate, in my mind, that we have a very troubling answer to our question that I asked previously, which is: what is the number of vulnerable New Zealanders who may be coerced to exercise this so-called choice, absent other choices?

I’ll finish with a run-through of the bill by the numbers: 39,000, approximately, is the number of submissions, a record received by the select committee; 90 percent—more than, in fact—those opposed to the bill. Those who knew enough or cared enough to get in touch with the committee and express a view opposed it overwhelmingly. The number 40—that’s the number of clauses in the bill, as compared with 143 in the equivalent Victorian legislation. So when we heard earlier from supporters of the bill that not too much scrutiny was required because there were relatively few clauses, that is quite clearly absurd in the context of that which is not in the bill being as significant as that which is.

The question is not whether some people should die in a way that the bill allows, but whether any people could die in a way that the bill does not allow. We don’t know the number of people that will be coerced into an early death, but we do know that it is not zero. I oppose this bill. [Interruption]

Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Can I just make it very clear to members of the public in the gallery that participation in this debate is limited to members of Parliament. The Hon Grant Robertson—a five-minute call.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for giving me the call. I want to acknowledge at the outset that this is not an easy debate for anybody. It is a difficult debate, and I have seen respect shown across the House for different views. I think that has been an important part of how this debate has continued, and I want to thank all members for doing it.

This is not easy. New Zealanders don’t like talking about death, but it is important that we do. Death is not just a physical event; it is also a social event. It is something that as a country we must face up to. It is not easy to do difficult things, but unless we do difficult things, we will never do important things, and that is what this debate is about. I want to thank and congratulate the mover of the bill, David Seymour, for the work that he has done in getting us to this stage.

Every single person in this House, either in debating here or in other forums, has talked about the friends and the relatives who mean something to them when this debate arises. For me, that person is Helen Kelly. I discussed this issue with Helen before her death several times, and I want to quote her now. She said, “I could let myself die now. I could refuse treatment … lawfully and die rather quickly. Instead I am trying to live, which is actually what most terminally ill people want—we don’t actually want to die—but if we have to then we want to do it peacefully and some of us may want tools to help [us] when it is not going to happen naturally.” In Helen’s very clear and direct way, she was sending the clear message that I support. This is not easy. This may not be what many of us would want for even ourselves, but it is what we should allow for those who do want it.

For me, this debate is actually not so much about choice, and I know that for many members, that is the issue that drives them to support this bill. The reason that I support this piece of legislation is about two other values: those of dignity and those of compassion.

Another person who I have had long conversations with about this legislation and this issue was the Very Rev. John Murray—now deceased—from the Kāpiti coast, who spent many years advocating for voluntary euthanasia as a Christian. He said to me often that as a Christian, the issues were not about choice; the issues were about compassion and about dignity, ensuring that at the end of life, in a Christian way, we show the same principles of compassion that we would show during life for someone. Now, I respect that fact that that is not the view of every person who identifies as a Christian, but it is the view that John Murray transmitted to me several times over the years.

Palliative care is important. Palliative care remains a critical part of making sure that people at the end their lives are supported. We should support palliative care, and we do. It’s important and it’s vital, but it’s not enough. We do have to provide people with—yes—choice but also with dignity and compassion.

We also have to trust this House that, through the process, we have improved this bill. We have significantly strengthened the safeguards. We have made sure that this is a bill that will be enduring and provide a law that all New Zealanders can have confidence in.

We will pass this bill today, I believe, and when we do, we will put the choice about what happens into the hands of New Zealanders in a referendum. That is not my preference. That is not how I would like this issue to have been resolved by this House. I believe that as a House, we have it within our wherewithal to make this decision. But, for me, it is more important that we finally make progress on this issue.

This House has been here a couple of times before. It’s now time for us to pass this law, to give New Zealanders that chance to vote on it at a referendum, and to have a referendum that is one that is conducted in a way where we have real information and where we make sure that the respect that has been shown in this House up to now is continued for New Zealanders, but, fundamentally, for people like Helen Kelly and John Murray in my life and for all those similar people in the lives of others here, that we finally offer dignity and compassion in death as we would in life. I support the bill.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. First of all, can I do something that I never thought I would do: can I thank David Seymour for his work with New Zealand First and with myself. I also want to acknowledge Brooke from his offices.

There are not many issues that you see a politician make such a commitment to over such a long period of time. Often, you don’t see a politician who has been as open to change and to amendment and as flexible to try and do the best by this House and all the perspectives in this House, because they hold on to their own ego and they hold on to the stick in the sand and they make it about them. I am surprised that it’s a leader of the ACT Party that I’m talking about, but I believe that David Seymour has shown himself to be a gentleman of character and that he has made this issue bigger than him. So I want to acknowledge that. It’ll be the last time I acknowledge anything like that, Mr Seymour.

💬 David Seymour: Thank you. You can stop now.

Thank you.

So, on behalf of New Zealand First, I stand here not because New Zealand First and its members agree on this piece of legislation. We have a variety of views, as every other caucus has a variety of views.

💬 Simeon Brown: Have a conscience vote, then.

But the one thing—and it is a conscience vote. I can hear you shouting out, sir, and it is a conscience vote. But what we do have consensus on in the New Zealand First caucus is that the conscience of the New Zealand public is just as important as the consciences in this room. I wished you hadn’t rolled your eyes when I said that, because we believe that on issues—not every issue, of course not, but this is an issue of such import. If it wasn’t of such import, Mr Penk wouldn’t have been as committed to his position as Mr Seymour is to his. If it wasn’t of such import, it wouldn’t have taken two years and the many thousands of submissions to get us to this place. So because it is such an unusual topic, such a momentous decision for New Zealand, we agree that it is right and proper that our consciences—I hear the words of others who talk about the tyranny of the majority. Surely, this would be the dictatorship of the minority around such an issue.

Now, I know that people would like to have this done and they would like greater certainty about the numbers to fall on their side, not the other person’s side, but we trust the New Zealand public to be able to understand enough about us that they voted us here in the first place. But they didn’t vote our consciences here; they voted our party manifestos. They voted the things we stood up—

💬 Dan Bidois: They voted for us to make these decisions.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN:—on platforms and argued. Mr Bidois—and I’m sure he will seek a call—is announcing that he believes that the New Zealand public voted us here to make this call. Did they know that? Did they know, each and every one of them—each and every one of them—what this bill was going to look like at this moment in time when they asked us to cast our conscience? The answer cannot be yes, because none of this was in place when they voted us here.

What we have said is it has passed through all parts—I believe, hopefully—of this House today; the New Zealand public will now have the opportunity through the bill, through the regulatory impact statement, and through, I’m sure, contributions by Mr Penk and others. If there is a fear of false information, then that is what behoves us to call it out, Mr Penk, and make sure that when we’re campaigning on the campaign trail, we don’t fall below our own standards, and make sure that we don’t start to put out misinformation in an attempt to win an argument. This should be now for the New Zealand public. We’ve had our two years. We’ve had our hours and hours and hours of debate and this is where we are. We trust them to put us here; we should trust them with their own futures, however it lies.

The reason why I believe that the New Zealand public should welcome a referendum, particularly a referendum in this style: the bill is there for you to see. The regulatory impact statement is there for you to see. There will be rules around the information that can be placed before you and who can place it before you, making sure as best as we can that it will be truthful and factual and honest. But it also gives you a very clear choice—probably, I think, for the first time I’ve seen in my life—of what the question is: “Yes, I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.”, or “No, I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force.” This is clearer than it has ever been before for the New Zealand public about what they are voting on.

I need the New Zealand public to know this: “If this Act does not come into force under subsection (1) within 5 years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent, this Act is repealed.” What it means is should there be a change of Government and should there be a change of mind in the make-up of the Government, if the New Zealand public wish this bill to be implemented—if the majority vote Yes—then that Government needs to implement it. If it does not, the bill automatically repeals after five years. This is an important moment for the New Zealand public. If this bill passes this third reading, they have never had a power like this, I believe, in my lifetime.

This is incredibly serious, and we need the New Zealand public to know how serious it is, and that is on us. If this passes and it now goes into the public domain, it is on us to be the grown-ups, to carry the respect that has been shown in this House, to lead by example, and to go out there and help the New Zealand public be as informed as possible, be as respectful to each other as possible, and make the choice that they believe that this House should implement. So New Zealand First will be casting all their votes in favour of this bill so that the New Zealand public will be able to make up their mind. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have spoken at no previous reading of this bill, and today I speak. If this bill passes, I am the only person in this House who will be permissioned to euthanise New Zealanders. This weighs heavily on me. In this contribution, I will speak with three voices: the voice of the medical practitioner, the voice of a Māori, and the voice of a New Zealand citizen.

To the first, as a doctor, I proudly add my name to 1,500 medical practitioners and ask the House not to pass this bill. I will not traverse the arguments of slippery slope and the signals it sends to our at-risk disabled, but instead I ask us to reflect on the last time we accompanied a sick, older person to a doctor—maybe a mother, a friend, a father, aunt, or elderly person. In that moment of need and relationship of trust, we knew that the doctor was working as hard as they can to return our loved one to the very best physical, mental, and social condition possible. There are no other options. There is no other agenda. There is no other step. The backstop that commands the doctor is to return that person to the best condition possible. If this bill passes, another option is created. There is a next step—the backstop changes. It changes to one where euthanasia may be a next step, and in doing so, it will change the very fabric of the doctor-patient relationship. I don’t want an option of anything other than the very best care I can provide. If this bill passes, I cannot imagine the spectre of euthanasia—ever-present, looming over every single consultation, there but not there, present but unspoken until it is dared to be given light. This bill dims the privilege of care.

I turn, then, to my second voice and draw on what it means for me to be Māori, and in that context, this bill gives me grave foreboding. I understand some concepts of Te Ao Māori—where we came from, why we’re here, where we are going—but my sense is that we reach here beyond where we are meant to reach. Just because we can doesn’t mean we should. But there are others in this House who I’ve communicated with in the past 24 hours who are more knowledgeable in matters of this, more knowledgable in tikanga Māori than I, and so I pose the question to them. Taku tungāne Peeni Henare, I value your opinion. It’s not that many years past when you and your young family trusted me with my advice. Do you trust me now? Do you trust the very best summary I can make of the matter in front of us? I ask you to put all of this aside and tell me: what does your Māori heart say on this matter? Aku tungāne and tuahine Willie Jackson and Nanaia Mahuta, I value your opinion. You both walk closer to Te Ao Māori than I do, and so ask you also: what does your Māori heart say? This Māori heart says no.

In my third and final voice, I ask the House to consider this: the bill in front of us offers euthanasia to those with serious conditions who are likely to live less than six months. What important human endeavours would be absent from this world if great composers and artists with terminal conditions had been euthanised before their final works were completed? I will name three. Franz Schubert was ill for many months before his death in 1828, with physician Ernst Rinna confirming that he was “ill beyond cure and likely to die soon.” He was eligible for euthanasia, and yet on that long, last walk, in the last months of his life, he wrote three important piano sonatas in C minor, A major, and B flat. Under euthanasia, the brightness would be gone from the world.

In 1827, Ludwig Beethoven was dying with cirrhosis of the liver. He was eligible for euthanasia, and yet in his final months he completed some of his most admired work, including the substitute final movement of the String Quartet No. 13. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world.

Finally, Johann Bach was blind, and in his final months he had suffered a stroke. He was eligible for euthanasia. Yet, in those final months, he completed the hymn “Before Thy Throne I Now Appear”, the first and only piece of music in which he inserted a melody from the letters of his surname, Bach, in German notation—B flat, A, C, B natural. Under euthanasia, this brightness would be gone from the world.

I will conclude this contribution then with the words from that last piece by Bach.

“Soul, body, honour, house, and friend,

To Thy protection I commend.

Beseeching Thine almighty grace

To aid me, till I’ve run my race;”

It is our privilege to aid but not to end the race. Thank you.

Te Mana Whakawā, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this, the End of Life Choice Bill. I would like to acknowledge all the people who took the time to email me, to write to me in many forms through social media, and to speak to me in person with their varying views. Thank you for your respect.

I believe and support the concept of death with dignity and comfort, with the context of effective pain relief and loving care for those who are desperately ill and facing death. We all die. It is a natural phenomenon. I speak from my insights as someone who has experienced sharing a journey with my relations at the beginning of their death—their final breath, through to the burial grounds or to the furnace at the crematorium. I have been at their bedside as they took their final breath. They passed away with dignity, despite their varying ages and their terminal illnesses. It was a spiritual experience to be with a dying person at the final stage of their life—to feel their warmth fade away as they lay there peacefully and allowed us, the closest relations, the opportunity to release our pain in losing our loved ones.

No matter how the bill has been altered, I believe the core of the bill—the purpose—is to sanction in the law of the land the premature ending of a human life, as evidenced by the example of Canada, where an overwhelming majority that choose this pathway actually die at the hand of others. Someone did it; the majority didn’t do it to themselves. For the people, communities, and the deeply held values I represent in these matters, the premature ending of human life at the hand of others is unethical and abandoning the values of respecting and protecting human life—the core focus of so much of what we do in law.

I was born in a village in Hōfoa in a country called Tonga, based in the South Pacific. Dr Linita Manu’atu, the chair of the Tongan Language Week committee, describes the Tongan people as spiritual and cultural, as reflected in Tonga’s motto: Ko e ‘Otua mo Tonga ko hoku tofi‘a. [God and Tonga are my inheritance.]—God being spiritual; Tonga cultural.

As a New Zealander by citizenship, I live in a country—our country, Aotearoa New Zealand—that opens its Parliament with a prayer. It begins with the words “Almighty God”. Our very own New Zealand national anthem begins with “God of nations, at Thy feet,”. I took the oath, the New Zealand Oath of Allegiance to the Queen, ending with “so help me God.” I make the point that God is present in our nation’s history and traditions, through parliamentary prayer, and through the national anthem.

I stand with the religious leaders who stated in their email to me dated 7 November—and I quote—“We understand both the need to balance, as well as the difficulty of balancing, individual choice with the common good … We also recognise the great distress faced by some patients and their whānau and friends in the case of certain intractable and prolonged terminal illnesses. However, on balance, in the current circumstances, we firmly believe that legalising medically-assisted dying will open the gateway for many [unforeseen or foreseen] consequences … will be damaging to individuals, families and the social fabric of our communities.”

My opposition to this bill is not about Christians forcing their opinions on to non-Christians. If anything, the sponsor and the supporters are themselves forcing their individual values on to others. Parliament—and society in general—is about competition and clash of causes and values. So the bill is the prime example of that.

As a Christian, I believe in the sanctity of life, but that right and belief is enshrined in most nations’ constitutional documents around the world, in the United Nations key covenants, in the historical development of democracy, in the rule of law, and in numerous other sources. Believing in the sanctity of life, and therefore opposing this bill, is not purely a Christian view, but it is a view based on different views of politics, the medical profession, philosophy, and various other disciplines.

I am not sure whether this House noticed that for a year I was in tauanga‘a [mourning]. When I wore only black-coloured clothing from 12 October 2018 until 12 October 2019, I was mourning the loss of my fa‘ē-tangata , my maternal uncle, Nofovao-‘i-Taitai Semi Pule‘i Vai, Kanongata‘a. He was 76 years old when he passed away just over a year ago, a month short of his 77th birthday. He was diagnosed as terminal. However, he lived with cancer for a year and a half. What this bill proposes is that the choice of ending his life prematurely will now be an option.

On behalf of my kāinga, I want to extend our gratitude to all the doctors and nurses in Middlemore Hospital. The nurses were amazing. They cared for him with honour and respect. They made sure he was comfortable, and they made sure we, as a family, were always comfortable. The hospital staff kept their doors open as family members came in and out. They treated us with gentle kindness. They had done so many times before. We witnessed them tirelessly providing the same care to all the patients and their families. My point is that we as a family had an opportunity to laugh, to tell jokes, and for me, now and then, when I had time to leave Parliament—I got a telling off; we had to laugh, but we laughed with our family member.

I received an email yesterday from the Hon Meka Whaitiri, the email from Dr Aileen Collier. What stood out for me in the email information was that Dr Collier’s information said—and I quote—“The first issue is the issue of choice. Choice can be an absence of other choices.” Most people who support this bill do so because they want to defend people’s right to choose, but I can tell you now that if you pass this bill, people will make this choice to die due to an absence of other choices. Dr Collier continues to talk about “If you pass this bill, we’ll be in a mess. Conscious objection has not been improved through the SOP processes. Nurses are going to be involved.” She further, in her email, states, “The job as a nurse is hard enough.”

I acknowledge Dr Ate Moala, who today outside on the forecourt voiced the concerns of Doctors Say No, the 1,500 doctors echoed by my colleague there, Dr Shane Reti.

I want to talk about the fact that not all Pacific people, or not all Tongans, are opposed to this bill. But, as someone from a collective, I want to say that this individual choice ends with their choice to end their life, but that is the beginning of the death process.

I asked a colleague who supported this bill. I said, “What about the cleaner?” Has anyone ever thought about the dignity of the cleaner who has to clean up? Has anybody thought of the dignity of the person who digs the grave? Has anybody ever thought about the person who turns on the furnace? Has anybody ever thought about the dignity of the living people? The response to my question was “So what about the cleaner?” Mr Speaker, and to this House, the point that I’m trying to make is that it’s an individual choice to end one’s life, but that is just the beginning of the end of the life. That is the beginning of services provided by others. And when we say the word “service”, the people who provide those services fade away; they are not just “service”.

In conclusion, I want to again say thank you to the Rev. Hola Paea, and the church steward at the Papakura Tongan Methodist church that I attended on Sunday. I want to thank them for the encouragement of me to have the courage to stand in Parliament and confirm my faith as a Christian person. On that note, I oppose this bill on their behalf. Mālō ‘aupito.

I’ve spoken on this bill a number of times during its passage through the House, and it will be no surprise to members that I’ll be voting against it. I’ve been clear in my view that this bill sets a dangerous precedent and poses a real threat to vulnerable New Zealanders. Any member who has taken the time to engage with this issue will be familiar with the arguments, which is why I’ve chosen to focus my contribution not on the failings of this bill but on the abysmal process this bill has had through this House.

Reflecting on my relatively short time in Parliament, I note members from all sides spend enormous amounts of time discussing issues which are relatively minor, taking part in the process in an open and transparent manner. However, when it comes to this issue—an issue of life and death—the process has been manipulated with deals made in closed rooms and MPs hiding behind a referendum, too afraid to make the tough decisions that we’re elected here to make.

Right from the day this bill came up for its first reading, the processes of Parliament were used to advance this bill’s cause. At the first reading, tricks were played to bring the debate forward to a members’ day when it wasn’t expected; designed to ensure members were caught off guard. At the select committee stage, despite more submissions being made on this bill than any other piece of legislation this Parliament has ever seen, the member in charge of this bill, David Seymour, simply ignored the 90 percent of submissions which were opposed to this bill, instead formulating his own sponsor’s report, which ignored the changes proposed by the Justice Committee and ignored the input of those who submitted. While I commend the work of the select committee, the sponsor’s actions show his lack of respect for this process. At the committee of the whole House, the sponsor not only waited to table his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 the day before the debate started but he voted against every single amendment raised by anyone, other than what he proposed in his own SOP.

Serious issues have been ignored, such as the rights of doctors, hospice, and palliative care experts to conscientiously object to this process. Increasing the age of eligibility to an appropriate age to ensure that youth don’t qualify for assisted suicide: voted down. Ensuring that family members are at least informed of the fact that their loved one is ending their life by assisted suicide or euthanasia: voted down. Adequately protecting the rights of those with disabilities: voted down. These significant amendments and many, many more were voted down by the member in charge and those in support of the bill, with very few MPs who support the bill even contributing to the committee of the whole House, and some only contributing by trying to have a closure motion.

And then came the deals. A deal made with the Green Party whereby they would support this bill in a block, on the basis of a few changes to the eligibility criteria for this bill. The party which considers itself the conscience of the nation refuses its members to be able to exercise a conscience vote on a bill of this magnitude—not only on the bill as a whole but on every single SOP.

The other deal was made with the New Zealand First Party, whereby this bill would go to a referendum at the next election. This not only cynically secured nine votes for this bill but is giving MPs the opportunity to hide behind a referendum rather than actually voting on their conscience here in this House today. The cynicism not only extended to the New Zealand First Party but to MPs on both sides of this House who voted for a referendum despite being opposed in principle to referendums. With these two deals, 17 MPs will not be casting conscience votes here tonight—something which could materially change the outcome of this bill if they were given that right.

With all of these cynical backroom deals and disregard for the process, it is symbolic of what this bill stands for. Our elderly and our sick will be put at risk of being abused, manipulated, and processes in this bill being ignored, and the rights of doctors and patients set aside in the name of choice. If parliamentary process has been run in this manner, how can we trust that the bill’s processes won’t also be abused? And if they are, well, the person involved will be dead, with no opportunity for redress.

This is a conscience vote, and for good reason. The member in charge started his speech by talking about polling numbers. In fact, that’s basically all he’s talked about; the only correspondence I’ve ever received from the member in charge is telling me how many National Party people support this bill. He was asking me to consider my majority at the next election rather than the principles and the detail of this bill. I understand and respect the views of people in my electorate who disagree with me on this issue, and I’m open to Mr Seymour’s polling numbers being proven right. But it offends me to think that David Seymour simply boils this life and death issue down to a few polling numbers.

I came to Parliament to make the hard decisions, to look at the evidence, and to make a decision; not to be swayed by polls with leading questions. This issue is about the most vulnerable. I have opposed, and I will continue to oppose, this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t think there’s any member of this House, regardless of their position, who hasn’t given this issue their utmost thought. That has been reflected through the debate not only in this Parliament but also largely out in the public domain. I’d like to thank David Seymour, in particular, for his advocacy on the issue. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the many thousands of people who have emailed MPs—I think it was 7,500 at the last count, and I can assure you they have been read—and also the 200 or so people who have turned up to public meetings in Ashburton and Timaru and, I’m sure, throughout the country as well. Thank you to those of you here today, regardless of your position, and also, I’m sure, to many people watching the debate or following it at home.

We are conscious in this House that not every person is able to have a voice in this Parliament. With the House’s indulgence, I would like to give voice to one of those people today. Her story is not unique and her story is not the reason that I’m voting for this bill. Her name is Roslyn, and her sister Gina died after 12 years of suffering from a rare and debilitating illness. It robbed Gina of everything that she enjoyed. She was bedridden and lost the ability to speak. Gina could tolerate no light and very little sound. She took to wearing an eye mask taped to her face, and earplugs to dull the sounds that we treat as normal but that she described as a screaming siren going off non-stop all day and night. She could swallow only thin liquids; even pureed food was too much to handle. The pressure all over her emaciated body meant that she rolled herself from side to side all day and night in a ceaseless attempt to escape her pain. But there was no escaping the painful pressure caused by muscle wasting leaving her bones protruding on all sides down her spine, hips, joints, and limbs.

In Gina’s care facility, she had access to expert palliative care, dedicated medical professionals, and loving family and friends. Yet her suffering continued to grow daily. Morphine was completely ineffective for her pain, as were her other medications and attempts to palliate her agony. Gina was in irreversible decline, but she knew that she only had unrelenting pain ahead of her. So, eventually, she found a way to end her suffering—alone and unsupported.

I met with Roslyn earlier this year, and I repeat her words now because Roslyn cannot. Like her sister Gina, Roslyn has been diagnosed with the same rare illness. She cannot speak, and, like Gina, now can only communicate through written word or touch screen. She knows her condition will continue to decline, and she too will end up bedridden like Gina. The sad irony is that despite her illness, Roslyn’s present condition is not terminal, and yet for others she is determined to fight for what Gina could not achieve: a change in the law.

I agree that euthanasia should never be commonplace and that vulnerable people must be protected. We have excellent palliative care that works for most people, and we can improve it even more. But it does not work in all cases. I cannot in good conscience force people like Roslyn to go through the same tortured existence that her sister Gina had suffered, when another choice is available.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, otirā, tēnā tātau katoa. I want to focus in on whānau and everything that makes up a good whānau, a strong whānau, because that's what we want all the time. We want our families to be strong, and it's a difficult place to be strong. We know that there are health inequities in our health system. We know this because the Waitangi Tribunal have told us that. We know that because there are countless reports about that very issue. And yet here we are about to potentially pass a bill which will not add to the strength of our families. It will, in actual fact, make it more difficult.

We talk about kaupapa Māori. Terms that just roll off our tongue—manaakitanga, rangatiratanga, aroha. It even frames our international identity. But will it frame what we want for our families in this bill? I say it will not. It cannot, because it's fundamentally opposed to those kaupapa. And I stand here in opposition to this bill on behalf of the constituents of Te Tai Hauāuru. I held eight public hui. Overwhelmingly, the people that attended told me that they did not want this bill, and I feel honour bound to respect their decision. But it's an easy decision for me to make.

We have right now something called Te Arawhiti—the Māori-Crown relationship. Does this add anything to that relationship? We've heard the story about the bridge. That’s what Te Arawhiti is—that, on one side, you have Māori; on another side, you have the Crown. And it's Māori that have to keep going to the other side to have the issues that it is concerned with addressed. This bill does not go to the Māori side. It had the opportunity to—small opportunity to—and I acknowledge my whanaunga, the member for Whanganui, Harete Hipango, who put up a Supplementary Order Paper to that effect. It was voted down. That is a bridge that needs to be traversed. This is not the bill that addresses important issues like that. It will disadvantage Māori further in a system which already disadvantages Māori. The health inequities are significant. We cannot continue to pass bills that continue to affect Māori and others in that way.

There are other bridges to get over. There's a bridge called the vulnerable elderly. We need to get over that bridge too. There's a bridge that we need to get over called those with disabilities. We’ve heard from my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki about the issues for the Tongan people. There are serious ethnic disparities in our health system. This bill will be front and centre within that system, which we know already doesn't work for Māori, for Pasifika, and for ethnic minorities. We know; the stats don't lie. We need a better bill than this.

For those of you members who are voting for this bill, let me ask you to consider, to make sure that if you want to pass this bill, ask yourself, will it add to the disparities for ethnic peoples, for those who are most vulnerable, for Māori? I put that up in the same vein that Dr Shane Reti did in his contribution. I don't believe for one moment that this bill is going to address those serious issues. In fact, I predict that, within 10 years, we're going to be back here if this passes, because we know that Māori are seriously affected by these sorts of decisions. I cannot vote for this bill.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I want to acknowledge my friend David Seymour, the sponsor of this bill. All members of Parliament come here wanting to make a contribution for the betterment of New Zealand, but not everyone manages to do so. David, if this bill passes tonight and the referendum succeeds—and I believe both will—then you will have made an enormous contribution to New Zealand. You’ll have made New Zealand a more compassionate society, a more decent society, a more humane society. People forget, I think, sometimes that this bill was actually drawn in the last Parliament. Two and a half years on, we are debating the third reading. David has shepherded the bill through that arduous process. David, I’ve known you for over 15 years. I know that you are deeply committed to a better and freer New Zealand. I’m proud to call you a mate.

To the bill: my starting point when the bill was drawn was human agency and self-determination. I came into this Parliament as a liberal, and I am determined to leave as a liberal. In my maiden speech, I said that a fundamental belief in the primacy of the individual over the collective should be the lodestar that guides good Governments. I said that we should trust individuals more than we do, and I stand by those words. This bill upholds individual dignity. It affirms individual autonomy. It sanctifies self-determination.

I sat on the Justice Committee that considered this bill. I’ve had numerous people come and see me about it. I visited my local hospice. I’ve read widely on it. I’ve done my research. And I want to make five fundamental points that stand out for me at the end of this extended and long debate.

The first point is that the status quo is, or should be, fundamentally intolerable to a civilised and humane society. Palliative care is a wonderful thing, but it cannot end all pain and suffering. That was accepted by both sides of the argument in Seales v Attorney-General. Many doctors have come to see me; almost all accepted that there were rare circumstances when palliative care could not ease all suffering, when people died horrible, painful deaths. Those deaths are a reality we must recognise. I do not accept the argument that has been put by some that painful death is just something we should accept, that it is God’s will. Pain is a part of life, but it seems cruel and heartless to not try and ameliorate suffering when we can do so.

The second point I want to make is that, in the absence of legalised assisted dying, people take matters into their own hands. There is extensive research about this from both New Zealand and overseas. From 1900 to 2000, the research suggests that somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people rational, competent, and suffering a terminal illness. In a substantial number of those cases, it was expressly found that the deceased had ended their life because they still retained the ability to do so but they believed they would not be able to do so if they waited any longer.

The third point is that medically assisted dying happens now. That is a reality the House must recognise. Doctors admit it; the research supports it. We need to recognise that it happens already, but now we have the chance—a once-in-a-generation opportunity—to regulate it properly.

The fourth point is that it is not beyond the wit of humans to design a system that stops terrible suffering by a few while avoiding harm to others. Two hundred million people live in a country or a jurisdiction with assisted dying laws. This bill has been through an extensive process. It has comprehensive safeguards based on international best practice. I believe it is a good bill.

The fifth point that I want to stress is that the bill merely hastens death; on average, by 10 days. We need to remember that people who qualify for eligibility are going to pass on anyway; they have a terminal illness. The evidence suggests it hastens death by 10 days. The evidence also suggests some people who are eligible will choose not to take it up, but the knowledge they have the ability to do so to exercise that option is comfort enough.

Tonight, the House has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to remove the invidious choice presented to some people under the status quo. We currently deny terminally ill people the choice of dying at a time of their choosing, with their autonomy recognised, and their dignity affirmed. Instead, we give them an invidious choice: take your own life, often dangerously, or suffer needlessly. We can do better. Tonight we have the chance to do so.

Mr Speaker, thank you for the opportunity. We in this House are generally unequivocal in our support for fundamental freedoms and human rights. We support the right to work; the right to live free of discrimination; the right to health, housing, education, justice, social, and economic wellbeing. As a nation, we support the principle of solidarity and we pool our resources to ensure these rights are promoted and protected. We support the right to religious freedom. We support the right to life. We support the right to control what happens to a person’s body and to make medical decisions for themselves. We want these rights for everyone, but one can’t protect collective rights unless we also protect individual rights.

Tonight, most of us will cast a conscience vote on the End of Life Choice Bill. This conscience vote means we are to use our own individual moral sense of right and wrong to cast a vote on a matter that’s often highly sensitive or will potentially divide our communities. This is where it becomes complicated. We are given the opportunity to cast our vote based on our individual moral sense of right and wrong on an issue that’s important to a section of our society, but we are doing it in the political arena. The political arena complicates things, because it isn’t a simple yes or no answer. Other parties have come to a consensus to vote as a block.

At my first reading speech, I had outlined that this wasn’t a new issue, and the previous Parliament had already undergone a rigorous, comprehensive review, and it got declined by the previous Parliament. Mr Seymour has picked it up afresh and has secured considerable support through this House at first and second reading. I want to acknowledge those who seek to get this bill passed for the pursuit of their personal right and autonomy of decision making. I acknowledge the submissions that I have received, both for and against, for the passing of this End of Life Choice Bill. I thank the submissions from individuals and religious leaders of church organisations. I understand the concerns that they’ve raised and appreciate the respectful manner in which many have raised their concerns.

May I say to those who have argued strongly for or against, based on their strong beliefs, religious or otherwise, I ask them to consider that all of us fundamentally have free agency. All of us have the right to make choices; the right to choose for ourselves. Just because one feels strongly about their own personal beliefs, doesn’t give them the right to try and force their will on others or abuse others who hold a different view.

I absolutely have no opposition to their right to hold or share their beliefs, but I ask that it be done with an appreciation that we must also cherish the right for people to choose and recognise the gift of free agency that belongs to everyone. Sometimes we see an intolerance of other people’s beliefs and bullying or threatening behaviour towards those who have a different belief. We must pursue a state where we can debate with persuasion and still maintain peaceful and respectful relationships. After all, we are all connected, and what happens to one group will affect another group.

I want, in particular, to acknowledge the submissions of many in the medical profession in New Zealand and those whose occupations it is to provide care to the sick, the young, the elderly, and disabled. I acknowledge that when they have made a personal commitment to dedicate their lives in the work of caring, saving, and protecting other people’s lives, the passage of this bill raises genuine concerns for them and that workforce. I support the right to life; however, I also support the right of those who seek to have the autonomy to end their lives who are suffering from a terminal illness. How then does one compromise between two opposing fundamental principles: protecting the right to life versus the autonomy to end one’s life? Whilst we cherish and champion fundamental human rights in this place, we in this political arena often will pass laws that attempt to balance out the protection of individual human rights against the taking away of the rights from the few. We do this all the time in the political arena.

Finally, in my search for guidance, I have looked into my own cultural framework of decision making. Our Pacific MPs are divided on this, and there’s nothing wrong with that. I have a different world view. The Samoan word for health is soifua maloloina. It literally means life in a state of wellbeing or wellness. The death of one affects the group, especially the next generation. Therefore, weighty decisions are made by the collective in consideration of the impact on the individuals’ lives in that collective, especially the young ones. The Samoan way of decision making is a collective decision-making. One’s autonomy has to be balanced out with the effects and impact it has on individuals of that collective.

As the son of an elderly father of 81 years of age and not at his best health-wise, I’m reminded by my covenant carved on my body: as long as any of my parents are alive, I am bound to do all I can to provide them with soifua maloloina. For that reason, I’m voting no.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much and it’s a privilege to speak in the third and final reading of the End of Life Choice Bill. I’d like to start out by acknowledging all the members in the House today for the way in which you’ve conducted yourselves over the last couple of years in a very professional, respectful, and well-thought-out manner.

I’d also like to acknowledge everybody who’s reached out throughout New Zealand to communicate with their MPs, and, in particular, to those in the great electorate of Northcote for your feedback; it’s been really worth having that. In particular, I acknowledge Mary Panko from my own electorate. Mary, we do differ on this issue, but I would like to say that I have strong faith in you and I’m proud to call you a member of the Northcote electorate. So thank you for the work that you do. I would also like to acknowledge the sponsor of the bill, David Seymour, for his commitment to helping people like Lecretia Seales who want to end their life in a dignified and compassionate way.

This is a divisive topic, in particular in my community. My community is considered much more representative of the New Zealand community in terms of the relative demographics and weight. I can say that my community is split on this topic. Surveys that I’ve done and public meetings that I’ve done have roughly come out fifty-fifty, give or take a few percentage points, on this topic. So the people in my community are split, but what the people that want this bill passed have said to me loud and clear is that they want tight controls to protect the most vulnerable citizens in our society. I do not have confidence that this bill that we’re about to vote on today has the controls to protect our most vulnerable. Let me explain what exactly I mean by that.

So let’s start off with the eligibility criteria. They include already those that are terminally ill, but they also include those who suffer from a mental illness and depression. If we look at diagnosis and prognosis, of course we heard in the select committee process that doctors get it wrong all the time; it is based on probability, not by certainty. Next, the competency test: it’s not consistent throughout. There’s no need for a person to be mentally competent when the lethal dose is administered. Finally, on the eligibility criteria, this definition of unbearable suffering is still vague to me, and it could include suffering from poverty, loneliness, spousal death, or any such wider definition.

Now to the process itself: there is no cooling-off period like what was recommended in other countries; 45 hours from the time that you sign to the time that it is administered. I would have preferred something more along the line of what was in Oregon: 15 days; or Victoria: nine days; or, in fact, Canada: going on 10 days. There is no mechanism where this is a last resort. There’s no mechanism that says you must go down the palliative care route first, and that is another flaw in the process. Finally, in the process anybody can sign the proxy form, even those who stand to benefit from the death of the person itself.

So because of this, I do not have confidence in the bill that’s going forward. I do not have confidence that putting this to the people of New Zealand is in the best interests of this country, and therefore I cannot support the End of Life Choice Bill.

I do not believe in abdicating our responsibilities as members of Parliament. This is a representative democracy. The people of Northcote voted me here to represent them and their views and I have tried my best to do that on this topic, and especially on nuanced topics like this, the End of Life Choice Bill, where it is very complex and I myself have changed my position in the last two years on this topic, having initially come out in favour of it and now being opposed to the bill.

I am opposed to the third reading of this bill. I do not think that it is in the best interests for New Zealand at this time, given the state of the bill and the lack of protections that it has for our most vulnerable. So I will be opposed to this bill in the third and final reading. Thank you.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tātou katoa i tae mai nei mō tēnei kaupapa tino whakahirahira, tēnei te mihi ki ā tātou katoa ahakoa he rerekē ngā whakaaro, ngā kōrero, ko te mea nui kei konei tātou i raro i te kaupapa o te kotahitanga. Ki ngā manuhiri i tae mai nei i tēnei wā, tēnei te tino mihi ki a koutou. E mōhio mātou, tēnei he kaupapa tino whakahirahira, tino taumaha i tēnei wā, engari, tēnei te mihi ki a koutou.

[Greetings, Mr Speaker. All of us who have gathered on this momentous occasion, I thank you all, regardless of the differences in opinion. The main thing is that we have come together. To the visitors who have arrived at this time, you have my many thanks. We know this matter is very important, very serious, but I would like to acknowledge you.]

It’s an honour and a privilege to speak on this bill. Like Minister Tracey Martin, I thank David Seymour. I’ve never been a fan of the ACT Party at all, ever, and Mr Seymour knows that, but he touched our hearts a little bit when he came out with his Māori whakapapa about a year ago—that was one way in there, Mr Seymour. So congratulations to him for his mahi.

I also want to thank Maggie Barry for her strong advocacy and challenging me all the time, constantly, even up till about five minutes ago. So thank you very much—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: There’s hope.

—to Maggie Barry for those challenges. No, this is what the process has been, and it’s a very important process and it’s good to see the type of respect that’s been shown in the House by all sides. Mihi ana ki a tātou katoa.

When I first came into the debate, I brought my own personal experiences into this and I talked about my mother. Since this is the last kōrero on this, it’s proper that I talk about her again and a few other things, particularly around Te Ao Māori aspects.

My mother was diagnosed with terminal cancer—terminal death, I suppose; not cancer. She was given three months to live, last year. She’s still around, but my mother, as I’ve said in previous speeches, changed dramatically from the passionate, strong Māori leader that she was. June Temuranga Jackson, my mother, was the longest-serving Parole Board member in this country and led the urban Māori movement—the only person I know who could shut John Tamihere up—and she led us, in terms of advocating for urban Māori rights, for many years. She was seen as a mana wahine and we were all so proud of her, and we are all still very proud of her.

But then she got sick, and she got so sick that for many of us in our whānau—some people have already heard this, but I need just to repeat it again. Many in our whānau started changing their views, started changing their thoughts in terms of what should happen next with her, and then some of us swung in to the euthanasia side, with the view that Mum wasn’t the Mum we were used to. My mother became a different person. It broke our hearts, but, you know, we were listening to the euthanasia arguments and they were very persuasive. So we were working things out. About five months ago, my mother looked like she was going to die. We were preparing for the tangi. She went into a coma. She was on the way out. And then somehow she came out of it all, woke up, stood up, walked out, and she’s better today than she was 18 months ago. So our views changed again and mine did too.

So I went back to the other end—of my good friend Adrian Rurawhe, where I’ve always been, and I started thinking: “No, look, this euthanasia thing is just out of hand; life is everything; this is our whakapapa.”—all that sort of thing. But, along the way I’ve been talking with not just Māori but people everywhere. And I’ve started to realise that the kaupapa is more than just about Mum, even though I love my Mum dearly, and we’re all shaped by our experiences. And along the way I’ve been talking to the security in this Parliament and the cleaners and our drivers, and they’ve all got experiences and we’ve heard them all.

Just the other day, one of our drivers talked to me about his father, and he said, “I wish Dad could have—”.You know how the protocols are with the drivers, but I asked him. I wanted to hear their views. And he said, “You know, I wish Dad had been able to go out with a bit of dignity.” They talk about no pain, but he told me his father was in so much pain, it wasn’t funny. And I take that into account, because these people mean something to me—our security, our cleaners, our drivers; all their views matter. So I’ve talked to Pākehā and Māori everywhere.

Then I talked to my friend Frances Smiler-Edwards, who is so Christian—even more so than Anahila over here. And, you know, we’ve got them all here—her and Mr Sio. Oh, yes. We’re full of them—we’re so diverse in Labour. She is my friend—so religious, so religious, and she had a daughter who got breast cancer, who was 39 years of age. Her daughter, she said, was suffering from her toes to the top of her head, in absolute pain. And my dear friend Frances Smiler said to her daughter, Ira, “You can’t go, girl—you can’t go.” This very religious whānau—and she suffered like you would not believe. She held on for her babies. She held on and she held on. And then she said, “Mum, I want to go.” But Mum said, “You’re not going nowhere.” She eventually went, but my dear friend Frances has said to me since, “I know my beliefs. I know how Christian I am. I know about wairua. I know about whakapapa. Someone has to talk for Ira—someone has to talk for Ira.” I said to Frances, “I’ll talk for Ira—I’ll talk for Ira”, because there are so many Iras out there.

I respect the religious, the wairua thing—all that. I respect it all, but there is another side. That’s why last night I spoke with three of the most high-profile Māori leaders in this country—three of the most high-profile Māori leaders in this country. I took this seriously. I tried to talk to everyone. Then I thought I’d better go and talk to the flash ones last night. Two of them don’t want me to mention their names. So I’m answering Dr Reti, who I respect very much—mihi nui ki a koe mō tō wero ki a au.

[A big thankyou for your challenge to me.]

And the three of them—I’ll mention one of their names: Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi, matriarch, queen of the kōhanga reo movement. She said, “Mention my name.” I said, “I will”, but the other two I can’t. They all said this: they were tired of hearing that this bill was a breach of tikanga. They were tired of hearing that this was a violation of our culture. All were unanimous that, in their view, tikanga evolves, tikanga changes, and there is no one tikanga—there is no one tikanga. All were unanimous that whānau is everything—no debate there—and must be part of this process. Yet none of them thought that euthanasia was suicide. I know that’s hard for my friends and whānau in our Māori caucus, but I’m only relating what they’re saying. All of them thought that euthanasia was dying with dignity.

Their views were fascinating to me. One of them said and felt that suicide most times is about depression, desperation, stress, and living without hope, whilst another one felt—these are the two men; I can’t give their names—that suicide was the squandering of one’s life. The other person, as I said, who I’m allowed to name, the 90-year-old Dame Iritana Tāwhiwhirangi said this: her life is her life and her wonderful body is her body, and she’d do anything she liked with it—our 90-year-old kuia, and Māori in the House know how wonderful this kuia is.

What really resonated with me was the kōrero from one of these very esteemed leaders—because this challenge of tikanga is so important in terms of Māori—he said his views about tikanga are this: tikanga is about dignity and mana. He said that the most important tikanga is mana, and the ultimate indignity is living without mana. That resonates with me, and I hope it resonates within the House. When I heard those words from him last night, it touched me very much, whether you agree or disagree. He says that mana is everything—for Māori, for Pākehā. That means dignity is everything. He also says that our old people say that death isn’t the end anyway, but just the beginning. Kia ora anō tātou katoa.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. New Zealand Parliament was first constituted on 26 May 1854. The very first debate was not about sheep or banking or even education. In fact, the very first debate was actually about prayer. In Hansard it records, “There should be an acknowledgment of dependence on the Divine Being, and that prayers should be made for a blessing on their labours”. Since that day, for over 165 years, we have had—though slightly paraphrased and recently changed, but the key principles remain the same, as you have presided in this place—these words, “Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.” There is no better set of guiding principles that should reflect how we conduct ourselves as MPs in the House of Representatives—in the Parliament of New Zealand.

There are three principles here: we must put aside our own personal interest and consider the interests of the minority and the majority; secondly, we must conduct the affairs with wisdom and humility—in other words, avail ourselves of the best evidence, with robust debate—and thirdly, we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation, that is, ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. I ask that we as 120 MPs in this Parliament, elected by party or electoral vote, consider those principles as we debate and eventually decide on this bill. The choosing of death over life—it doesn’t get any more serious than this. I want to then frame my speech on these three principles.

Firstly, putting all personal interests aside. This bill is personal and affects all of us. I want to acknowledge the stories we have shared in this House. I want to honour the memories of those we have loved and those we have lost. Every day in this Parliament we have to scrutinise the merits of any legislation. We also have to take into account a wider set of views, and not just our own. I want to challenge the comments that were made, “Let the public choose through the referendum.” We have had 39,000 views shared through the submissions process—the largest in 165 years of this Parliament. Over 90 percent have opposed this bill. The public have spoken: 93.5 percent of all health practitioners submitted against this bill and said that it was, in their words, unsafe. There were 1,800 oral submissions over those 23 months, in which people around the country wanted to be heard, wanted to make their views known. Again, over 90 percent opposed this bill. Many organisations who are at the coalface of providing aged and palliative care, like Hospice New Zealand, are strongly opposed to this bill because, and in their words, “It is unsafe.” This is the tyranny of the minority because, you see, the majority have spoken. Never before have we had a majority of voices, of opinions, of those who are right across the whole of the health sector and of our community, who have spoken strongly. Ninety percent is, by far, a majority that cannot remain silent in this House.

The second principle: we must conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility. In other words, avail ourselves of the best evidence, with robust debate. There are significant differences between this End of Life Choice Bill and the laws in Oregon, Victoria, and Canada. Several of these differences and the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) addressing them were rejected during committee stage without being debated. Many members of Parliament in this House, in the second reading, declared that due diligence should happen—a robust debate—but on many occasions that was not the case. Members abdicated the opportunity to debate, to ask questions, to make this bill safer than what it was when it came into this House. That was not the case.

I want to just point out three of these points that actually indicate why this bill is unsafe, especially to the medical practitioners that are out there. First of all, there is no independent witness required at any stage of the process, including at death. SOP 211 was rejected without debate. In contrast, in Victoria’s law, it requires a witness at the administration request and a witness at the administration of the lethal dose. In fact, in Oregon, two people are needed to witness the signing of the written request. It is also two in Victoria and in Canada.

The no prescribed cooling-off period, such as the minimum of 15 days in Oregon, nine days in Victoria, 10 days in Canada—that cooling-off period is the opportunity where people may change their mind and their opinion. The only time frame specified in this bill is 48 hours from the writing of the prescription to the chosen time of death.

Specialist medical knowledge is not required in this bill. Neither of the two doctors need to be trained or experienced in the area of the person’s illness or have vocational registration. This is not the case in Victoria or the case in Oregon. The Victorian legislation is far more restrictive than what is being proposed here, with 68 safeguards and a planned review after five years. Those of us that argued in this House on the premise that this bill would be compassionate and safe—it does neither of these things. In other words, the majority of the health practitioners and, as has been said in this House, 1,500 who voted against this bill simply said this: “Say no to this bill.” Why? Because it is unsafe. Are there others? Seventeen health practitioners—17 doctors only—against 1,500. That is the majority.

Thirdly, we must seek the public welfare and peace of our nation. That is to ensure that what we decide into law will do no harm. Laws are supposed to protect us all, but they are only useful if they are safe and practical. Everyone deserves a healthcare system based in a compassionate community that looks after all aspects of their wellbeing. This is what we should be focused on, rather than this bill. Modern dying is a public health issue that we need to better address together, in order to alleviate our shared human suffering. I want to quote some words from Dr Aileen Collier, who is a clinical nurse and specialist in international research and education in palliative care in New Zealand. She states, “I am deeply concerned about the proposed change in law. Most people who support this bill do so because they want to defend people’s right to choose, but I can tell you now that if you pass this bill, people will make this choice to die due to an absence of other choices. It might be social isolation, financial worries, not wanting to be a burden, concern about placement in aged residential care.”

Equity of palliative and end of life care is a significant issue for Māori and Pacific. We know there are substantial issues across healthcare for Māori. We have a duty of care. Can I remind the House that it was this member, David Seymour, this sponsor, who also voted down the cultural competencies which are in practice—are in law—at the moment in the way we deal with Māori and Pacific and other ethnic groups. This member voted that down, would not allow this to come through. So where is the compassion? What will happen to those who are vulnerable in our communities? This is an unsafe bill. You might think you want freedom of choice, but I’m asking you to consider those who lack that freedom, and I ask: how many people without access to real choices are we prepared to allow to die for the benefit of a privileged few who have a voice?

In my summary, I state this: upon the walls of this Chamber are the plaques which recognise over 100 years of war. The decision to send our soldiers into harm’s way meant we had to be sure there was absolutely no other alternative. We abolished the death penalty for capital punishment in 1989 because we knew that we could get it wrong and people who were innocent could die. I ask that all of us hold ourselves under the same level of accountability. I want us to urge all 120 members of this Parliament: can we guarantee that this bill will do no harm? If there is even a fraction of doubt, then vote No to this bill. Do not allow this bill to change the social values of this country. The sponsor of the bill has already admitted there will be some unfortunate casualties for the greater good. This bill will do harm. This bill will ensure that we change the value of life in our communities and in our nation. There is the tyranny of the minority here today, but it is our opportunity. I ask and I urge all members of this House “Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations, that we may conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and humility, for the public welfare and peace of New Zealand.” I oppose this bill. [Applause in gallery]

Order!

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a real privilege to speak in this debate on the End of Life Choice Bill. It’s the first time I have taken a call in the debates on this bill. I guess I was disappointed to hear a previous speaker try and shame the MPs that haven’t spoken yet on this bill about not taking a call. I am absolutely convinced that every single person, every single MP in this Parliament, has done their due diligence, has taken all the feedback, listened to as many of the wide-ranging opinions as are out there as possible. So I don’t believe that any one of us should feel ashamed for not taking a call in this debate.

There is no right or wrong in this debate, but there is obviously a huge division of views and emotions are running high in this debate. It’s based on deeply personal and moral views. There are different views, as we heard, from different cultures, and it’s not confined to New Zealand because this is a worldwide debate. I was born and raised in the Netherlands. The Netherlands was a country that was the first in the world to make it legal for doctors to help people die. The Dutch law that came in in 2002 applies to both euthanasia and assisted dying, and it, basically, codified practices that had developed over a long period of time, and I would like to talk a little bit—take some of this call to talk a little bit—about the legislation in the Netherlands.

While I’m not a member of the Justice Committee who had the mammoth task of listening to more than 3,000 submitters, I volunteered to be part of some of the subcommittees, so I had the privilege to listen to many dozens of the submitters that came before the select committees and told their often very brave, heartfelt, deeply emotional stories. And I also, unfortunately, heard many misunderstandings and lots of much-repeated misinformation about how the law operates in the Netherlands.

Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted in valuable insights into frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end of life decisions in that country. These studies have contributed significantly to the quality of the public debate and the regulating and public control of euthanasia and assisted dying. Those studies show that no slippery slope seems to have occurred. People in the Netherlands are proud of their legislation. They are proud of the fact that people are given compassionate and genuine choice when they believe they’re at the end of their lives. A lot of the scaremongering about the law in the Netherlands is just that. It is not based on facts and it saddens me. It saddens me that so much misinformation has become part of the campaigning by those against the bill.

Recently, we had a Dutch medical expert, Dr Theo Boer—he visited our Parliament to talk about euthanasia legislation in the Netherlands and he made a comment that has been omitted from many of the speeches by members who were at that meeting. What he said was that while he doesn’t support euthanasia any more—he has changed his mind—he also did say that the New Zealand bill is better than the Dutch legislation. And at the end of the meeting, I went up to him and I asked him what he meant by saying that our bill is better than that of the Netherlands, and he said our bill, the New Zealand bill, is confined to those suffering a terminal illness that is likely to end their lives within six months. And that significant change that was made to our New Zealand bill was made because we have listened and taken into account the feedback from the submitters.

Now, I’d like to tell two different stories from two different people both diagnosed with a terminal illness. The first story is Kerry Robertson. She was 61 when she died in a nursing home in July of this year. That was only weeks after Australia’s only euthanasia legislation came into force in the state of Victoria. The previous speaker, Alfred Ngaro, mentioned that legislation. She was the very first person to end her life under the new assisted dying laws in the state of Victoria. Relatives said that her final moments were beautiful and peaceful. Kerry’s daughter described it as follows: “We were beside her, David Bowie playing in the background, surrounded by love, with final words spoken, simple and dignified.” Her daughter also said, “Before this happened I was afraid of death, but Mum was incredibly brave and the way that she died gave me a whole new perspective on death itself.” Now, for me, I read that story and I felt it was a story of compassionate choice for people at the end of their lives.

I said I had two stories. The other story I would like to tell is a story that deeply moved me from one of the submitters that came to our subcommittee and told his personal story of his elderly mother. You have to forgive me for having forgotten his name—we saw lots of people—but his story will forever be with me. He told the story of his mother, who was diagnosed with a terminal illness and at some point her suffering became so intolerable she saw no end. She didn’t want to continue, and she tried to kill herself. She was an elderly lady. She tried to hang herself from the ceiling and she failed, got into hospital, came out, and she tried it again and she failed again. Then one night, as he described to us, she got up out of the warm bed that she shared with her husband in her nightie. She went outside, walked off the pier and jumped into the water, and she drowned. There were no goodbyes. There were no final words. And this man and his family were obviously grief-stricken with the fact that they never, ever had the chance to say goodbye to their mother, and I don’t think he will ever be able to live with that.

So for me, comparing the two stories made it really clear that I believe that people should have that genuine, compassionate choice when they believe they’re at the end of their lives.

On a very personal note, when I did my maiden speech, I congratulated my great-grandmother on getting to her 98th birthday the day before. And I said I hoped she was listening because quite often she got the frequencies on her radio mixed up. Only two weeks after that, she stopped eating and I had no idea that she was in that frame of mind. She stopped eating and my husband and my son, who were over to visit in a weekend, saw her while she was still conscious. I came home on Tuesday—no, it must have been a Thursday—from Parliament. I went to see her and she was already unconscious, so I never was able to say my goodbyes. And again, I feel that that compassionate choice that you give people to be able to say a proper goodbye and do all the final wording that you need to do is so important. And therefore, with my whole heart, I commend this bill to the House.

💬 Hon Michael Woodhouse: Mr Speaker.

The Hon Michael Woodhouse. I want to tell people we are now doing five-minute contributions.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to commence my intervention by paying tribute to the many thousands of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals, and volunteers up and down the country who dedicate their lives every day to the service of our ill, infirm, and elderly in aged residential care, in palliative care, and in hospice care, many of whom will be listening to this debate overwhelmingly with a heavy heart, but also, I think, some frustration at the lack of understanding of the work that they do every day.

We’ve all shared stories of loved ones passing on. Almost all of us have not been involved in that in a professional capacity, and yet many of us claim expertise in this area. My arthritis doesn’t make me an expert in rheumatology, breaking a leg on the rugby field doesn’t make me similar to an orthopaedic surgeon, and watching a loved one die does not make me an expert in end of life care.

I think it behoves us to listen more carefully to what those professionals have said about what can and cannot be done. I’m minded to quote recently retired geriatrician Professor David Richmond, who wrote, about 18 months ago, this: “In more than 40 years of medical practice as a physician, geriatrician, and terminal care manager, I cared for many dying people. My testimony is that I have never seen a person dying with unmanageable suffering.” He went on to say: “We cannot judge the effectiveness of today’s palliative care by comparing it with what was available even just 10 years ago.” We’ve heard, quite rightly, actually, that there is pain and there is suffering, not only by the terminally ill person but by their loved ones, but the issue is of “irremediable” pain and suffering. I will repeat the offer that I made to the sponsor of the bill in Timaru, 18 months ago, that I would support this bill if it were restricted to cover only those conditions that are resistant to effective palliative care. And, of course, we’re not—we’re talking about a much broader range of self-declared irremediable conditions.

[Professor David Richmond’s surname was originally spelt incorrectly; text corrected.]

I actually want to remind the House that the sponsor of the bill has accused doctors of acting with murderous intent by using surveys that were fundamentally flawed, in my view, to suggest that 4.5 percent of them have ended the lives of their patients, as some kind of nod and a wink to euthanasia, right now. That is offensive to doctors. That survey was flawed. He sent it to me, I examined it; it is wrong. And, indeed, if that were the case—and the issue is actually that it’s very difficult to take one’s life, in fact; it’s almost impossible to do so with terminal sedation. The research is very clear on that. But, actually, paradoxically, the fear that that could happen actually means that people often receive less pain management than they need, and suffer unnecessarily. The solution to this is not this bill. It is actually better education, and more staff trained in understanding end of life care so that those wonderful men and women in our health profession can wrap that support of the family and of the terminally ill person around them.

I want to just put on record once again my grave concern, and, indeed, the sponsor’s reassurances—although it’s an unusual one—for the choice that was denied institutions to say no to allowing end of life choice in their institutions. The member in the committee of the whole House said, “Nowhere in this bill is any institution required to do anything.” I don’t see where the logic is in being able to object conscientiously to something that an institution isn’t required to do in the first place. He misunderstood what I was saying about Canada; I never said that institutions had been closed down, but I did provide proof that there is coercive pressure being put on faith-based organisations in Canada to provide euthanasia. The member has said that will not happen; I hope he’s right. I continue to oppose this bill and will continue to support the right of institutions to contentiously object.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is my first contribution on this bill. In the early New Zealand Parliament, before the 1890s, I think, every vote by MPs was an individual choice because there weren’t political parties, just loose alliances. In recent decades, conscience issues have often been harbingers of significant societal change, and they’re big paradigm shifts. This is one of them.

When I was elected as the member for Dunedin South, I was asked if I supported binding referendums and if I’d check with my electorate before I exercised a conscience vote. It is my view that as a member of Parliament, you’re elected by a majority of your constituency because you’re trusted to act in their best interests and to be of sufficient good character to do that to the best of your ability. Each of us has a conscience. I can only exercise mine on these moral issues, and if I was to do a poll of my electorate and then exercise a conscience vote on that basis, it would not be my conscience. And, while a referendum is an extremely important part of our democratic process, the Parliament, ultimately, is sovereign, and the positions taken by parties or individuals on matters of importance are usually well known to the electorate before a general election, which, by definition, is the ultimate expression of democracy.

I wish that we did not require a referendum at next year’s election in order for this bill to pass its third reading today. It defeats the purpose of the intent of the bill and the ability of the majority of the legislators to fulfil their elected roles. But the choice was to not support the referendum amendment and see the bill fail and likely have to wait another decade or to vote for the referendum amendment and give the bill a greater chance to become law.

Everyone brings their own context to the end of life issue, and I wish to share mine with you. In my twenties, I lived for a time in Wellington. A friend from my days at Otago University introduced me to his mother, who was dying from a serious lung-related illness. Her life was terribly constrained. She was unable to leave the house. She lived in a bubble—literally, a dust-free environment, protected from the outside contaminants. She was slowly slipping away. Unbeknown to me, she was determined to leave the world, which she did at a time of her own choosing with the help of her son. I remember feeling very confronted by this, but I never judged her decision or that of her son to assist her. I believe that it was her choice, made in full knowledge of the implications, and this is what I want for myself, should it ever be necessary. I do, however, accept that this is not the choice of all, and I absolutely respect the right of people not to make that choice and to die in whatever manner nature or palliative care determines.

I also absolutely believe that protections should be put in place for those who are not able to make such a decision and for those who would not support being part of a decision made by somebody that they love or who they are caring for in the health system. I, like many others who support this bill, am not blind to the real challenges around coercion, around the safeguards for the disabled and the vulnerable. I am not blind to the pressures on health practitioners who either do or don’t support this bill passing into law. But I believe that the provisions in the amended version address those concerns, based on international best practice.

Ultimately, this is a bill of conscience. Not everyone’s conscience is the same. Our belief systems develop differently, rooted in a set of values. Mine are drawn mainly from my background growing up in the Catholic Church, where compassion, social justice, and fairness were drummed into us. But there have always been parts of Catholicism that don’t sit well with me, particularly the hypocrisy of its institutional practice. Ultimately, I took a secular path based on values. I respect the views of all who have stood in this House and expressed their views. I respect all who have written and emailed me—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s a privilege to be able to stand and speak in this, the third reading of the End of Life Choice Bill. It is a privilege to be able to stand and speak my position based on my conscience, my life experience, my culture, and my faith. It is a privilege to speak in representation of not just the Catholic Church, to which I belong, not just to the Filipino migrant community, who, by families through generations past and generations future, by faith—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. It is the dinner break; he will resume his speech after the dinner break.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to speak in representation of not just the Catholic Church, to which I belong, not just the Filipino migrant community, who, by families through generations past and generations into the future, by faith and culture, are opposed to this bill, but also the very, very many people who have written and that I have met: the faithful of many Christian churches, friends in Islam, Hindus, medical doctors, young, old, families, and friends in New Zealand.

I refer back to my maiden speech, of which I had made two references: one to Mahatma Gandhi’s statement that the true measure of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable, not how society allows its most vulnerable to be disposed; the second was a statement on modelling, that the men of New Zealand need to stand strong and in our in our relationships be reliable providers and protectors, show the tamariki the way to respect and honour women. White Ribbon highlights this in their brochure, Raise Our Boys. A regime of assisted suicide is not the model that we might want our children to grow up with. What would this teach the next generation, who often learn to show care and kindness and love to the elderly, the infirm, and the disabled from us through our own acts of kindness and service.

New Zealand finds itself in a situation where the End of Life Choice Bill is sought as a solution. We have heard thousands of submissions. For my part, the great majority from people who are against the bill. The solution is sought for people who cry out for help to address unmet needs—some simply because they have no one with them on their life journeys, simply sometimes to just hold their hands, sometimes to just listen and care and be a companion through tough times and loneliness—for the need for more effective pain management in the extreme. When considered alongside evidence that requests for euthanasia and assisted suicide seldom indicate unmanageable pain and suffering, then that option of ending a life does not seem to be the correct solution at all.

We should instead be getting stuck into affirming, promoting, enabling a much kinder, more caring, and compassionate society. We could well require greater funding and resourcing for community and palliative care for all New Zealanders. What we need is more hope, more caring, more love; to develop this within our families and our communities.

A person with a terminal illness is our most vulnerable. It is extremely naive to maintain that coercion will not occur. The most common reason for seeking euthanasia or assisted suicide is the anxiety of being a burden to others. This is not a surprise to me as my own mum, my own mother—sometimes I detect from her very subtle hints of checking if I am being burdened by her.

New Zealand finds itself in a situation where the End of Life Choice Bill is sought as an option, a choice, but not all have choices, and there are very many who live without choice already, and they very quickly will be having their choices made by the others that surround them.

As a member of Parliament in New Zealand, I must vote against this bill.

We know that everyone who is born alive will die. We know that the more you love a person, the harder it is to say goodbye to them when they do die. But we also know that, for over 20 years, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders support a terminally or incurably ill person to be able to request the assistance of a doctor to end their life.

The first time I supported this legislation was in 1995, supporting the Michael Laws bill; second, in 2003, supporting the Peter Brown bill; and the third time, today, surprisingly supporting an initiative from David Seymour. Can I acknowledge David Seymour, and say that he has given up a lot in politics and a lot of his time and energy to progress the bill. New Zealanders will appreciate it.

It is an emotional subject because it’s about death. But, for me, it’s also about dignity and choice. It’s about respect. It is not about disabled people. It is not about elderly people. It is about people who are terminally ill. The bill is limited to those people, much to my frustration, actually, but I accept the reasoning for it.

Two hundred million people live in a country or jurisdiction with assisted dying laws: Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Canada, many states of the USA, Victoria in Australia. Their laws work well; we’ve heard much about them during this debate.

I want to focus on just two points in my contribution: suicide and palliative care. The idea that anybody in this House would want to increase suicide numbers is just vile in every sense of the word. The select committee considering the petition of the Hon Maryan Street and others, chaired by Simon O’Connor MP, sought advice during consideration of that petition about the link between euthanasia legislation and suicide rates. They were told very clearly that there was no connection. In fact, the only connection there is, which was not the consideration of the committee, is that people, at the moment, end their lives often in lonely circumstances and in horrific ways because they don’t want to continue living. They are terminally ill, but don’t have the option of a dignified death.

The High Court judgment of Collins J in Seales v Attorney-General looked at the evidence provided by Dr Weaver and Dr Munro, who did extensive research into suicides between 1900 and 2000. They said that between 3 percent and 8 percent of suicides were committed by people who were rational, competent, but had a terminal illness. They wanted to end their lives before they lost the ability to choose for themselves. Similar research has found the same in Western Australia. So opposing this bill would support people dying lonely, unsupported, and in horrific circumstances. That’s not my view.

I’m very familiar with palliative care, and I just can’t express my admiration for the amazing work that those people in palliative care do. But, again based on evidence, we know that palliative care on its own cannot provide relief from suffering in all cases. Palliative care funding in Belgium went up at the same time as their end of life choice legislation was passed. That’s what we should be advocating for as well.

If we look at Oregon, a significant number of people who have the end of life drugs in their possession after their request has gone through the process end up not using it, but it means—and this is the most important thing to me—that they live their remaining days or weeks or months actually living, rather than living towards their death in fear of how they will die.

Everyone in this House should ask themselves how do they want to die. Well, in my view, we should want everyone to die in dignity, without pain, and peacefully, and they should then rest in peace. This bill will allow people who choose that option to do so.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to firstly emphasise the important duty that this Parliament owes to our most vulnerable citizens, and I want this Parliament to be open and honest that it is inevitable that if this law passes, there will be fatal mistakes.

You see, many parliamentarians are putting huge emphasis on the reliability of the three essential legal checks in this bill: we’re putting a responsibility on doctors to be able to say that a person does not suffer from depression or any mental health, we’re putting a test on doctors to say that a person’s only got six months left to live, and we’re saying that those doctors are going to be able to certify that someone is not being inappropriately influenced in their choice for ending their life. This Parliament needs to be upfront that the very profession that we’re asking to make those decisions has told us over and over again that you cannot 100 percent rely on them, and that is why this Parliament needs to be honest with itself that if we pass this law, there will be people who die outside the parameters that are there.

When it comes to education issues, in my own specialist area of engineering, whether we’re talking about finance issues or others, this Parliament makes a poor judgment when it ignores the people at the coalface that work in the expert area, and I plead with this Parliament to listen to those professionals who work every day with our dying and who have submitted so strongly and plea with us not to support this bill.

One of the worst issues that our country faces is the issue of suicide, and there’s not a member of this House that does not feel passionately about wanting to be able to change those awful statistics of over 600 New Zealanders taking their own lives each year. We need to hear the message that when we blur the line about whether it’s appropriate for people to be able to take their own life, we are making it more difficult for our country to confront those awful statistics.

I also want to express real concern about the implications of this bill for the most important institution in this country, and that is family. What this bill does is that it says that a person is able to take their own life without their mum, without their dad, without maybe their son or their daughter, or even without their husband, wife, or partner having any knowledge until they read the death notice in the paper or maybe on the internet. Well, I say to this Parliament that that would cause me, for my family, great grief—and, I believe, every New Zealander—and I am appalled that Parliament rejected the amendments that would have recognised the institution of family and made sure they were not cut out.

Now, this bill, as we come to third reading stage, proposes a referendum. Well, I say to this Parliament: why are we being so inconsistent? When we come to the sensitive issue at the beginning of life around abortion, we’re saying that the public can’t have a say, but when it comes to this one, we’re conveniently saying we’re having a referendum. Let’s be upfront. I’ll tell you why that’s happening: because the liberals that want this to pass do not have the numbers without a referendum, and those that want to advance abortion reform are refusing a referendum because they have the numbers anyway. What sort of an unprincipled process are we tackling those issues with in respect to that?

My plea to this Parliament is to reflect on the duty of care that we owe to our most vulnerable. We owe a duty of care to listen to the professional people—who I have so much respect for—who work in palliative care.

Finally, I say that one of the things I love about New Zealand and love about this Parliament is that we err on the side of life, and this bill does not. We should reject it.

E Te Mana Whakawā, ngā mihi ki a koutou e tēnei pō. He pōuri te pō. It is a sad evening, taking this call, and my karanga—my call-out—to New Zealand and to my parliamentary colleagues in the House this evening, in this critical third reading, is weighted by a burden. I appeal now to my colleagues’ sensibilities of justice, of fairness, of equity, and of responsibility and duty of care.

I stand, before us all, dressed in black, a symbol of the sombre and sobering session this evening—dressed in black to dress down this bill—and I wear the silver fern. I stand here in the Chamber, which is a memorial to all those who have fought in honour for the protection and the preservation of the sanctity of life. The silver fern is a representation to Māori of strength, of resistance, and of enduring power, and to Pākehā, it has a strong sense of belonging and attachment.

We are New Zealanders. We are a nation that is premised on justice, on fairness, and on equity, and we fight for the quality of life. I stand in this Chamber this evening to implore and plead of my parliamentary colleagues who do not understand, despite what is said, that this bill is a fraud and it is flawed.

I stand making reference with respect and to honour my colleague Dr Shane Reti, when he addressed this House this evening to say that he would be the only member of Parliament in the predicament of having to be put into the position of ending life. And let’s not euphemise this with niceties and phrases: this is a “Kill Bill”. I maintain that—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

—from the perspective and the practice as a lawyer.

I refer to lawyers who have studied this bill and who have made submissions to the Justice Committee, who have stated that the bill has at least 35 flaws—lawyers for vulnerable New Zealanders, Queen’s Counsel, and a very experienced Family Court, mental health court, and District Court judge of at least 30 years, who made recommendations to the sponsor of this bill and to the select committee around how to safeguard and safe-proof this law for the benefit of New Zealanders. Those concerns and those recommendations have been totally dismissed and pushed by the side.

Mr Speaker, this House, as you well know, commences proceedings with a prayer that “Laying aside all personal interests”—and I do that. I speak as a professional. I stand here as a lawyer of experience, working in the health system—as I’ve said before—and working for and advocating for our most vulnerable: our aged, our disabled, and our children. Mr Speaker, in laying aside all personal interests, you implore with that prayer that we conduct the affairs of this House with wisdom and justice and mercy, and I implore my parliamentary colleagues to take heed of the complexity of this bill. There’s been much misinformation and misrepresentation conveniently posited and posed by those who speak in favour of it.

I implore members of this House. This is the last opportunity that we have, and I implore you to turn to that sensibility of justice and fairness and equity. As my colleague and whanaunga Adrian Rurawhe has addressed the House, this is flawed. It is not what it seems to be, and for Māori this is a monocultural optics and lens, and the position has been stated that as a Treaty partner, as one of those who bridges the worlds of Māori and Pākehā, this bill is a “Kill Bill”. Please prevent it. [Interruption]

Order! I’m going to remind the gallery—everyone else sit down, please. I’m going to remind the gallery that this is a highly charged debate. There are strong views held on both sides, and the debate and interjections and everything like that are only to come from members of Parliament.

Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, can I just acknowledge the sense of history. Mr Speaker, you have mentioned it tonight: the Chamber is highly charged. I want to acknowledge the history and all of the people who have fought to get this legislation to this point, whether it is Maryan Street, whether it is Ruth Dyson, whether it is Chris Bishop, whether it is Amy Adams, whether it is David Seymour—and I’m going to come to you later. I want to acknowledge all of the parliamentarians across this House who have exercised their conscience.

This is an incredibly tough issue, and I do not undermine anyone’s faith, anyone’s decision making in this Chamber. I have had such challenging conversations with so many of my colleagues on this issue, and so I pay absolute respect to you for your different views, but I will advocate this evening that I hope that many colleagues, maybe there’s a couple of you sitting on the fence tonight—that you exercise your conscience and you vote for this bill. The first thing that I want to say is I do understand the huge public support behind this bill, in my view, and we may end up testing this in a referendum. I am very confident that New Zealanders overwhelmingly—their conscience is on the side of not having suffering and pain, and that is where I think this bill should go through and enable people to have that tested. Nick Smith is absolutely right—I don’t want to have a referendum, ideally; this is a really complex issue, but if it is the case of this bill passing or not, I am going to end up voting for it.

I want to acknowledge that there have been incredibly pragmatic changes through this legislative process. Not all of them would I have necessarily agreed with, but because I have heard the voices of the Matt Vickers of this world, the Seales family—I’ve sat down with people who have got grievous and irremediable conditions. We couldn’t help them in this bill, but I’ve heard their voices. I’ve heard their pain and I have heard their suffering, and I would advocate that it is compassionate and it is about justice and fairness to be supporting this bill to the House. We have made a number of serious changes that make this, in my view, one of the most restrictive pieces of legislation across the world, with all the safeguards, from independent medical practitioners to second-tier level in terms of doctors to the fact that this has to be a terminal illness whereby we have a state of decline. So this is an incredibly narrow bill, but, ultimately, what this comes down to, for me, is this issue of compassion and this issue of—when I sit there and I hear the stories of people dying badly, in a very violent way, I believe we can do better as a Parliament.

I do not conflate this issue with suicide, and I want to make that very clear this evening. I have sat with many families and parents who have dealt with people who have taken their lives. This is a situation where this legislation applies to someone with a terminal illness who has been judged to have six months left to live. This is not about young people and sending a bad message to them. We all have an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that less young people in New Zealand take their lives. This is about a very small group of people that make a conscious choice, who are competent to end their lives slightly earlier, and all of the overwhelming evidence shows that that is ideally not something that people want to do but they are doing it, often because they don’t want to suffer.

So I support this bill to the House in the name of fairness and justice, and I want to pay tribute to you, David Seymour. I’ve been in the Parliament for 11 years, and I do want to acknowledge that this has taken up years of your life and that your compassion and the way that you have worked tirelessly for this cause needs to be acknowledged in the Parliament this evening. Again, I stand here and say to all of you that we can do better as a nation. We are a compassionate nation. We need to pass this bill in the interests of fairness and justice and, as my colleague Paulo said, in the interests of love and hope.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. No member of this House is devoid of compassion, and none of us has a monopoly on it, so I begin by thanking everyone who has engaged respectfully in this debate over the past two years. There have been many heartfelt and compelling contributions, and I’m sure I’m not the only MP who, despite having a firm conviction one way, has also found many of the opposing arguments both moving and persuasive. I think that’s healthy. I acknowledge that there are some for whom the expected passage of this bill will be both welcome news and, possibly, at some point, a blessing, and to those people I offer my aroha and best wishes. I am genuinely pleased for them, but I believe that the arguments against this bill, and our obligation to protect and care for those who are ill and vulnerable in our communities, are more compelling and that this is a dangerous measure that should not be supported.

At the start of the committee stage of this process, I said that I’d been impressed by the quality of the debate. Sadly, in recent weeks, the tone of the debate, in our consideration, plummeted, and I think the committee stage debates were unacceptably lopsided, sometimes bordering on being farcical. Nearly all of the bill’s supporters disengaged from the discussion, a number of serious amendments did not receive the detailed consideration they deserved, and the drudgery of personal voting overtook intelligent engagement. I am one of many MPs who feel deeply aggrieved that on several occasions, we were denied the right to debate those amendments adequately. That’s an unacceptable curtailment of our right and our responsibility to speak out in this House. Those MPs whose only contribution to the committee stage debate was to move closure motions let down our constituents on perhaps the most challenging issue our generation of MPs will face. The cumbersome voting procedure also contributed to the sharp decline in the quality of debates on amendments and the time allocated for them. Our time should have been spent mostly debating ideas in this Chamber, not traipsing back and forth into the lobbies, voting for hours, on one occasion until 1 o’clock in the morning.

As I noted three weeks ago, I’ve been alarmed by how many people I have spoken to throughout this debate who hold very firm views but who have nevertheless not actually understood what the bill actually proposes, and that’s why I promoted an amendment to change the title of the bill from the End of Life Choice Bill to the Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Bill, as that is what this bill enacts. Sadly, my amendment failed. Assuming this bill is passed tonight, we will instead have a referendum in which the public will be asked to make a decision on one of the most significant issues imaginable via a question so misleading that it is heavily biased in favour of one outcome. A referendum must accurately reflect the issue the public are asked to determine, yet an opinion poll showed that a majority of the public think that assisted dying, or the element of choice in this debate, includes having the option to turn off life support or the right to refuse further medical treatment. We already have end of life choice options of that nature in this country, and it is dishonestly euphemistic to sanitise the issue by misleading people into believing that those who are concerned about the bill are against choice—of course they’re not.

So let’s spare a thought tonight for the outstanding and deeply compassionate professionals and caregivers throughout the country who support people who face the ordeal of a terminal illness. When I raised the concerns of the disabilities commissioner, who made a superb and moving submission on behalf of some of our country’s most vulnerable individuals, I was met by silence, yet, in their thousands, New Zealanders who live with disabilities have pleaded with us not to pass this bill. Tonight, I acknowledge my disabled constituents in Hamilton who have made their fears known to me, perhaps personified by the courageous and admirable Toria Newman, whose book A Million Reasons I commend to all members. She will be watching tonight.

When I raised the concerns of the New Zealand Medical Association, apart from the bill’s sponsor, who flippantly dismissed their appeal as being only that of a vocal minority, I was again met by silence, yet this is just some of the doctors in the country who are deeply distressed and are pleading with us not to sign up to this bill tonight. The bill clearly runs contrary to the Hippocratic Oath. I understand that some doctors are supportive of it, but the overwhelming majority are not. The overwhelming volume of correspondence we’ve received from medical professionals confirms that the arrogant dismissal of their deep dismay is patronising nonsense. Some of their names, as I say, are on that letter; many others are not. This bill puts them in a deeply distressing, untenable position, yet their voices have not been heard in this House in this debate.

I’m running out of time. These are some of the inconvenient truths of this debate. I can only pray that if this bill passes, as I assume it will do tonight, we will, ultimately, be able to find a way to reach the right outcome and that we will, in particular, increase our protection and care for those who are most frightened by it.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Thank you. This is the first time I have spoken in this debate, but I have listened with interest to a lot of the speeches. I think Parliament is at its best when it’s considering conscience issues, and I acknowledge all of those MPs who have spoken from the heart, who have shared their personal stories—stories from their whānau—who have spoken about their values, and who have demonstrated the essential humanity that we all share. I acknowledge your wisdom, your personal insights, and the very serious consideration that everyone in this House has given to this bill.

I acknowledge also Maryan Street, the work that she and others have done in bringing the issue to this House, and particularly acknowledge David Seymour for the very altruistic way in which you have conducted these proceedings and the way you have worked with the legal team that has supported you, gone through all of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), and worked to make the changes to the bill to maximise the number of MPs who can support it. This bill has been given the serious attention that this life and death issue deserves, and it makes me proud to be a member of Parliament which has gone into this debate with this level of consideration.

Can I also acknowledge Lecretia Seales, who came to terms with her terminal illness and her impending death in a very public way by seeking to challenge the current legal prohibition against physician-assisted dying. Can I acknowledge the thousands of people who made submissions, who wrote letters, who wrote emails, who shared their experience and their stories with members of Parliament.

This is a serious and complex issue. There are a wide range of opinions informed by values, by evidence, and by consideration of what has happened in overseas jurisdictions, and they are informed by balancing these very key principles of the right to life, the respect for human dignity, personal autonomy, and the protection of more vulnerable members of society.

All eight Green MPs are supporting this bill because we have considered it carefully as a party. We have considered it guided by our members and guided by our policy. Green policy is very clear that New Zealanders who have a terminal illness should be able to choose the way their life ends in a supported and open way, to have dignity at the end of their life, provided there are very clear safeguards around that. The SOPs which David Seymour introduced and which passed in the committee stages, and the changes that were made to the bill as a result, ensure that those safeguards exist.

This year, I have watched my father starve himself to death. This bill would not allow him to have a dignified death, because it is a very narrow bill. It specifically excludes people by dint of their age. It excludes those who’ve got a disability of any kind seeking physician-assisted dying. The safeguards in the bill ensure that it is someone who has to be terminally ill, that their life is likely to end within six months, that they are competent and able to make a decision, that they are enduring physical or psychological suffering that cannot be relieved or made tolerable to them, that they have made persistent requests for help to die, and that they are making an informed decision. It cannot be solely because of a disability.

That safeguard was really important to the Green Party because we recognise that people with a disability often don’t have the equitable access to services that those who are able-bodied have, and we have to do more to invest in those services and to reduce that stigma.

Our bill of rights doesn’t currently specifically recognise the human rights principle of dignity and of personal autonomy, but that concept of dignity is recognised elsewhere in our law, and I think that is what this bill tonight is all about. The court in the Seales case said, and I quote, “The complex legal, philosophical, moral and clinical issues raised by Ms Seales’ [case could] only be addressed by Parliament passing legislation to amend the effect of the Crimes Act.” All eight Green MPs will be voting for that to happen tonight.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I kī mai tōku tupuna “Ko Te Reo te kākahu o te whakaaro me te huarahi ki te ao tūroa o te hinengaro”, nō reira, ka noho tonu ahau ki roto i Te Reo Māori hei kaupare ake, hei ruruku tōtika atu ki roto i ngā kōrero tikanga kua rangona e waku taringa i te wā i haere ai tēnei tautohetohe.

Ko te pātai ka waiho nā atu ki te hunga i kī atu “Ehara tēnei i te tikanga Māori” ko tāku e mea atu nei, he tikanga i mua i te taenga mai o tauiwi, he tikanga Māori tūturu rānei?

Mehemea ka pānui atu te hunga i ngā hītori i rīkoata ai e ō tātou mātua, e ō tātou tūpuna ka āhei Te Māori te whakatere atu, te whakatere ake i te matenga ki runga i tētahi atu, tētahi tangata kua taumaha, tētahi tangata kua pāngia nei i tētahi māuiuitanga, kīhai kua roa rawa e kite.

Nō reira kua kī mai e ngā mātua tupuna, “Korekau he raru kia whakamāmā ake te haerenga atu, te matenga rānei o tētahi tangata ki te pō.”

Nō reira, ko tāku e mea atu nei ki tō tātou Whare, mehemea ka hiahia tātou ki te tautohetohe i te kaupapa tikanga, ko tāku e mea atu nei: ehara tēnei te whare mō taua tautohetohe. Ka kī atu he mea rerekē te ture ki ngā tikanga o ō tātou mātua tūpuna.

Nō reira, ka kī atu he maha ngā hui Māori ka āhei tātou te āta tautohetohe i tēnei kaupapa. Ko tāku e kī atu hei kaupare ake i ngā kōrero tikanga kua rangona e waku taringa mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa tae noa ki tēnei wā.

Kei te mahara ake ahau ki ētahi atu o ngā kōrero, o ngā tino taniwha o Te Ao Māori ki roto i te rautau kua pahure ake nei. Ka kī atu, “E hoa, ahakoa ngā pāngia ki runga i te tangata, ka kīia kei a au te tikanga, kei a au te mana motuhake ki te whakaae, ki te whakakāhore rānei ki tētahi āhuatanga ka pā ki a koe.”

Nō reira, ko tāku e mea atu nei ki roto i ngā tikanga a ō tātou mātua tūpuna, rawa au e whakaae ki ētahi o ngā kōrero kua rangona ki roto i tēnei Whare.

Kāti, ka kapohia ake ahau i te kōrero a te rata, a Shane Reti. I te mea kua wahaina mai te Mema i taku ingoa ki roto i tana kōrero i te tīmatanga o tēnei pō.

Ko tāku e kī atu: kei a au tonu taku tikanga. Mehemea e hiahia ana au māna taku whānau e tiaki, e tauawhi ki roto i tēnei ao, kei a au taua tikanga. Mehemea e hiahia ana au kia mate ohorere, kia mate tere rawa atu ki te pō, tā te mea kua pāngia nei tētahi mate kia kore au e hoki mai, ka kī atu, kei au anō tonu te tikanga.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki Te Ao Māori: me āta whakaarohia. Ko tēnei tū āhuatanga he tikanga nō tētahi wāhi, nō tētahi iwi kē atu? He tikanga motuhake o Te Māori rānei? I a au e āta whakarongo atu ana, kua rongo atu ahau i te taumahatanga, kua rongo atu ahau i te mamae, nō reira, ko tāku ki tō tātou Whare: i te wā i pāngia tētahi mate kino rawa atu ki tōku tūpuna i īnoi nei taku tupuna whaea ki te atua kia haere mai, kia kapohia ake te ringa kaha o aituā i tōku karani pāpā. Ko tāku ki tēnei Whare, kīhai ia i tae mai, kīhai ia i tae mai. Nō reira, nā runga i taku kitenga i te wā i tipu tamaiti ahau, ka whakaae au ki tēnei pire.

I kōrero atu ahau ki te mema i kawea mai te pire ki roto i tēnei Whare, āe, ko reira ētahi āhuatanga e hiahia ana au te whakatikatika, te whakapakari ake. Ko tāku kua kite nei ki roto i te pire, kua tutuki e ia i tēnā o ngā hiahia.

Nō reira, ko tāku ki tēnei Whare, anō hoki i Te Ao Māori kei waho atu i ngā pātū o tō tātou Whare: kāore e kore he kaupapa tautohetohe ka kitea ki runga i ngā marae maha puta noa i te motu whānui, heoi anō, ko tāku ki roto i tēnei Whare: e mau ana i taku pōtae Māori, e mau ana i taku pōtae mema Pāremata, me te kī atu ka tautoko au i tēnei pire.

[Greetings to the Speaker. My ancestor, grandfather, once said “The Māori language is the cloak of thought and the pathway to the natural state of the mind”, therefore, I will remain in Māori to defend and to delve into the depth of discussion about customs that I have heard during this debate.

The question I ask to those who say “This is not a Māori custom” is this: are you talking about a custom that has existed since the arrival of non-Māori, or is it a true Māori custom?

If these people read up on the histories that have been recorded by our ancestors, they will see that Māori were able to hasten the death of another if that person was terminal, if that person was afflicted with a disease that ensured that they are not long for this world.

Therefore, my ancestors have said to me, “There is no issue with easing a person’s departure, or a person’s passing into the long night.”

Therefore, I say to those of us in the House that if we want to debate custom-based issues, I would say: this is not the house for that type of debate. I say that laws are different to the customs and traditions of our ancestors.

Therefore, I would say that there are numerous Māori occasions in which we can carefully debate this matter. I respond to those who have continually referred to customs from the beginning of this debate until now.

I remember the old words of one of the real powerhouses of the Māori world from the past hundred years. That person said to me, “My friend, regardless of its impact on a person, I have the final say about what happens to me, I have independence to allow, or to disallow something to impact me.”

Therefore, I would say that regarding the customs of our ancestors, I will not go along with some of the things that I have heard in this House.

Well then, I refer to the words of the doctor, of Shane Reti, given that he has chosen to bring my name up in his remarks earlier in the night.

I say this: I have my own customs. If I want him to be the person to look after my family, to protect them in this world, that is my decision. If I want a quick death, if I want to go quickly into the night because I have a terminal illness from which there is no coming back, I say, again, that is my decision.

Therefore, this is my observation to the Māori world: think carefully about this. Is this a custom from somewhere else? From another race? Or is it a unique Māori custom? As I was listening, I have felt the weight, and I have felt the pain. Therefore, this is my take to those of us in the House: when my grandfather was afflicted with a terrible illness and my grandmother prayed to God, prayed that God come down and take my grandfather away quickly, I say to this House that God did not come quickly. God did not come. Therefore, based on what I saw as a child, I support this bill.

I said to the member who brought this bill before this House: yes, there are some elements that I want fixed or improved. From what I can see in the bill, he has succeeded in addressing those issues.

Therefore, my final words for this House and for the Māori world outside the walls of this House: there will no doubt be further debate on this on marae throughout the country; however, I say this in this House, wearing my hats as a Māori and as a member of Parliament, that I support this bill.]

This week, 1,500 medical doctors stated that they wanted no part in assisted suicide; they are clear that euthanasia is not part of medical practice. These doctors take great umbrage at attempts to provide a cloak of medical legitimacy by forcing doctors to participate in this unethical practice.

The views of these doctors have been ignored in the unseemly haste to clear the decks for this troublesome piece of legislation. The haste to pass this bill has seen sensible and needed amendments be not sufficiently addressed, such as having no independent witness required at any stage of the process, including death; no cool-down periods for those considering this course of action; no need to ensure mental competency at the time of their death; no safeguards against coercion. Doctors have said that it is virtually impossible to detect subtle emotional coercion.

When cultural views are brought to bear, such as those of New Zealand Pacific peoples in this country, these have been dismissed by the sponsor, David Seymour, as skin-colour matters, with the great Dr Martin Luther King’s words quoted as some type of argument against cultural views. But Dr Martin Luther King spoke of the content of a person’s character, and the content of our Pacific Island peoples’ communities’ character has not been determined by our skin colour but by our firmly held cultural beliefs; beliefs underpinned by our culture of care that our elders should be honoured and revered in their twilight years and have family surround them and support them.

This drives to the heart of what leads people to choose a path of suicide in their later years. It’s not a fear of pain. Our tagata matutua [elderly], our kaumātua, our elders, are far more stoic than that. It is the fear of isolation or being a burden or being unwanted that is the overwhelming fear.

So I am driven by compassion and a desire to place value on people’s lives as they enter their twilight years. I, like virtually every person in this House, have witnessed the death of a loved one through illness. I have witnessed first-hand the pain that suicide causes family members. So this is not a competition to outdo each other with compassion, to be asked “Have you seen a person die of cancer?”, as though that trumps our duty of care to the vulnerable in our society.

So, knowing that we are all compassionate people, whether we are for or against euthanasia, I turn to the duty of care we have as members of Parliament in this House today. Our duty of care is to ensure good legislation is passed. During the passage of this bill, I and other members have recommended a number of amendments that would have strengthened this bill, and for our efforts these have been rejected as time-wasting or filibustering. This is a serious change in our society’s fabric; we are asking the State to sanction the death of people. I reject our attempts to bring rigour and care into this process as time-wasting. Time is not our enemy; time is our friend. Time is needed to ensure that this most serious legislation is properly considered, where genuine attempts to bring rigour are not regarded as time-wasting but as efforts to bring some semblance of care into this legislation. As a result, history will not smile favourably on us.

Indeed, when has history ever smiled on State-sanctioned killing? We are aghast at the idea of war. We have turned our back on the State-sanctioned killing of criminals, murder is rightfully and justly condemned, and we are troubled by our terrible suicide statistics. Yet now we are giving ourselves licence as the State to arrange the death of our citizens. How will history ever smile on this?

With humility, I ask my fellow members in this House to hold the line for the vulnerable in our community, and vote No to this bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an honour to speak in this debate. It is the first time that I have spoken on this particular bill, but I was compelled to this evening.

We all come into Parliament with priorities that are important to us, with the best intention for New Zealanders, and with things that we want to achieve. For me, it has been about addressing inequality, it has always been about social justice, and it has always been about fairness. Within the framework of those priorities, I never considered end of life as one of the priorities for me, personally. I never considered that this would be an issue that I pushed for or that I could potentially block. But our hand has been forced because the bill was drawn from the ballot, and so we have been forced to reflect on our own upbringings, our own personal views, to take on board all of the advice that we have been given across the course of this debate, from the public and from people who genuinely feel passionate about this particular issue.

For me, as a Samoan-Tongan-Pākehā born and raised in the Anglican Church and then switching later with my family to an evangelical church, with Samoan family that belong to the Ekalesia Fa'apotopotoga Kerisiano Samoa Church, with Tongan family that belong to the Tongan Wesleyan Methodist Church, with a Catholic husband who comes from a staunchly Catholic family, there are lots of things to reflect on when we are considering this issue.

What I will say is something that’s come up for me out of this debate that I think was way more eloquently put by Minister Henare than I could ever put it is that, in terms of our decision making in life, in terms of the actions that we take across the course of our lives, if we were to use all of those decisions that we make, those actions that we take, as measures to determine where we are lacking in terms of our Christian walk or in terms of our cultural competency and our own ethnic groups and the communities that we belong to, then we would all be lacking in so many ways.

I can’t stand here and say that I am as strongly in support of this bill as people like Maryan Street, Ruth Dyson, and David Seymour. But I had to make a decision, and I have fallen just on the line in favour. I won’t stand here tonight and tell anyone what I think they should do, because I struggled enough myself with the personal decision that I had to make. I had wonderful people come and talk to me about why I should or shouldn’t vote for this—wonderful people; I really want to particularly refer to the disability sector here—people absolutely opposed who have been public with their view, people like the amazing Kylee Black from the disability sector, people absolutely in support that I respect as well, people like Philip Patston that’s here in the House tonight. And, ultimately, the decision for me as a member of Parliament fell with me, because the arguments were put either side.

We heard earlier from one of the people opposing the bill that they felt that the evidence that has been put by those in support was misinformation and that it lacked integrity in some way. Can I say that across the course of this debate, I think that some of the evidence that we’ve seen on both sides has been lacking, has been misinformed in some spaces, and has also lacked integrity in some spaces, on both sides, which made it even harder to try and work our way through the decision that we might make.

There’s one more issue that has made this particular debate very difficult for me, and that is the fact that, on so many occasions, culture and religion have been conflated into one thing. I don’t see them as one thing. As a Pacific person, on so many occasions I’ve heard in this House that this is not the Pacific way. Well, it stopped being the Pacific way when Christianity arrived, potentially. I will not accept that, prior to Christianity, during the many battles and wars that we fought, when our people were falling ill with terminal illnesses or illnesses that were hurting them, at no point did any of our Pacific people turn around and say, “I want to take my own life. I cannot live like this.” It is unacceptable to think that that never happened. So we shouldn’t conflate the two. We should talk about both of them in the context of this debate, but they are not one and the same. I have come to the decision that I will be supporting this bill.

Members, we’ve come to the last speech in this debate. A couple of members have dropped short, and there is about four or five minutes extra available. I intend to call Maggie Barry for the last speech, and I seek the leave of the House, notwithstanding the earlier decision of the House, for that speech to be a 10-minute speech. Is there any objection to that? There is none.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I would like to begin by acknowledging the tremendous compassion that is evident to me on both sides of this debate, and it has been from the beginning. I don’t think there is a person who is engaged with this issue who has not felt that they can make a contribution to let people die with dignity and to have their views heard and respected. So, for me, we all want the same thing, but we will go about it in different ways, because there are those of us that cannot agree that euthanasia and assisted suicide is the only way to have a dignified death. We believe that it is important to analyse this bill, and that’s what I will be doing in my call here tonight. I acknowledge, too, the 39,000 people who were very much of the view that they wanted to participate in this process, and I acknowledge this House and all of the people who took part in the submission process for allowing democracy to take its course, because I think that there has been a hearing, and there has been a fair hearing at that.

One of the things, though, that happened at the select committee—and I’m deputy chair of the Justice Committee that heard this—was that we decided at the outset that eight people should not determine the outcome of this bill. We would make minor and technical changes, and at the point where it was coming back to the House, there would be the robust debate, the changes that would be brought in. That didn’t happen. It is one of the greatest professional disappointments of my time in this House, in Parliament, that so few of the amendments and Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) that we put up, having thought through them very carefully and with a genuine desire to see this bill, if it is to pass, be made safer—so there have been some very low points, and the committee of the whole House, in my view, wasted many opportunities to genuinely engage. I believe that this bill’s fundamental purpose is designed to allow swift and easy access to euthanasia with scant regard for safeguards.

After the bill passed its second reading, though, we sat down. We worked with elder abuse, end of life care professionals, disability and dementia experts, as well as doctors and lawyers. We put up 111 amendments designed to address safety concerns, to ensure, for example, that medical professionals be required to check specifically for signs of elder abuse and to take active steps to ensure a patient is not under duress or being coerced. We tried hard to strengthen those safeguards against coercion. We tried hard to require robust reporting of the cases and to ensure that agencies such as hospices and rest homes would have the right to conscientiously object. That was not passed.

I marvel still at the number of speakers who stand up and say they admire and support the work of hospice. Why didn’t you listen to what they had to say? Why was there not support for their heartfelt plea? And even this morning, all of us, as members of Parliament, were sent a letter by Mary Schumacher and Rod MacLeod and the people in Hospice New Zealand, who have worked so hard and devoted their lives to finding a way for people to reach the end of their lives with dignity, with compassion, with holistic care, and that pain and suffering is not a part of that equation. That is the very last thing that they want.

So none of our SOPs were voted through; only one amendment was, and that was in the name of the sponsor, to remove “grievous and irremediable condition”. But that doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t make this bill any safer. That’s the view of medical experts as well as many of us. It doesn’t make any difference to the safety, because it’s a meaningless phrase. No one knew what it meant, anyway, and it had no legal or health status in New Zealand. The Disability Rights Commissioner, Paula Tesoriero, is very firmly of the view that this bill in its current state devalues the lives of people living with disabilities and poses significant risks for them. The so-called right to die for some would all too easily become a duty to die for others, and a law change would normalise this.

To us, the burden of proof has always been with the pro-euthanasia advocates and the sponsor of this bill. They have never been able to prove that there will not be unintended consequences, and instead they have dwelt in euphemisms that deny the reality of what this bill could do. It is not assisted dying; it is euthanasia, and it is assisted suicide. Those are the changes that are being made to the Crimes Act. Let’s not sanitise it. Let’s not pretend it is something different, because it is not. The State-sanctioned killing of one person by another was abandoned by this country in 1961, when people, our predecessors in this House, threw out the death penalty. Now we are looking at bringing back something that will enable the taking of a life. We have strong objections to that, many of us.

I think that what we look at with some of the arguments that have been put forward, the pro-euthanasia advocates are people who have been quite dismissive and rude. I’m standing up here for people in the disability sector, who I know have sacrificed, in some cases, their own health, and I commend Kylee Black, who wasn’t able to join us tonight, but for Vicky and for Clare and for John and for so many of the other people with disabilities—Raymond, sorry—who have made the effort to come here and have made the effort to speak out, they’ve been vilified. Many times they have been told they’re too expensive to keep alive—“Why should we listen to you?” And I think this is beyond disrespectful. So I have been very disappointed that that has occurred. Some have dismissed their arguments and ours in this House as scaremongering and emotional rubbish. They question the sincerity, and they dismiss the fears and concerns of the people who are genuinely afraid for their lives and for what will happen to them.

People who are told that they are terminally ill—it’s not uncommon for them to feel depressed. At a point when they’re at the lowest in their lives, when they are confused and unhappy, if the option of euthanasia is available—and I have heard this from people like Dr Huhana Hickey, who is someone I admire very much for her strength and her resilience. I know she won’t mind me saying this, but there came a time a few months ago when she was deeply distressed and suicidal. She had told her doctors and her wife and everyone in her family not to listen to her if she said she wanted to die, because she knew that, after a little while, she would not want that anymore. So many people have pointed to the presence of a euthanasia bill and assisted dying as an option they might take in their darkest hour. They might feel a burden. How sad is that? How bad are we as a society in New Zealand if we can allow that to occur?

Mine is not a faith-based objection to this bill, but I respect the ability and the right of people who do have a faith-based conviction to say what is in their hearts and not to be dismissed. I commend their tenacity and their determination.

From the time that my father died, I was very connected with hospice. The people I respected and trusted with my father’s death spoke to me a couple of years ago and said that this bill was coming through and they started to tell me of their objections. I meet with them a lot—people like Sinead Donnelly, Mary Schumacher, who wrote to us all today. They say they don’t understand why we would consider taking the risk of all of the unintended consequences at the expense of our most vulnerable. If you ask any doctor to do this, I think—all of the things that we tried to do to bring that into place, by protecting their conscientious objections, have not been passed.

It’s not true that all jurisdictions are doing this; 6 percent only. Some 6.65 billion people manage to live and die without euthanasia. There are more than 9 million doctors in the World Medical Association who have dismissed it. So, internationally, we look at what’s happened in other countries and we know it will happen here. We sit here night after night, week after week, changing legislation because it’s not fit for purpose. Some people have said this bill will be back in a few years; I’d say less than that.

This is a flawed bill. It should not, in its present form, be handed over to the people of New Zealand to do what the politicians could not do, which is to get a grip on this bill to understand how it could be improved, and to work together as a House to do that. We have not worked cooperatively. As I say, we need to put resources into looking after people at the end of their lives, for caring for them; not for killing them, not for funding euthanasia—through the Ministry of Health for goodness’ sake. I think that when I look at public safety and protection of the most vulnerable, we as politicians must be aware that that is the most important aspect, rather than an individual’s personal choice. Our role as lawmakers is to ensure the greatest good for the greatest number. We have a duty to ensure that the degree of safety built into the legislation matches the gravity of the risk. The stakes are very high, and we each have to ask ourselves the question and then be able to live with the answer: how many unintended deaths are too many?

As with voting down the death penalty 60 years ago, we have to ask ourselves whether one innocent life lost is OK and can be treated as collateral damage. I can’t live with that. I can’t live with the permissive bill and I do not support it before this House.

Order! Can members continue the congratulations in the lobby.