Wednesday, 31 July 2019

WEDNESDAY, 31 JULY 2019

WEDNESDAY, 31 JULY 2019

The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Oral Questions

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1—Prime Minister

1. Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s statements, policies, and actions?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS (Acting Prime Minister): Yes. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Amy Adams, since you’ve had diminished responsibilities your behaviour has diminished consistently. I call the Hon Kelvin Davis—

Hon Grant Robertson: He’s already answered the question.

SPEAKER: Oh, sorry. Well, I’m going to ask the member to answer it again because I was distracted.

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Yes.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is he concerned that more New Zealanders think the economy will be in a worse state in the next year than think it will be in a better state; and does he think that the Government’s policies have played a role in the growing level of economic pessimism?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said declining business confidence is “a vote of no confidence in the government by the business sector”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: At the time that Mr Robertson said that, he was actually talking about the National Government.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it still true?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Hon Simon Bridges: So is it a case that the Government thinks a vote of no confidence in the Government by the business sector is true when there’s declining business confidence under National, but not under Labour?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: The New Zealand economy continues to grow solidly in the face of global uncertainty—we know that. GDP grew 0.6 percent in the March quarter, higher than Australia and the OECD. Annual growth is 2.7 percent; the average under National was 2.1 percent growth. Our per capita GDP grew 0.9 percent over the year—same as the average per capita growth under National. The performance of services index continued to expand in June, higher than comparable countries; so did the performance of manufacturing index—it expanded faster in June than in May. The Consumers Price Index (CPI) shows the economy growing strongly compared to the rest of the world. We’ve got near historic low unemployment of 4.2 percent, and wages are rising.

Hon Simon Bridges: To quote the Prime Minister, how does CPI show the economy growing strongly?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: It’s about everything that I’ve just outlined. It’s showing that the economy is growing, and this is the thing: they don’t like to admit that this country is actually going ahead under us when it went backwards under them.

Hon Simon Bridges: What is the CPI—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: Who made that noise?

Greg O’Connor: I stand, withdraw, and apologise.

SPEAKER: Another one and the member will be out.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said declining business confidence is “a vote of no confidence in the government by the business sector”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: As I’ve said, I tend to agree with many things that the Hon Grant Robertson says, because he’s a hard-working and very successful Minister of Finance. The big thing is that our economy is growing, is doing well—near historic low unemployment, higher wages. In all of these measures that I’ve said, we’re doing as well as, if not better than, what the previous Government did.

Hon Simon Bridges: Are business confidence figures out today that show declining six points to a net negative 44 a vote of no confidence in the Government by the business sector?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No; it’s a reflection of international circumstances. Also, business confidence is an opinion survey. We know that businesses are looking at the international economic uncertainty and factoring that into their responses to these sentiment surveys. We’re a small, open export economy, and so global economic conditions do have an impact.

Hon Simon Bridges: So does he agree with Minister David Parker that business confidence is “junk”?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No. As I said, the business confidence is an opinion survey.

Hon Simon Bridges: Does he agree with Grant Robertson, who said, “kicking off a house-building programme like KiwiBuild would give business more confidence in the future”; and, if so, when are they going to start building houses?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: We have started building houses. In fact, we’ve got the biggest house-building programme since the 1970s—more than they ever did.

Hon Simon Bridges: Should the Government ensure houses are built at Ihumātao?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: Ihumātao is a very complex and fluid situation. We’re very mindful of making sure that we don’t undermine business decisions. We’ve got to make sure that we don’t undermine private property rights, we’ve got to make sure we don’t undermine settlements that have already occurred, and we’ve got to make sure that we don’t undermine settlements that are yet to occur.

Hon Simon Bridges: Is it true that the Government’s involvement in Ihumātao has stopped more houses being built than his Government’s delivered so far under KiwiBuild?

Hon KELVIN DAVIS: No.

Question No. 2—Finance

2. Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he seen on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): I can understand why the member’s emotional about it, because they’re so good. A number of recent reports highlight the strength of New Zealand’s economy in the face of global economic headwinds. Statistics New Zealand yesterday reported that residential building consents rose 5.8 percent nationwide in the year to June and that all consents for construction activity were 6.7 percent stronger than a year ago. Within this, residential building consents in Auckland were up 13 percent to a new all-time record of 14,032 new homes consented in the year to June—four times the rate in 2009. These are another sign, along with near record low unemployment, the stock market doing well, and rising wages, that New Zealand’s underlying economic fundamentals are sound in the face of international headwinds.

Dr Duncan Webb: What recent reports has he seen on how the New Zealand economy and business are being affected by these international headwinds?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: There’s no doubt that international economic issues like Brexit and the US-China trade war are having an effect on business confidence in New Zealand. A report in the Southland Times yesterday highlighted how falling overseas log prices were impacting on local logging firms. While these international headwinds are having an impact, it is important to note the view of one local forestry company manager in Southland, who said that activity in the domestic log market in New Zealand was helping to offset that in the international arena. Again, this highlights that our strong domestic economic fundamentals are doing well compared to the rest of the world.

Dr Duncan Webb: What other reports has he seen on the position of the New Zealand economy relative to the rest of the world?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I saw a report on TV Three recently, interviewing the chairman of ANZ bank—a Sir John Key—who said, “We can’t stop what’s happening around the rest of the world. As I used to say, we’re a little country at the bottom of the world. No one owes us a living, [so] we’ve got to sell things to the world. So if they slow down, that has an impact.” He also said, “You can’t control a trade war that happens between China and the United States, or all those sort of international things.” And he went on to say, “There’s always those issues—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! I know the source, but it’s—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, no—we were loving it!

SPEAKER: Oh. Well, given Mr Brownlee’s interjection, rather than making him withdraw and apologise, I’ll get Grant Robertson to go on.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’m nearly done, Mr Speaker. Mr Key went on to say, “There are always those issues, but I think part of it is just feeling confident about what’s going on and making sure we don’t talk the place down.”

Question No. 3—Education

3. MARK PATTERSON (NZ First) to the Associate Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about support for children and young people with learning needs?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Associate Minister of Education): On Friday, I announced a new action plan to improve the support for children and young people with learning needs. One in five children—around 200,000 children—need extra support for their learning. We need to do a much better job of helping these young people. The Learning Support Action Plan 2019-25 is focused on prioritising those things which will make the greatest difference to the majority of these young people, who are part of a natural learning diversity among children and young people in the learning environment.

Mark Patterson: How was the Learning Support Action Plan developed?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: The Learning Support Action Plan responds to the recommendations made by the select committee inquiry into the identification and support for students with dyslexia, dyspraxia, and autism spectrum disorders, as well as feedback from engagement with young people, whānau, educators, sector group unions, agencies, and disability organisations. One of the most special consultation meetings I attended was here in Parliament, with students from the Hillcrest High School learning support unit. They overcame huge barriers to travel to Wellington to ask Minister Sepuloni, as the Minister for Disability Issues, and myself to ensure that their unit would stay and be part of the dedicated learning support model that we are going to do for these students.

Mark Patterson: What are the priorities that the plan will address?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: First, we are introducing the first tranche of learning support coordinators in schools and kura, and I will make that announcement this Friday; developing new screening tools to help early identification of learning support needs; strengthening early intervention for pre-schoolers; providing services and supports for neurodiverse children and young people; better meeting the learning needs of gifted children; and improving education for children and young people at risk of disengaging. The plan is a living document and will be reviewed and revised as needed and as new priorities emerge.

Mark Patterson: What resources have been invested to achieve greater support for these children and young people with learning needs?

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Budget 2018 increased support by $283.8 million over four years. Budget 2019 provides further increases for learning support of $335.8 million over four years. This is a total of $619.65 million announced over the last two years, compared to the inadequate investment of $249.8 million over five years by the previous Government.

Question No. 4—Finance

4. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s statements, policies, and actions in relation to the economy?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON (Minister of Finance): Yes, in the context in which they were given, made, and undertaken.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he stand by his Government’s economic policies when most measures of economic sentiment, including this week’s One News Colmar Brunton poll on the economic outlook, and today’s ANZ survey—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can the member ask a question.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Yes—well, when all those things show that levels of confidence are at the lowest since the global financial crisis?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I’ve got confidence in the fact that this Government has a plan for a 21st century economy that’s one where we actually build a sustainable growth path, that’s one where we actually include everybody in the economy; it’s not one where we have our eyes firmly fixed on the rear-vision mirror, trying to recreate some kind of economy from the 20th century that’s not going to work. On this side of the House, we have a plan and we’re executing it.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Shouldn’t our economy be doing quite well right now?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Yes, indeed—and relative to the rest of the world, it most certainly is. We had higher growth rates in the last quarter than Australia, than Japan, than Canada, than the euro area; our performance of services index was expanding higher than Australia, the UK, China, Japan, and the US; in other countries, where their manufacturing index was contracting in the last month, New Zealand’s was expanding—

Hon Simon Bridges: Not going well.

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: We are doing well, relative to the rest of the world. We are also at a point in the economic and business cycle where, overall, the global economy is slowing, but New Zealand’s well-positioned to handle that.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Following the Prime Minister’s intervention in the Ihumātao dispute, has he requested or received any advice on the fiscal risks to the Government and current taxpayers, if full and final Treaty settlements were to be reopened?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he accept that it was misleading for him to say yesterday that an extra $114 million went to Pharmac in Budget 2018, when that money did not represent new spending on medicines but simply transferred responsibility and funding for hospital drug buying from health boards to Pharmac?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: No, I don’t. The way that Pharmac’s budget is measured is the combined pharmaceuticals budget—that did increase by that level. Just as earlier in the 2010s, the Government included vaccines into it, and that also increased the value of that fund.

Hon Dr David Clark: Does the finance Minister accept that when that money’s transferred into the combined pharmaceutical budget, it means that the purchasing power of Pharmac means that more New Zealanders get more medicines for the same amount of money?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: Indeed. In fact, the beauty of the Pharmac model is that it actually does allow New Zealanders to get more medicines at a cheaper price. Unfortunately, there are some people who want to play politics with that particular model.

Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did Budget 2018 increase the Government’s total funding for medicines by $114 million?

Hon GRANT ROBERTSON: I don’t have that detail to hand with me. But what I can tell that member is that the Pharmac budget now sits at close to $1 billion. There have been increases in Pharmac’s budget for the last two years. What I can also say to that member is that he and his party need to accept that if we’re going to address cancer, it’s not just about drugs; it’s also about all of the treatments. That’s what happens in district health boards, that’s why we increased funding for them by over $2.9 billion in the last Budget, and it’s why the last Government failed by underfunding them to the tune of $2 billion.

SPEAKER: Order! I didn’t interrupt the Minister, and I have had some criticism for my description of noises emanating from members in the House at previous times. But, frankly, one of those noises was too loud and too much like an animal. I’d like people just to take some care, thank you.

Question No. 5—Education

5. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What actions, if any, has the Government taken to remove cost barriers to the public education system for New Zealand families?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): This year’s Budget removed fees for NCEA, it removed fees for New Zealand Scholarship, and it provided additional funding for schools who don’t ask parents for donations. I was also happy to announce that the Government has written off historical NCEA fees dating back to 2002. This means that 150,000 current and former students with unpaid NCEA fees will now be formally awarded their NCEA credits and qualifications, and will have them added to their records of achievement.

Jan Tinetti: What does this mean for the 150,000 current or former students with unpaid NCEA fees?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member’s just answered that question.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: No, I haven’t.

SPEAKER: Oh, well, if the member can—sorry, I thought that’s exactly what the member had just said. The Minister just said that it got it added to their credits.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Mr Speaker, if you’d like to have a crack, I’m sure that you’re welcome to answer the question, if you would like.

SPEAKER: Further supplementary, Jan Tinetti.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I do think that you should be the referee and not a participant in question time.

SPEAKER: I note the member’s comments, but I’m one of the unusual members who happens to listen to the questions and the answers. It’s a pity some of the Ministers didn’t as well.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it your ruling that if a supplementary question either repeats a question that’s been asked, or a question that’s already been answered, it’s out of order?

SPEAKER: It is my ruling where it asks for exactly the information that has just been provided to the House. Further supplementary, Jan Tinetti.

Jan Tinetti: What does the removal of NCEA fees mean for schools and their staff?

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: NCEA fees administration has been a significant burden for schools, and the administration of hardship grants has also been a significant burden for schools, often requiring more administration to deliver the hardship applications than actually was saved by those who, ultimately, received them.

SPEAKER: Question No. 6, the Hon Judith Collins.

Hon Judith Collins: Oh, thank you, Mr Speaker. Might I say, good tie.

SPEAKER: Order! And if I say to the member I’ll send her to the African Union to get one for herself if she continues, I think I might get some support from around her.

Hon Judith Collins: Ha, ha! The trouble is, Mr Speaker, I’m sure to come back.

SPEAKER: The Hon Judith Collins.

Question No. 6—Housing

6. Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Housing: Does she agree with the former Minister of Housing and Urban Development, who said, “Our urban land and housing is literally some of the most expensive in the world” and “It’s largely the fault of land use planning”; if so, what is this Government doing that will address the cost of urban land and housing?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Housing): In answer to the first part of the question, yes, in the contexts in which they were made, and this Government has been willing to admit that solving the housing crisis is complex. That’s why we’re taking a cross-Government approach to these issues, with work under way across the housing, urban development, building and construction, and environment portfolios. In the housing portfolio, we are progressing the delivery of large-scale developments across Auckland and Wellington. We are working with developers and iwi to ensure affordable houses are delivered, and we’re looking to expand the use of offsite manufacturing. In the urban development portfolio, my colleague is working on the establishment of an urban development authority, and the development of a national policy statement on urban development. In the building and construction portfolio, my colleague is working on reform of the Building Act. In the environment portfolio, of course, my colleague is working on the Resource Management Act (RMA) review.

Hon Judith Collins: If she agrees that land-use planning is largely to blame for house prices, then why is the Government not progressing planning reform in a time frame that will result in changes to rules during this term of Parliament?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As the member and I discussed yesterday, actually, this Government is quite proud of the fact that we have got the RMA reforms under way in our first term of Government. I note that that party, when it was in Government, spent nine years, delivered nothing, and, indeed, their leader, Simon Bridges, has labelled it as one of their failures in Government, to deliver on RMA reform.

Hon Judith Collins: Does she agree with the Deputy Prime Minister, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who, when asked if the Greens could get on the same page as the Government on reform, answered, “No … I cannot agree with their race-based approach”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: All parties in our coalition Government have approved the start of David Parker’s work on resource management reform. That party, when it was leading a Government, may not have been able to pull together its coalition partners to get resource management reform across the line, but we have started that work, and we are proud of the fact that we have begun that work where that party failed in Government.

Hon Judith Collins: So why is the Government not willing to try and achieve consensus with the National Party on land-use planning reform since it is “largely at fault” for urban land and housing prices being so high?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: If the member feels left out, I suggest she put that question to the Minister who is responsible for that piece of work.

Hon Judith Collins: So what is this Minister doing about it?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I’ve outlined, both in the primary and in subsequent supplementary questions, we recognise housing is a complex set of issues. The Hon David Parker is leading the work around the RMA reforms. Obviously, all Ministers that have an interest in housing are kept informed of this, but we intend to actually get this across the line, unlike the previous Government.

Question No. 7—Health

7. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he intend to make a public announcement about the Interim Cancer Action Plan before the end of this parliamentary sitting block; if not, when?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): I’m not going to be rushed into making announcements by that member. It’s important the actions in the plan are lined up correctly to ensure we’re delivering actions that will benefit those living with cancer, but I can assure the member that it will not take nine years for this Government to take action on cancer.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: In relation to that answer, is he not aware that the previous Government had a comprehensive cancer plan published in December 2014 for the period 2015 to 2018?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am aware that the previous Government scrapped Cancer Control New Zealand, the one agency at the time with a mandate to provide strong central leadership on cancer control. I do, though, welcome their change of heart.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: That’s not an answer to the question.

SPEAKER: The member’s right. That’s not an answer to the question.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I let the member know what I was aware of, which is that they scrapped the cancer control agency that was actually responsible for mandating change.

SPEAKER: All the member has to do is indicate whether he’s aware or unaware of the existence of the plan.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I reject the member’s characterisation of it. It was a continuation of the cancer work that was started under the previous Labour Government.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said yesterday “It is great to see the National Party adopting Labour Party policy from 2017.”, did he not think it ironic that his Government didn’t also adopt Labour Party policy? [Interruption]

SPEAKER: Order! Mr Doocey, you’re on your last warning.

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am glad that the National Party has caught up to where the Labour Party was in 2017. Since that time, of course, I’ve had the opportunity to build relationships with the sector to work through the best way to deliver on the principles of centrally directed, strong cancer care with accountability, and I do look forward to the member’s support when he catches up to where we are in 2019.

Hon Grant Robertson: Does the Minister see any irony whatsoever in the promotion of an agency such as this by a party who, in Government, said it would be a complete waste of money?

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No responsibility.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he be confident his plan will be an improvement on the previous three-year plan, when he didn’t even bother to undertake a review of that previous plan?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Earlier this year, there was a conference called Cancer Care at a Crossroads, which was supported by the Ministry of Health and which also had participants from across the cancer care spectrum at the conference and people suffering—living with cancer. That conference was the basis for building the new plan. What people there recognised was that we had inherited as a Government an uneven quality of care across New Zealand. We’re focused on dealing with the problems that we’ve inherited with the underfunding in the health system and with making sure that in the future there is a high standard of cancer care across New Zealand so that no matter who you are, no matter where you live, you can expect a high quality of cancer care. As Minister, I accept the problems I’ve inherited from the previous Government, and I’m determined to fix them.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn’t it true that at that conference he was embarrassed by the Vining family in January over his lack of a plan, made a promise to deliver one within a few weeks, and has broken that promise?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. Melissa Vining expressed to me directly that she felt she had been let down by the system and that there needed to be accountability and that in future we needed a cancer action plan. I have since spoken with the Vinings. They are very clear with me that they think we need to take the time to get this right, and they are very clear with me that we need to invest in making sure we have a high standard of cancer care across New Zealand, and I’m determined to deliver on that.

Hon Michael Woodhouse: When he said yesterday “We’re a Government that consults and works with others to deliver cancer care”, does that mean there will be yet another six months of consultation when the interim plan is released before any further initiatives are put in place?

Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: No. I’ve been very clear that the interim plan will contain actions. After years of underfunding and neglect, there are some actions which are incredibly obvious, not just the drugs that the member has spoken about but across the spectrum of care: screening, radiation therapy, and other interventions. There are a lot of opportunities, when cancer care has been neglected for so long, to make investments immediately, but, of course, in terms of finalising the longer-term plan, we want to make sure that those who are delivering the care are involved. We won’t ignore them and announce policy on the hoof, like his party did on the weekend.

Question No. 8—Arts, Culture and Heritage

8. ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour) to the Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What is the New Zealand Film Commission doing to support diversity in film making and content?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Associate Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Last year, the New Zealand Film Commission launched its first Rautaki Māori strategy, appointed its first Pou Whakahaere, and launched the 125 Fund, which supports opportunities for women filmmakers. Since then, the New Zealand Film Commission have created a fund for films in Te Reo Māori and have established two joint funds, one to support Asian and Pacific Island New Zealanders to develop a one-off drama and one to support creative collaboration between indigenous people of the Pacific region impacted by the arrival of Captain Cook. They also continue to actively support the annual Māori Screen Excellence Awards. It’s exciting to see the work of the New Zealand Film Commission truly reflecting the diversity that exists across New Zealand and the region.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: What evidence has the Minister seen to showcase the work the New Zealand Film Commission is doing to support diversity in the film industry?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We have seen international recognition of Pacific films with the Berlin International Film Festival’s NATIVe section focused on the Pacific. The New Zealand Film Commission supported the making of Pacific films Vai, Liliu, Toa’ipuapugā Strength in Suffering, and For My Father’s Kingdom. Last night, it was a privilege to speak at the New Zealand premiere of For My Father’s Kingdom, the first Pacific feature documentary funded by the New Zealand Film Commission, co-directed by Tongan Vea Mafile‘o and Samoan Jeremiah Tauamiti and produced by another proud Tongan, Sandra Kailahi. The premiere, held at the Civic in Auckland, was attended by over 1,800 people. Efforts like this show the New Zealand Film Commission’s contribution to supporting more diverse filmmakers and showcasing New Zealand and the Pacific region on the international stage.

Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki: Why is this important?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: One of the Government’s priorities through Budget 2019 was lifting Māori and Pacific incomes, skills, and opportunities in every sector, including the film industry—and every sector, including the film industry, has a part to play in this. We have also made a commitment to value who we are as a country, and the work of our film commission is doing exactly that by providing opportunities for New Zealand’s diverse talent pool and showcasing their stories to New Zealand and the world. It’s exciting to see New Zealanders engaging with Pacific arts. The most recent national arts engagement survey showed that a record number of nearly one in five—18 percent—everyday New Zealanders attended at least one Pacific arts event in the previous 12 months. Our competitive edge on the international stage is strengthened by our uniqueness, and Māori and Pacific artists have a great contribution to make in this space.

Question No. 9—Social Development

9. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: How many of the 23,574 Emergency Housing Special Needs Grants paid in the year to June 2019 are repayable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Of the 23,574 grants granted in the June 2019 quarter, 955 were recoverable. As I said in the House yesterday, under the previous Government 11 percent of emergency housing special needs grants were recoverable; under our side, it’s 4 percent.

Hon Louise Upston: How much of the 1,580 percent increase in emergency housing special needs grants in Wellington, going from 20 to 336, is a direct result of the increased costs of living that her Government’s policies have created?

SPEAKER: I’m trying to relate that to the repayability of special needs grants, not the number. It’s not about the increase in the numbers; it’s about the repayability. So can the member focus her supplementary back on that?

Hon Louise Upston: How much of the 1,580 percent increase in emergency housing special needs grants in Wellington—that have gone from 20 to 336—that are repayable are clearly the direct result of her Government’s policies on the cost of living?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I reject the premise of that question. This Government, when it got into power, put $5.5 billion into a Families Package that was targeted at some of the lowest-income earners in this country. The housing crisis that we inherited was a direct result of the previous Government’s inaction. This Government is responding, and we’re not going to apologise for giving New Zealanders who need housing support the support they need, because that need is a direct consequence of their inaction.

Hon Louise Upston: Under what circumstances are the emergency housing special needs grants repayable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The emergency housing special needs grants are recoverable if the applicant has failed to make a reasonable effort in the circumstances to access other sources of housing assistance, or if the grant is a second or subsequent emergency housing grant made to the applicant within a 52-week period and the applicant has unreasonably contributed to the existence of the immediate emergency housing need. Any emergency housing special needs grant paid in respect of bond or security is also recoverable. Examples where emergency housing special needs grants might be recoverable because they’ve failed to make a reasonable effort are where the person has not actively looked for a house, hasn’t shown they have made any effort to look for alternative accommodation, have not met with a transitional housing provider when arranged, and there are a list of other reasons. I think it’s important to note that, actually, the previous Government made a point in a press release on 1 July 2016, “During our review of emergency housing last year, it became apparent that vulnerable people were getting into debt to pay for accommodation when they needed it most. This was not right and we have fixed it.” They had an 11 percent recoverable rate. Ours is 4 percent. We’re fixing it better than what they did.

Hon Louise Upston: Who is correct: the Minister, who said yesterday, “4 percent is repayable” or the Ministry of Social Development (MSD), who, on their website, say, “We’ll pay [it] directly to the emergency housing provider. … You won’t need to pay this money back”?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve been very clear in the House that with regards to—

Hon Louise Upston: Who’s right—the Minister or MSD?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: —the emergency housing special needs—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member asked a question. Her mike is live. The Minister is attempting to answer it. I can’t hear it because of the noise she’s making.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I’ve been very clear in this House today and yesterday that, under us, 4 percent of those who have accessed an emergency housing special needs grant have had that grant made recoverable for whatever reason. Under the previous Government, it was 11 percent.

Hon Louise Upston: Is it kind and caring to be misleading the public with the MSD website on which of the special needs grants are recoverable?

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I have to say that I would have concern about the interpretation of that member’s reading of the website. I have been very clear in this House, and I will repeat myself: the most recent statistics show that, under this Government, 4 percent—

SPEAKER: Order! I think we’ve had that set of figures about seven times in the last two days. I’ve had enough of them.

Hon Louise Upston: I seek leave to table a document that I was quoting—

SPEAKER: Is the member purporting to table a screenshot of a website?

Hon Louise Upston: Well, I’m not sure the Minister’s seen—

SPEAKER: No. The member knows that’s disorderly. She’ll resume her seat, and she’s lucky to stay in the House. Question No. 10, Chris Bishop.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry, Mr Speaker. I thought you were still dealing with that last exchange, and—

SPEAKER: No, I’ve dealt with it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it’s a little surprising, then, that there was no requirement for there to be an answer, because there wasn’t one.

SPEAKER: Well, you don’t normally have an answer to leave to table a document unless it’s put to the House, and it wasn’t. And I’m not putting it, because Speakers for quite some time now have indicated that material that is generally available, especially by way of a website, is not something that should be tabled. Louise Upston absolutely knows that and was trifling with the Chair in her attempt to table it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s all good; my question was about the question that was asked, which you stopped an answer to because you, rightly, identified some repetitive material coming from the Minister. But the question itself was “Is it fair to the public that a website contains some information counter to the Minister’s answer in the House?”

SPEAKER: And my ruling was that that was answered right at the beginning of the question and there was much superfluous material added afterwards.

Question No. 10—Transport

10. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What does her 26 March 2019 letter to the Minister of Transport regarding the Let’s Get Wellington Moving indicative package say, if anything, in relation to a second Mt Victoria tunnel?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The final Let’s Get Wellington Moving package outlined our Government’s plan to deliver a step change in Wellington’s transport, to enable more people to move freely through the city with less congestion, and to protect the climate. My letter to Minister Twyford expressed my concerns at the time that the indicative package had not yet been sequenced to deliver the optimal benefits to help people get around Wellington. This was resolved in the final package.

SPEAKER: Order! I’m now going to ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: The question was about the content of the letter—

SPEAKER: No, what it says, if anything, in relation to a second Mount Victoria tunnel. I didn’t hear that being addressed.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Well, I was discussing my concerns. What the letter expressed was some concerns about the lack of sequencing of projects, and that includes the Mount Vic tunnel, but it includes all of the projects in the package, the order in which they are to be sequenced.

SPEAKER: Thank you; that’s clear now.

Chris Bishop: Why did she not disclose the existence of her 26 March 2019 letter to the Minister when first asked through written questions? Is it because she’s embarrassed by its contents?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Not at all. As the member will know, our offices are answering hundreds of written questions from National Party members every week, and it was a mistake. As soon as my office and Minister Twyford’s office realised the oversight, it was corrected.

Chris Bishop: When, if ever, will she release her 26 March 2019 letter to the Minister?

Nicola Willis: What are you hiding?

SPEAKER: Order! Who did that interjection? The member will withdraw and apologise.

Nicola Willis: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can assure all members that the Government has nothing to hide. The letter has been withheld in line with the Official Information Act and opinions put forward by the Chief Ombudsman. I’d quote the Chief Ombudsman’s recent opinion on political consultation: “There is a strong interest in maintaining the Government’s ability to undertake effective and efficient political consultation with political parties, and to receive free and frank opinions from the political parties that are being consulted”. This side of the House, unlike that side of the House, has robust conversations about policy and comes to agreement, whereas, on the other side of the House when there’s disagreement, people lose their portfolios.

Chris Bishop: When she said to my colleague Nicola Willis she wouldn’t release a letter to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs through the free and frank expression of opinions, how free and frank was she with her colleague Phil Twyford, and is it correct the letter refers to “car fascists”?

Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, it is not correct.

Question No. 11—Employment

11. KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What recent announcements has he made about helping rangatahi in the Bay of Plenty into employment?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): On 18 July in Tauranga, I launched a joint Te Ara Mahi and He Poutama Rangatahi - funded programme, Pathways to Trades: a $1.6 million commitment over two years to connect over 100 rangatahi—those are young people—into trades-based apprenticeships across the Western Bay of Plenty, primarily in Rotorua and Tauranga.

Kiritapu Allan: How does the Pathways to Trades programme work?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: Pathways to Trades provides support to our rangatahi who aren’t earning, learning, caring, or volunteering to gain skills training and work in the trades-based industries. This includes careers in trades such as building, plumbing, painting, and concrete laying. The programme includes up to six months of pre-employment support and nine months of ongoing mentoring from the point of being placed into employment.

Kiritapu Allan: What difference will the programme make?

Hon WILLIE JACKSON: The Pathways to Trades programme is not just about making a difference in the lives of the 100 rangatahi and their whānau. It’s also about committing to skills and investment in our key growth industries, which has been lacking for too long. This Government wants to see our young people build skills and participate in their communities so that we have a strong economy that delivers for everyone as well as highlight to our communities that careers in the trades and their supporting industries can deliver life-long successful employment pathways for our young people.

Question No. 12—Energy and Resources

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Why was the average daily wholesale price of electricity across New Zealand on 30 July 2019, 67 percent higher than it was a year ago?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS (Minister of Energy and Resources): It’s impossible to pinpoint a specific reason for a daily price. Prices vary from day to day, season to season, year to year. There is a complex range of factors, such as weather, lake levels, infrastructure outages, and demand. There is an inherent volatility in the wholesale prices. While the July 2019 monthly average price at the Ōtāhuhu node has been $113 per megawatt hour, in 2018 it was $82 per megawatt hour. I remind that member that in July 2017, when that member’s party was in Government, the monthly average price was $135 per megawatt hour. That is a percentage increase in monthly average spot prices between July 2016 and 2017 of 98.52 percent, and a percentage increase in monthly average spot prices between July 2018 and July 2019 of 37.8 percent.

Jonathan Young: What is driving the price up—considering that North Island hydro storage is 107 percent of average, South Island hydro storage is 120 percent of average, and natural gas and geothermal are flowing normally?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: As I told that member in the answer to the primary question, given the question he asked me was about a specific day, it is impossible to pinpoint a specific reason for a specific day. But I’m sure the member full well understands that what we are seeing at the moment is generators seeing that there’s going to be an increase in demand and prices starting to reflect that. We are also seeing, on the other side of that balance, an increase in investment. We’ve had over half a billion dollars of investment committed in the last year to renewables projects. This is what that member would describe as the market working well, I’m sure.

Jonathan Young: Does she agree with Pattrick Smellie, who said last week, “Where $50 to $60 per megawatt hour had often been the norm in recent years, wholesale spot prices have risen to sit [comfortably] above $100 per megawatt hour in most parts of the country.”?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: I just gave the explanation for that in the answer to my last question—that, yes, we are currently seeing higher wholesale rates. I’d remind that member there is no reason to think that this will necessarily flow through to retail rates, as they didn’t in 2017 when we saw prices in the $300s per megawatt hour. But what we are seeing is the market reflecting the fact that there is an appetite for investment, which we are seeing. We are seeing commitments in investments around renewable energy. But the good news for that member is that what we are seeing is investment in renewable energy, which has a far lower levelised cost of electricity than fossil fuel modes, and, actually, what commenters are saying is this will ultimately lead to lower prices for consumers.

Jonathan Young: After the Minister has said that prices are higher, does she agree that major electricity users like the Glenbrook steel mill, fertiliser companies like Ballance and Ravensdown, Methanex and the oil refinery—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! No lists.

Jonathan Young: —thank you, sir—are all facing tens of millions of dollars in higher electricity costs?

Hon Dr MEGAN WOODS: What I remind that member of is the inherent volatility of this market. If we go back to July 2017—let’s go back to a period of time in there where we had 9 July, $106 per megawatt hour; 10 July, $122; 11 July, $144; 12 July, $212; 13 July, $351—

SPEAKER: Order! Order! That concludes oral questions.

General Debate

General Debate

Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Leader of the Opposition): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business.

I want to start by acknowledging the tremendous contribution to this House and to New Zealand by the Hon Nathan Guy. He has been a role model of a member of Parliament, doing an incredibly fine job as the Member of Parliament for Ōtaki. He has delivered for his electorate on the little and the large, and I for one, Mr Guy, will remember those four lanes when I drive down them that have done so much to help people get home on time, get goods to market, get medicines to hospital. You’ve been a great local member of Parliament, Mr Guy. I also want to acknowledge a remarkable nine years as a Minister where he has been an indefatigable—yeah, that’s right: indefatigable—champion of the primary sector and rural communities in this country. What a great New Zealander.

But I want to talk—well actually, there’s been a lot of talk about polls this week and about whether this Government is up to it. And I don’t want to offend Grant Robertson, but some are even saying this is a part-time Government. That’s what they’re saying. That’s what they’re saying. And that’s because under that Government over there, New Zealanders are starting to see a few things. One of the things—

Hon Dr Megan Woods: Are you allowed to read a general debate speech?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —Megan Woods, that they’re starting to see is an economy tanking—an economy tanking. And just today business confidence figures out are down another six to net negative 44—the worst since the height, or I should say the slumps, of the global financial crisis. And don’t worry, I won’t be mentioning the Consumers Price Index, Kelvin Davis. You’ll be OK on that one

And that’s as they pile on costs and taxes, whether it’s on rents, whether it’s on petrol, whether it’s on cars, Julie Anne Genter. That is what they are doing because this is a Government that doesn’t understand the economy. They don’t understand the economy, they are not to be trusted on tax, and New Zealanders are increasingly working out they can’t afford this Government because as they get the tax in, as they get the costs in, they are wasting it on shamefully wasteful programmes that don’t make a difference.

The other thing—[Interruption]—no, no, no, no. The other thing that’s going on and that New Zealanders are saying more and more is this Labour Government is failing to deliver on its promises. That’s what they are doing in so many areas. Let’s take housing. How many KiwiBuild have they built—87.

Hon Member: How many?

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Eighty-seven—I’ll let you have the answer—87 with the code of compliance, 87 houses under KiwiBuild. How many have they stopped at Ihumātao—480. Now for Kelvin Davis, I’m going to run them through this: 87 minus 480—that’s going backwards. That is going backwards and that’s because New Zealanders are seeing Jacinda Ardern is not serious about building houses that New Zealanders need in this country. In fact, they’re a Government that’s failing to build anything. They’re not building houses, they’re not building roads, they’re not even building rail, Shane Jones. Nothing’s happening under them and National will be a Government of infrastructure that delivers for this country.

They’re not delivering in cancer, and this is a serious matter because two years ago over on that side they talked about world-class services. They were literally going to save the world and they were going to do—and it was the right thing to say—a national cancer agency. So, David Clark, what’s being done?

Hon Members: Nothing.

Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Nothing. The reality is, nothing has been done. Nine thousand people in New Zealand die a year, and nothing’s been done. In fact, Paula Bennett’s right. It’s worse than that, because when you get past the jiggery-pokery, they’re not even funding the cost of inflation for new cancer drugs in New Zealand. They’ve got rid of the targets and the measures and the ability to actually see what is happening in this area. That’s why I’m proud that we will fund that. We will put a further $200 million in, and we will do—no ifs, no buts; and New Zealanders know we are true to our word—a national cancer agency. You see, on this side of the House, we’ll keep the economy strong and we’ll deliver on it because we know the bottom line is you, New Zealanders.

Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): What a confused and incoherent ramble we just had from the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn’t seem to know what he thinks at all, because he complains that the Prime Minister shouldn’t be involved in Ihumātao, and then he complains that she is, and then he complains that she shouldn’t be there, and then he complains that she should be. Then he complained that she was a part-time Prime Minister, and then, of course, we were reminded that he complained when she made an announcement after 6 o’clock, because apparently, in Simon Bridges’ world, full-time Prime Ministers knock off at 5.

Well, on this side of the House, I can assure Mr Bridges that Ministers are working every waking hour to deliver the outcomes that New Zealanders are looking for from this Government. They want a Government that is tackling the long-term challenges facing this country, and that is exactly what this Government is doing. We’ve dusted off the problems that the National Party put in the too-hard basket and we’re actually taking them seriously—like mental health, like child poverty, like family and sexual violence, and like homelessness. Issues the National Party couldn’t run away from fast enough—this Government is actually taking them seriously and doing something about them.

This is a Government not only addressing mental health and homelessness and child poverty but we’re delivering a strong economy at the same time, despite the global situation that we find ourselves in. New Zealand’s economy is outperforming many of the countries that we would traditionally compare ourselves to. We are doing well despite the global uncertainty. We are delivering surpluses. We are delivering low debt. We are delivering record low unemployment. That’s all happening under this Government.

Compare that with what you see on the other side of the House, and, in fact, don’t take my word for it at all; let’s see what National’s own MPs think about Simon Bridges’ performance as leader. Let me quote from them directly—direct quotes from the people sitting over there, probably the ones that are slouched down behind their benches hoping that no one will notice that they are there, which is most of them at the moment. They are slouching down, desperately hoping that no one knows they’re there, because they’ve been going around the press gallery white-anting their own leader. We know that because they’ve been reported on it.

Here are the words of Simon Bridges’ own MPs when it comes to Simon Bridges: “The party members don’t want him. The funders don’t want him.” That’s one of his own MPs saying that. It doesn’t get more unequivocal than that. That’s from one of Simon Bridges’ own MPs. But here’s another revelation from one of his own MPs: “Our polling isn’t as bad as it could be. It’s being held up by the belief that most of our voters have that we’re going to change him.” So the theory going around the National Party MPs—these are not my words; these are the National backbench MPs’ own words—is that the only reason their polling is holding up is that the voters think they’re going to get rid of Simon Bridges

But here’s one from another MP, and this one’s got a ring of desperation about it, of course: “There’s no John Key waiting in the wings.” Now, if that doesn’t have a reek of desperation about it, I don’t know what does. But here’s another one that shows you just how divided this caucus actually is, and this came also from a National MP: “This is a leader who doesn’t have a majority support in the caucus.” But neither does anyone else.

So Simon Bridges is still the leader of the National Party simply because no one else can cobble the numbers together. That is how divided the National Party caucus is. They’ve got a leader that hasn’t got the majority backing of their own MPs, but no one else can get a majority to replace them either. That’s how hopeless they are. And, of course, Simon Bridges punishes anybody who he thinks is a threat to his leadership, and we saw another example of that yesterday. I have to say to him, though, Todd Muller is not the only follicly challenged person who might have designs on Simon Bridges’ job. There’s somebody else who fits a similar profile who I’d be more worried about if I was Simon Bridges. In the quote when they say there’s no John Key waiting in the wings, I think “wings” might be the operative word in there, because there’s certainly somebody waiting in the wings who fancies themselves as a future John Key.

BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Well, there’s nothing like a Labour Minister standing there spending his five minutes of general debate talking all about the National Party. That means that the Labour Government has got absolutely zero to talk about. If you hadn’t put so many working groups in place and had set your mind to the task, you might have had more to say about your own Labour Government, Mr Hipkins.

Our polling is good, but nothing—nothing—is going right with this Government, and all we hear about is the overseas effects on the economy. We are a small country at the bottom of the world, as Grant Robertson has been reminding us about our previous leader’s quote. We are a small country at the bottom of the world, and yes, we are affected by overseas, but, actually, those are the bits that we can’t control; we only need to mitigate against them. There are so many things that are coming internally for our economy from this Government that have got nothing to do with the rest of the world, and, unfortunately, this Government’s not owning up to their own problems.

So I’ll start off with the oil and gas. We all know that that’s going to have a huge effect on our economy—and, by the way, it’s going to have a negative effect on climate change, because I’ve been to the ports of Auckland and I see more coal coming into this country. It’s not a myth; it’s actually a fact and it’s reality, and it’s going to get worse under this Government. I had an interesting experience last week when I happened to open my Facebook page. When this party was in Government, Simon Bridges as Minister of Transport did a rural road safety programme worth $600 million, and I had been with him on various roads that were opened as they were made safe, on rural roads. Well, last week it took the Prime Minister, two Ministers, and one backbench MP to go and put on hard hats and safety jackets and a cone on the road to stand and make a road safety announcement in my electorate on a road that I had been driving on for nearly two years which Simon Bridges had already done. So if this Government’s going to be authentic, please make your own announcements on your own roads that need fixing. By the way, while we’re talking about roads in the general debate, I’ve heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport both talk about doing Mt Messenger. Please make sure that happens, because we are waiting.

So another thing with this Government—and, of course, we have a three-part Government here. If we’re talking about rural communities, rural communities, in large part, drive our economy, and the one billion trees programme is hassling our communities at the moment like you wouldn’t believe. This is a massive number, a big pork-barrel politics episode, that’s got no strategy with it at all. Now, the National Party is on board with planting trees, and we’re on board with mitigating climate change, but, actually, it’s got to be the right tree for the right place. No one’s thought about the rural roads when it comes to logging these, and has anybody thought about what the timber prices might be when we actually go to do something with them? It’s just a pork-barrel, scattergun piece of politics with absolutely no strategy. We already know that rural schools are closing, and it’s going to have a very detrimental effect on our rural communities.

The other thing that’s a bit interesting at the moment is the vehicle taxes on electric vehicles. If any of the members of the Government ever visit rural New Zealand, they will find that there are many utes out there, and utes are a massive requirement for running our rural businesses. You cannot cart large, round bales around on little Suzuki Swifts. It’s very difficult—in fact, it’s close to impossible, and how many electric utes do we see out there at the moment? This Government is having an effect on our economy, not the global economy. We do have to trade. We do have an effect from the globe, but, actually, if we’re going to get methane taxes being pushed at us, if we’re going to get ute taxes being pushed at us, if we’re going to have trees destroying our rural communities and have the schools destroyed that our children are going to, then, actually, it’s going to be the actions of this Government, and New Zealand cannot afford this Government. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Associate Minister for Pacific Peoples): Can I just start by acknowledging the wonderful Pacific event I attended last night at the Civic Theatre in Auckland, where 1,800 New Zealanders showed up to watch the premiere screening of a film made by a Tongan film-maker with her Samoan partner called For My Father’s Kingdom. Can I just say that we on this side of the House are very grateful to those everyday New Zealanders for the contribution that they make to New Zealand, not just here domestically but on the international stage. We on this side of the House value the contribution, the skills, and the talents that Pacific people bring to this country.

So with that, I do have to say that I was incredibly disappointed this week to see the Leader of the Opposition speaking so dismissively of a Pacific country that is actually part of the Realm of New Zealand. Instead of criticising that country and being divisive, as they continue to do, he should be actually creating some public awareness about the fact that these countries are, and have been for a very long time, part of New Zealand, and we have responsibilities to them. I really feel, actually, for the members of Parliament in the Opposition party that are Pacific, because if I was sitting in that caucus and I had a leader that talked about Pacific nations in that way, then not only would I be cringing but I would be having a quiet word to them. National can’t go out and try and court the Pacific community for the Pacific community’s votes and then go and disrespect the countries that the same Pacific people come from. In fact, if we want to talk about Tokelau, there’s about 1,500 Tokelauans in Tokelau. There are about 7,000 Tokelauans in New Zealand, and all of them are strongly connected to that place that they come from. So can I say again how disappointing it was this week to see the Leader of the Opposition so obviously blatantly disrespecting the Pacific.

I do want to remind this House that not only is Tokelau part of the New Zealand Realm of nations but, actually, it’s incredibly important to recognise that we aren’t just an ocean of small islands. In fact, there was an academic called Epeli Hau’ofa, who said that we will not be defined by the smallness of our islands but by the greatness of our oceans. We should all be on board with that sentiment, particularly when you look at an island like Tokelau, which is 10.8 square kilometres in terms of land but is 318,990 square kilometres in ocean. So we on this side of the House value our Pacific nations and really want to get that point across in the House today.

Tokelau, like many of our Pacific nations, is at the forefront and fighting many of the international challenges that we speak about in this House, including climate change. Why would it not be appropriate that our Prime Minister—our Prime Minister, for the first time in 14 years—would go and visit this country, one of our Realm countries, to discuss issues of international importance, like climate change, particularly given our commitment to that country? We on this side of the House are not about being divisive; we are about making sure that as a Pacific region, we are united on the big issues that matter internationally. We’ve made a commitment as a Government to ensuring that one of our priorities is valuing who we are, and that’s recognising that, actually, here in New Zealand, we are part of the Pacific region. We are part of the Pacific region, and so we will not buy into the divisive rhetoric that we see coming out of the Opposition.

I really want to refer to and acknowledge our Deputy Prime Minister, in his role as Minister of Foreign Affairs, for the Pacific reset that he has undertaken and the value that he places on the Pacific region. In fact, he’s got a great line that I’ve heard him use on many occasions, and that is that we’re not just partners with regards to our Pacific Island nation States; actually, being Pacific is part of our DNA. It is part of our DNA—it’s certainly part of mine. On that, can I just say we have a special relationship with the Pacific region, which we value on this side of the House. It is part of our DNA. We are not only partners, or not just partners; they are our cousins, and this side of the House will not be disrespecting them like that side does.

Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to talk today to the recently released Government medicinal cannabis proposals, and I want to add to the excellent line of questioning from the Hon Paula Bennett, our spokesperson, and bring some further scrutiny to these proposals. Now, the bill’s not completely bad. There are some good parts to it—namely, the parts that they’ve copy-pasted from our bill, actually. I want to just acknowledge that there is some good thinking in it, but I really want to highlight some of the issues that are really a problem for us and a problem for New Zealanders.

We’ve got two main issues with the Government’s medicinal cannabis bill. The first is around fit and proper persons and a lack of reputational requirements, and the best way to highlight this is with a series of five questions. The first would be: can murderers apply for and hold a medicinal cannabis licence under the Government’s proposals? The second is: can serious offenders under the Crimes Act apply for and hold a medicinal cannabis licence under these proposals? Question three: can active gang members apply for and hold a medicinal cannabis licence under the Government’s proposals? Question four: can a person apply for and hold a medicinal cannabis licence while they are currently addicted to cannabis and in full-time residential rehabilitation? And the final point would be: can business associates of El Chapo hold a medicinal cannabis licence under these proposals? The answers to all of those five points are yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

The only two criteria the Government has in their medicinal cannabis proposals are convictions under the Misuse of Drugs Act and convictions of dishonesty. That, in our view, is too light. It needs to be substantially tightened up. In our bill, we covered “fit and proper persons” with a much more sophisticated approach. We think there are issues of your past history that matter and issues of your current history that are probably important as well. As a licence holder, you’re in a very powerful position. In the past history, we agree that offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act and dishonesty—yes, they should exclude you from a licence. We also add serious offences—these are serious offences under the Crimes Act—and we also add associations that may influence the conduct of the licence holder.

Australia has much more stringent regulations than we were proposing. In fact, when we discussed with industry and discussed with others, we moderated these to help them fit in. Not only do we think the past history matters for a licence holder; we think the present history matters. We just think that if you’re currently addicted to a controlled drug, you’re unlikely to be a fit and proper person to hold a medicinal cannabis licence. That doesn’t seem unreasonable—that doesn’t seem unreasonable. So the answers to all those previous questions are yes.

The second issue we have is the location for the growing of medicinal cannabis—absolutely nothing mentioned in the proposals. Again, we highlight it with three questions. Can medicinal cannabis be grown beside schools under these proposals? Yes. Can medicinal cannabis be grown beside wāhi tapu? Yes. Can medicinal cannabis be grown beside rehabilitation clinics? Yes. There is precedent: even the hemp Act says you cannot grow hemp within 5 kilometres of a residential zone.

So we offer what our proposals to this are, which, again, we’ve discussed with industry and found there’s a moderated approach: first of all, no growing of medicinal cannabis within 1 kilometre of a residential area—that’s for indoor growing—secondly, no growing of medicinal cannabis in outdoor environments within 5 kilometres of a residential area—again, like the hemp regulations—and, thirdly, no growing of medicinal cannabis 1 kilometre from unsuitable areas such as schools and wāhi tapu. We think these are reasonable, and we’d like the Government to consider taking them into account.

One of the issues we have here—and, indeed, David Clark raised it in a response to the Hon Paula Bennett, when he raised the question in the House: “Would the Prime Minister be surprised to learn that the proposals for consultation rule out people with criminal convictions being the licence holder for growing operations…?” That is not true. I’ve just told you that people can have serious offences, have criminal convictions, and they are allowed to hold a licence under the current proposals.

The overwhelming response has been: “Don’t worry, you can comment on that in the consultation document.” No, you can’t. There is nowhere in here that talks to fit and proper persons, or invites you to talk to fit and proper persons. There are questions: in C3, there are questions around industry; and in C4, there are questions around location—but none of them talk to these particular issues. Can I just be very clear: in our hands, active gang members will not hold a licence to grow medicinal cannabis; they are not fit and proper persons to grow medicinal cannabis. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): It’s always a pleasure and a privilege to stand to make a contribution in this House. I just want to acknowledge the last speaker, and it would be remiss of me not to respond to Dr Shane Reti that the previous National Government had nine years to sort this out—nine years to sort this out. It’s only been almost two years, and now they’re throwing at us: “shoulda coulda, coulda shoulda, coulda shoulda.”

Anyway, on this side of the House, it’s all about action. It’s all about a demonstration of what leadership is like. On that note, I am always honoured to be under the leadership of the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, because many in the world have described her as, actually, what real leadership is like.

In terms of ordinary New Zealanders, I want to go back to 20 July. It was my daughter’s birthday and I had said to her, “Malu, did you know that it’s 50 years since man landed on the moon on 20 July?” She turned around to me and she said, “No, Mum, it’s Sir Edmund Hillary’s and Malu Suisuiki’s birthday on 20 July.”

And may he rest in peace—Sir Edmund Hillary. A quote that I like him saying is that “ordinary people are doing extraordinary things.” We’re reminded, in terms of our national anthem, the song that unites us when we stand—I don’t think that the other side of the House understands or remembers what the second verse is. I’d like to—not to sing, because my voice sometimes is not that great—remind us all of the second verse of the New Zealand national anthem. In Te Reo:

Ōna mano tangata

Let all people

Kiri whero, kiri mā,

Red skin, white skin,

Iwi Māori, Pākehā,

Māori, Pākehā,

Rūpeke katoa,

Gather before you,

Māu e whakaahu kē,

How all our wrongs we pray,

Kia ora mārire

Be forgiven

Aotearoa

So we might say “long live Aotearoa.” In that second verse, it is talking about everyday New Zealanders, and everyday New Zealanders whether you live in Papakura, whether you live in Tāmaki, or whether you live in Tokoroa.

I go back to my first sentence, when I spoke about the “shoulda could, why didn’t, why did she, why did he”—those questions are relevant on this side because actions are coming out from this side.

When we are together as a nation—the best place that we see that demonstrated, as a nation, is through sports, whether it’s through the champion Silver Ferns, we stand together and be proud New Zealanders. We talked about the courageous Black Caps and their conduct on the world stage, we all stand that we are proud New Zealanders.

The leadership of the youth parliamentarians earlier this month, we all stand as proud New Zealanders. I think I’d like to echo the words of the Hon Meka Whaitiri, when she said to us in a conversation, “Did you hear those young people speak in the House, did you hear them speak?” New Zealand has no concerns with leaders. The young people came in here and they demonstrated that they are our future. I want to acknowledge your Youth MP, Mr Speaker; his name is Rayan Lootah. He actually did a fine performance of sitting there very stern and confident in serving as the Speaker of the House with the Youth Parliament. I want to pay a special acknowledgment of my Youth MP, Jennifer Thonrithi—I’ll just put a plug in for Jennifer—as the Youth MP based in Papakura, in Tāmaki. She’s interviewing tonight at 104.6 FM Planet FM the Youth MP for Kelston, Dazhonavah Fa’aumu; they’re having a personal conversation about their experiences in this House.

The momentum and the leadership that we need to support our young people, it is about how the world describes our Prime Minister as a Prime Minister for our times who is leading and showing what leadership is like—leading and showing what leadership is like.

I’d like to end with saying that the Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern listens with her heart and acts with intelligence, which is some advice that I might give the other side of the House: a bit of intelligence and a bit of wit in your speeches and your behaviour would be firmly appreciated by all everyday New Zealanders.

IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I shifted across the House, this afternoon, and came and sat up here, I was reminded I was on skid row—I shan’t be back here again for a while! Some of my neighbours weren’t very complimentary about the position I was sitting in.

I wanted to begin today, though, by acknowledging one of them, who was sitting on this very same row, and that’s the Hon Nathan Guy, who has been my neighbour; I suppose, my friend; my mentor, even; and my adviser, and a Minister, for quite some time as my neighbour in the Horowhenua. He also was on the Horowhenua District Council at the time I first got into council and became a mayor when he left the Horowhenua District Council; it’s gone backwards ever since. The Manawatū District Council has gone forward ever since.

I also wanted to just congratulate Todd Muller on his appointment to what I consider to be the most important portfolio in the New Zealand Parliament at a critical time in our history. I’m about to outline some of the issues that I think are hugely important.

As a rural MP, you get to know the feeling of your electorate pretty quickly. I have the fortunate position of having an office right across the road from the Feilding Sale Yards, where in excess of a thousand farmers every week walk through those saleyards gates, and you get to talk to them—easily that—quite often, and they never hesitate to give you their opinion. I don’t think in my time I’ve ever noticed—in my 50 years in agriculture, probably—the uncertainty that we’re seeing on a daily basis right now in rural New Zealand. Those farmers that come through Feilding come from all over the lower North Island, and the upper South Island.

There can be no doubt that this nervousness is not caused by a downturn in prices, because I’ve never seen prices for, particularly, lamb—beef is in great order, and even the milk price is holding up—I’ve never seen the agricultural sector—in fact, you can go right across the board—in great order.

Greg O’Connor: Must be what they’re getting in the mail from the National Party.

IAN McKELVIE: So it is in good order, and the old left-arm googly bowler from over there’s not going too good. No, this nervousness, uncertainty, and lack of—[Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, sorry. I was signalling the member—I accidentally pushed the Opposition whip’s phone, but I meant the Government whip’s.

IAN McKELVIE: Ha, ha! I thought you’d signalled no-ball, Mr Speaker. The uncertainty, and lack of confidence to invest is caused by a Government, who, in my view, are moving at a pace into the unknown. Potential changes to the banking system, driven by an idealistic Reserve Bank, putting pressure on bank portfolios, the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, which has, in its current form, the potential to strip some $50 billion out of the sector in the next 30 years—yes, $50 billion—with its current methane targets included at present.

An ill-conceived tree planting regime, brought about by poor settings in the carbon trading scheme, and the plantation forestry policy statement, driving forestry, and carbon farming investors, to plant land that should not be in trees. This could be fixed, in part, by appropriate incentivising of native planting in red zone land. I think we could do a lot with our native planting that would improve the situation here dramatically. The great concern here is, if the carbon price is freed up and allowed to find its real value—or, it’s potential real value—under the current policy settings, we may see massive increases in planting on land that I think, in 50 years’ time, we’ll seriously regret were ever planted in trees. A better use of land-use planning would also help a great deal in this area, and I think there’s room for us to revisit the way we plan our land use in New Zealand, and, probably, the way we plan the use of our oceans as well.

That’s not all. The changes the overseas investment regime have ensured that much-needed foreign investment has deserted agriculture other than the dreaded trees, except, of course, they still have carte blanche opportunity to buy up our processors—in my view, the quickest way to turn our farmers into peasants we’ve ever thought up. Then we have the proposal to charge a climate change levy or tax at the processors’ gate and this, of course, in my view, sends completely the wrong signal to farmers, as only those fronting up with product at the gate get to pay the levy. The rest get off scot-free. I expect that farmers will find a way of overcoming this challenge. The way they’ll do that is to produce more than ever; exactly the wrong answer, and one we don’t accept.

All this, and the Government hasn’t released its freshwater plan yet. There’s no doubt the farming sector feel they’re under siege, and they are. We, in rural New Zealand, accept we have a vital role to play in change. However, if the pace of change is not steadied, the demands are not eased, and the real discussion engaged in, we’ll see our productive sector take this country quickly into recession. That will be disaster for all, not just our farmers. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK (Green): E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. It’s raining outside, but you wouldn’t know that in here. You’d actually never know the state of the world, or the state of the rest of Aotearoa New Zealand in here, in this Chamber. There’s a guy standing in the rain with a few friends who have joined him. He’s been there for 77 days now. His name is Ollie, and he’s been there for, now, three months outside of Parliament, calling for us to declare a climate emergency. Ollie is the CEO of a company that he can run remotely from Parliament’s lawn. He’s 55 years old, and he’s got five children. Ollie is just a regular New Zealander, who’s asking for this House to do the bare minimum, and acknowledge the reality of urgent and immediate action required to set up sustainable, ongoing work to tackle global warming.

He’s invited nearly every parliamentarian to go out and speak to him about the importance of climate change and this climate emergency, but next to none of the representatives in here have. Because next to none of you have gone out there to see him—maybe because it’s been raining, and windy, and these seats are more comfortable—I’ve brought his plea in here. This whiteboard is one that he brought on day 30 to keep track of the number of days that had passed whilst we’ve been ignoring him. His simple request is that we declare a climate emergency now. We have a responsibility to tell the truth as representatives of this country, the least that can be expected of a House of Representatives with access to science, research, and evidence.

Overwhelming international scientific consensus gives us a handful of years to act. The climate is changing, whether we like it or not. It’s time for us to act, and to change as well, because, if we do not act to reduce greenhouse emissions, we will trigger irreversible feedback loops. If we do not act, our polar icecaps will melt to the point that they can no longer mirror the sun’s rays back out of the planet’s atmosphere, meaning more heat is retained, and those icecaps melt more, and more sun’s rays are continued to be contained within our atmosphere. If we do not act, this planet will continue to exist, but we won’t.

This is the science, and, if politicians in this House don’t trust me, they can listen to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If they don’t trust international scientific consensus, they can listen to the more than 50 New Zealand scientists who sent all of us an open letter, calling on this Parliament to declare a climate emergency. If they don’t trust the literal science, then they can look inside their own caucuses, because every political party in this Parliament has said that they accept the fact of climate change. The fact is, the truth is, that it requires urgent action. If you don’t trust or retain the positions that you have spoken about publicly in this Chamber, then look to our nation’s children, because thousands of them have marched in the streets to demand that we put a stake in the ground to be held accountable to act on the climate emergency. A few weeks ago, our very own youth MPs, in this Chamber, declared a climate emergency, and, after that, the vast majority of them sent us an open letter asking for us to follow their lead.

The effect of a declaration of a climate emergency is a bald-faced statement of intent. If we can’t even say the words, if we can’t look Aotearoa New Zealand’s scientists in the eye, if we can’t look our children in the eye—heck, if we can’t go out and stand on Parliament’s lawn for a few moments to chat to a guy who has spent three months asking for us to do this—and we say, looking them in the eye, that we have heard all of them, then what on earth is the point of this place? This is not leadership. This is an impediment to progress. It takes more energy to block a climate emergency than it does to declare one. Human beings created this situation, and the measure of our leadership and our integrity will be whether we can put aside silly politics and act.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): The most important job that a local member of Parliament has is to be an advocate for their community. It’s a role that I take extremely seriously, and one of the responsibilities of that is to meet regularly with New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) officials locally. Now, I did that twice last year, and it wasn’t just about four lanes between Ashburton and Christchurch. There’s a whole range of very serious safety issues on mid-Canterbury and South Canterbury roads.

One of those, as an example, is the very dangerous intersection now at Rangitata, of the corner of State highways 1 and 79, where there’s been as many crashes in the last six months as there were for the previous four years combined. Another important project is lights at Tinwald, where there’s now a lot of additional traffic coming through from Lake Hood. There are also other important projects like replacing the roundabouts at Walnut Ave and, of course, a second bridge crossing over the Ashburton River.

So I met with them twice last year, and earlier this year I invited my local NZTA officials to again meet with me in my office. I was told there’d been a change of process and that I needed to go off and ask the Minister’s office, which I duly did. The response came back: no, I wasn’t able to meet with NZTA officials. I asked the reason. He claims they’re too busy to meet with me twice a year. So I thought that’s very interesting. I’ll ask some questions about this. So I did, and I found out that he’s done it on eight previous occasions—eight previous occasions. But, when you look at the list of the eight MPs who have sought meetings, one thing becomes very, very apparent. What do you think it is that those eight MPs all have in common? They’re all National MPs—all MPs from the Opposition. So it turns out that local NZTA officials aren’t too busy to meet; they’re just too busy to meet with Opposition MPs.

So I ask MPs opposite—Labour MPs, who have been, most of them, I think, in Opposition—what possible reason do you think there is for a Minister to prevent Opposition MPs from meeting with their local NZTA officials? Why is it that you’ve got a Minister trying to stop Opposition MPs from doing their job locally? Well, there’s one very simple answer, and that is the Minister is embarrassed.

He’s embarrassed that they’ve taken $5 billion out of the State highway network to instead invest in Auckland rail and cycle projects. He’s embarrassed that they’ve cancelled important upgrade projects the length of this country, including four lanes between Ashburton and Christchurch and including the very important Woodend bypass, just north of Christchurch, which is so important for keeping their community safe. They’ve cancelled the Northland motorway, which is so important for unlocking the economic growth and potential of that region. He’s embarrassed because he’s made New Zealand roads less safe.

This is from a Government who said that their number one priority in transport is to make our roads safer. The road between Ashburton and Christchurch—the highway between Ashburton and Christchurch—is now the second most dangerous stretch of highway in the country for fatal crashes and serious accidents. The response from this Government has been to do nothing—to do absolutely nothing—to say it is fine as it is, keep the road at two lanes, and, actually, potentially make it more dangerous to cyclists by putting a median barrier down it.

This is a Government that has turned its back on mid-Canterbury, turned its back on South Canterbury, turned its back on Southland, and turned its back on Otago.

When we are re-elected to Government, we will not forget important communities in the South Island. We won’t forget the need to make our roads safer. This is a Government that is embarrassed that they’ve pulled funding—important funding—out of the State highway network and out of keeping our roads safe. This is a Government that has failed New Zealanders.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): I’ve been extremely excited about being able to offer some of my thoughts this afternoon in this general debate. I’ve been excited about this opportunity because it doesn’t come around very often and, when you do, you get to sit on the side of the House and actually spend some time reflecting on how well this Government is going. What I want to say is that when I’m out there in my electorate in the mighty East Coast, what the people are saying to me is “Thank goodness that this Government is finally listening to the people, listening to the regions, and listening to those areas that were for so long forgotten and left behind by the last lot.” Now they’ve gone and they’ve rallied up their rural MPs for this general debate, and they’ve made them all trot out with their lines to say just how more woeful things are in the regions. Why are they doing that? They’re doing that because we are getting it right and they are scared. They are running scared of what this Government are doing.

I want to say basic things, like, for example, the people that voted this side of the House in, they were pleading to be heard under the last lot on basic things like the area of mental health. Now, this Budget delivered immeasurably. This Government delivered immeasurably. This Government listened and heard the pleas of the many out there in regions like mine, like Gisborne, that had been neglected. And what did it do? It invested $20 million, for example, in a small town like mine.

Now, the previous member, Andrew Falloon, he just wanted to talk about the roading down South. Well, I’ll tell you something: ever since 2010, in regions like mine, that were loyal and loyally gave them the blue vote every single election. They took and they took and they took that roading and infrastructure budget away from little regions like mine and they redirected it to the urban centres. They redirected it to Wellington, they redirected it to Christchurch, and they redirected it to Auckland. But now this Government is delivering, with over $300 million that’s just been injected into our roads. So we are pleased.

But that’s not what I wanted to talk about, because everyone knows how wonderful we’re going. What I wanted to do was share with the people that’ll be diligently watching at home that it’s an interesting thing sitting in this Chamber because we get the privilege of seeing up close and personal what’s happening on the other side.

Now, we’ve been talking for a little bit about the four Ds. They have been desperate, divided, destructive, and divisive. But this week—oh, and the last couple of weeks—we’ve seen an extra couple of Ds added to the list. They’re deserting—they’re deserting in droves. Well, actually, the smart ones are deserting. The Hon Amy Adams, she knows, well, they don’t have a show of getting in next election, because that’s what all their polling’s saying. That six percent—their leader’s got nowhere to go. But the smart ones, they are jumping; they’re deserting ship. The Hon Nathan Guy: just the other day, he announces he’s deserting too.

But the thing is—the thing is—what happens when the writing is on the wall? I guess, the leadership, they start to get a little bit desperate. They start to get a little bit desperate and they start to get a little bit worried, and I guess all the polling is showing that they should be worried. So what do they do? Well, without talking to them, the leader strips their best performers—he strips their best performers of their portfolios. Poor old Hon Judith Collins, she had no idea she was losing transport and infrastructure, and out of the blue just swished away. Why was that? Because she’s polling at 6 percent. She’s neck and neck, and I think she got one up at the last poll. What about the next contender that’s doing pretty well? Whilst he looks like Chris Luxon, it isn’t—no, no, no. The man that the party want, the man that the party have been calling for, he’s sitting all the way up the backbench there, the Hon Todd Muller, who has diligently, for the last year, spent a lot of his time and energy devoted to climate change. Now, there is a man that could have taken both the primary production portfolio, which he has exceptional credentials to do, and the climate change portfolio and actually delivered a comprehensive plan, but they screwed him because they were scared of his potential.

SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!

KIRITAPU ALLAN: There perhaps was a threat that he was going to do exceptionally well.

But, finally, I just want to say the Opposition leader has made some disparaging comments towards women, some disparaging and dog-whistling stuff. Now, I look at the member up the back there, Maureen Pugh. Now, I know that she has been the victim of some disparaging comments. I look at what he said about the Prime Minister this week, and I just think dog-whistling—it’s desperate. They’re done.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’ll try and keep this quiet. This is a Government that has clearly lost its way, but I have to give the Labour-led Government some of its dues because it has been successful in some areas: it has successfully grown a very long list of promises that it’s failed to deliver on. Now, we continue to hear about these promises, we continue to hear about aspiration, and we continue to hear about delivery. In fact, this year has been dubbed the year of delivery, but that delivery must still be with New Zealand Post, because it hasn’t turned up here yet. I think Postman Pat and his black and white cat might actually do better at delivering than that lot over there. Now, delivery hasn’t turned up for hard-working Kiwis—not those Kiwis that go to work five or six days a week, those Kiwis that raise their children, that buy their homes, that volunteer in their communities in all sorts of ways. Delivery hasn’t turned up for people that want to put petrol in their car. What was the first thing that happened after this year’s Budget?

Dan Bidois: Fuel tax is up.

MAUREEN PUGH: A new tax—correct.

Let’s turn to some of the big-ticket items that I want to cover in my contribution today. One of them is education, the one that they thought they had sewn up—113 separate promises made in the education space. Now, I’m not going to say that they haven’t achieved any of them, because they did. They achieved 25—25 out of 113 delivered in nearly two years. Now, in any school report card, 25 out of 113 would get an F—an F on that report card in this year of delivery.

Health—that gets another F. Failing to deliver to the kids in Northland with meningococcal vaccines, failing kids again by not funding cochlear implants, and failing mothers who are birthing on the side of the road in Lumsden. On the West Coast, we are already 104 surgeries behind where we were last year. And what about the cheaper doctors visits? It’s not in their DNA, because it did not appear.

We have another issue that gets a big F and that’s an abysmal flop, and that’s in housing. Like Simon Bridges said in his speech earlier this afternoon, 87 KiwiBuild houses delivered with their code compliance certificates in 21 months compared to the 16,000 that this country was promised in the first term. Now we await the reset, but Postman Pat must have that too, because it’s been six months since that was announced and we’re still waiting.

I want to turn my attention to somewhere a lot closer to home, and that is the great West Coast - Tasman electorate. Now, we’ve had a coalition partner down there waving his chequebook around, and that’s been absolutely fantastic, delivering on some of the projects that were in the 2017 Economic Development Action Plan that National produced for the region. But here’s the trade-off—here’s the trade-off: no new mining on stewardship land. Now, for those of you who don’t understand, stewardship land is not conservation land in terms of national park; it’s mostly scrub land, and what this Government over here has done as part of its ideological policies is it has said no new mining. But the problem is we still need the products that we mine on that land, and so what are we forced to do? Import them. We saw that with Huntly—importing cheap, dirty, Indonesian coal when we actually have perfectly good thermal coal here in New Zealand. But what that policy has done is it has stripped half a billion dollars’ worth of productivity to this nation, and it has stripped $350 million in terms of the lost spend just on the West Coast. It’s gone.

What’s the next thing to be gone? Well, I’m putting Coasters and I’m putting residents in Golden Bay on notice that I believe that the next thing we’ll be fighting to keep part of our tradition is the right to gather our traditional kai during the whitebait season. I am desperately concerned that we are going to be battling the whitebait on the West Coast, to keep it as our traditional kai.

This Government gets an F, and it’s an F for their delivery; it’s an F for their performance. They are a “fail”.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, we had quite a prominent protest here on Parliament grounds, and I’d like to mention something that I don’t think that anybody else has in regards to this situation, this argument. We have to stop blaming Oranga Tamariki (OT). We have to stop blaming those social workers. Something that I found incredulous, and one of the reasons why I’m speaking about it today—everyone has the right to protest, but no one has the right to threaten and to intimidate. Over the last four months or so, social workers’ children have been bullied at school due to social media and mainstream media outlets’ continual bias and one-sided headlines and stories. They’re one-sided headlines and stories because the social workers themselves cannot defend themselves—the social workers themselves cannot defend themselves. Where is the voice for the social workers, and when have they had a chance to defend themselves?

It’s got to a point where extra security has had to be brought in for the OT staff. OT management and the Public Service Association have advised social workers and OT staff that if they are feeling that threatened, they can consider working from home. The Wellington OT office was in lockdown during the protest, and it is absolute testament to those social workers’ dedication to those children and to those families who it is their duty to protect that they put their personal safety second and their personal wellbeing second to ensure that they can still do their job. They still go to work and they protect those families, and that responsibility comes first for them. There has been, also, severe and unpleasant content posted online, including threats to social workers and their families. As I said, security has been increased. We have lost sight of who those social workers are and why they must do and continue to do what they have to do.

The fact is that OT has a duty to keep those children safe. We need to understand that uplifting of children is the very last resort, the very last choice that OT has. It’s not the social worker’s choice. They have gone through many steps before they get to that point, the endpoint being a court order. We need to make it clear that Oranga Tamariki will not stop uplifting children if there is a continued danger for those children, whether that danger be that they are being abused or the potential for being killed. There is no apology for that—there is no apology for that. The fact is that every two days in this country, whether people want to believe it or not, a child is admitted to hospital with non-accidental injuries. That’s the sharp, pointy end that our social workers have to deal with, and it is disgraceful and unfortunate that they have been lost in this argument, that their wellbeing has been lost in this argument.

New Zealand First and, I’m sure, every other party in this House back Oranga Tamariki and the hard-working, selfless, right-minded social workers who do a great job in this country in very, very difficult circumstances.

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Bills

KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill

In Committee

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Clauses 1 to 6

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): Despite the rather complex title to this bill, it’s a rather simple fix which will affect 6,000 foster kids living in New Zealand. What the bill tries to do, what the intent of the bill is, is to, basically, allow all foster parents and all foster kids the same rights as any other child in New Zealand to be able to put them on the right track, and ensure they have a strong financial future and security, by putting money away to the place where only they can put it that can’t be touched other than by the accountholder him or herself, and that’s KiwiSaver.

The problem is that at the moment only legal guardians, which is about 700 out of 6,000, can do this under law, and it’s virtually impossible. Take the case of Megan Barclay. Megan, you’re watching. Thank you for your assistance with this. You’ve done a huge service to all foster parents and foster children in New Zealand, so I acknowledge you. Basically, at the moment, Megan’s spent several years trying to open a KiwiSaver account for her foster children.

Throughout this process we’ve heard from submitters. One grandfather told me he tried to open an account for his granddaughter. There were several kids in the family. One of those granddaughters was a foster child, and he just couldn’t do it, hence why we’re talking about this here today. I also want to acknowledge Sam from Simplicity. Sam, you’ve done a great job helping me push this bill and why it’s needed. And if we can change this law, it ensures that all foster kids in New Zealand are on the same playing field as other children.

We also heard from a submitter: a foster child, a young teenage boy. He spent 12 months pounding the pavements, trying to find a part-time job to earn some money so that 10 or 15 years later he could save his money up to buy his first home. After 12 months of pounding the pavement he eventually found someone that let him mow his lawns at the weekend for some pocket money. This young child saved up $2,500, which is a remarkable effort. He wanted to put this money away. The only place he could put it would be KiwiSaver. But despite saving up $2,500, the money was stolen by his foster parent. Had he had the option of a KiwiSaver account, this money would be safe. I heard from another young gentleman. He saved up $700 over 10 years, only for that to be lost because he moved homes so often. He was moving homes every four or five months and eventually he lost the money. So if these kids had the opportunity to open up a KiwiSaver account, it would ensure that these kids—the most vulnerable children in New Zealand—are put on the right track.

I want to acknowledge all parties who agree on this so far. We want to give foster children the same rights as other children, but what we don’t agree on is around what sort of level. The original intent of the bill was to allow all foster parents that ability, but unfortunately throughout the process there’s been two main objections from the officials—Oranga Tamariki officials, the IRD, and, unfortunately, Government MPs. I just want to talk about those two main objections, because at the moment it’s quite a high threshold to become a legal guardian. So once you’re a legal guardian, currently you can open a KiwiSaver account, which is almost impossible because you have to go through the CEO of Oranga Tamariki. That person—she’s got tens of thousands of tasks. She’s extremely busy. To get to her you’ve got to go through your social worker, and the social worker, of course, has hundreds of tasks.

So I just want to talk about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 258, which talks about allowing all foster parents, not just legal guardians. The first main objection was that signing up a foster child to a KiwiSaver is an important decision and shouldn’t be taken lightly, and therefore should not be open to any foster parent unless they have long-term care of their child. I just want to address that point.

The bill came about because there is a barrier for all foster parents to open a KiwiSaver account, and that barrier is the law. As I mentioned, in the law at the moment the foster parent has to go through the social worker, if they’re a legal guardian, to get to the legal guardian, which is the CEO of Oranga Tamariki, who is an extremely busy person. My SOP creates a legal obligation where Oranga Tamariki have to provide a birth certificate and an IRD certificate to the foster parents so they can make this work. Unfortunately, the problem takes many years to occur. Supporting this SOP will give KiwiSaver rights to all foster parents and ensures that all kids are put on a level playing field.

The second point I’d like to address is that an objection came along from the Government MPs and officials that any decision to sign up a foster child to a KiwiSaver account may in some way disempower the rights of the birth parent. I’m yet to hear from any member of this House, or any official, one negative aspect—one negative aspect—of signing up a kid to a KiwiSaver account. Let’s be very clear. Any birth parent whose legal guardian status has been transferred to Oranga Tamariki has lost more than the right to decide the financial future of that child. Their child has been deemed so vulnerable that they have lost in most cases the everyday right to feed that child, to house that child, to care for the financial needs of that child, to show love for this child. Often these children have never had love in their lives. Often they’re born without knowing their parents. Often they don’t even know their own name. In the scheme of things, a decision to sign a child up to KiwiSaver pales in comparison, compared with the other daily realities of caring for a child.

For foster children who are in State care, they have no financial security. And anyone in here who talks about ensuring the birth parent has the right, I ask you to go out and talk to a foster child who has had their money stolen by their foster parent. See how they feel about this. Let’s give these foster children a pathway to financial success. Let’s put them on the right track.

KiwiSaver is a success, and I just want to quote from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on The AM Show yesterday, who’s in support of this bill. He said, “The law currently is an ass.”, and for once I agree with the Rt Hon Winston Peters. He gave his word yesterday on The AM Show that New Zealand First are going to support this bill and the SOP, and I thank him for that.

I’d just like to finish with a poem. Please bear with me. It’ll take just over a minute. This is from a foster child who wrote to me. Often these children are voiceless, so I’m giving this child a voice here in Parliament in the highest court of New Zealand.

So you’ve asked what it takes - to get an ID.

To prove I exist - that I am the “Real Me”

I can’t get a job - because IRD

Need to give me a number - to prove I’m the “Real Me”!

So I’m told by social workers - “well you don’t have a birth certificate”

Which in your adult world - kind of makes me “illegitimate”

There is a copy on file - but they say it’s not “the real McCoy”

So the lawyers say we have to go - and pay for one more!

So the powers that be - fill in an application

To get a new birth certificate - so I’m part of this nation!

In the meantime they tell me - “not to worry, it will be cool”

But after 5 months - they must think I’m a fool!

I’m not a fool, just powerless - relying on adults

I still can’t have a bank account - never mind a bank balance!

I can’t get youth rates - to get the bus and train to course

I have to pay as an adult - as there’s no other recourse!

So 5 months later - I am still waiting

No updates or news - it’s so very frustrating

You expect me to be patient - do you not think I have been

Try living my world - not sure you’d be too keen!

So this is my plea - for all of us teenagers in care

Can you sort this shit earlier - I wonder if you dare?

The lack of these basics - is contributing to my stress

Is it any wonder - I am a teenage mess?

I hold on to hope - that somebody will listen

But frankly - it all seems too much of a mission!

Just get me an ID - so I can join the adult world

And don’t blame me - for what is quite absurd!

You just don’t make it easy - everything’s so tough

The process is humiliating - it’s really shit and rough

But I don’t exist - as I cannot prove who I am

Maybe this has come from no one - do you know who I am?

I’ll leave it with that. I look forward to the debate, and I encourage every member of this House—we are elected here by the people to ensure we make the right decisions for the people. Let’s give those voiceless foster children in New Zealand a voice. I commend the bill to the House.

MAUREEN PUGH (National): I stand to support Hamish Walker; I’d like to give him significant praise for the effort that he’s gone to and the passion that he has applied to this particular member’s bill.

It raised many questions for us as a select committee when we were debating this. We have now received Hamish’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in his name, and it seeks to actually take us back to the beginning, which is where we started with the KiwiSaver (Foster Parents Opting in for Children in their Care) Amendment Bill. It takes out the words that were suggested in the original bill that went through the select committee, where it was changed to Oranga Tamariki and Oranga Tamariki Guardians. The reason for that is that when Oranga Tamariki are legal guardians of these children, there becomes an opportunity for the legal guardian, which is either someone who has a court approved plan or the CEO of Oranga Tamariki, to apply on behalf of those children for a KiwiSaver account. But what it does is it actually eliminates the other 5,500 children who are in foster care, as for many of those children becoming a legal guardian is something that could take many years. So the opting in for children and young people who are simply looked after by kin carers or foster parents—they deserve the opportunity to have a KiwiSaver account. As we did hear from Hamish Walker in his contribution, unfortunately, the process that they have to go through in order to apply for a KiwiSaver account has been insurmountable. The challenges have, therefore, meant that children under the care of Oranga Tamariki are failing to get the same financial security as their peers who are not in Oranga Tamariki’s care. So I would urge the House to support Hamish Walker’s SOP, to give these children the opportunity that their peers have.

We did hear during the submission process about the inequality that is felt by some of the children in care when they could not open a KiwiSaver account on their own. We have heard about the challenges with getting ID and with getting an IRD number. These are all very time consuming processes and not something that someone who is a caregiver or foster parent can easily achieve. They need the support of the chief executive from Oranga Tamariki, who is usually distracted with other, probably more pressing issues than opening KiwiSaver accounts. But one of the things that I do recall from the submission process was the impassioned plea by a couple of young people who submitted, who were care-experienced. They’re very, very confident, articulate young people and I was so impressed with their submission that they simply wanted to be treated the same as children who come from secure family homes. This is the plea that we put to this House—that we recognise that these children need to have financial security. A KiwiSaver account is the only financial instrument that can only be accessed by the person who owns it. As Hamish explained about his young man that saved his money and had it taken from him, KiwiSaver is the only secure financial instrument that protects their investment in the future.

I believe that these young people deserve to have the right to open their KiwiSaver account and have their foster parents or kin carers assist them with that. I endorse what Hamish said about finding a rational reason why this can’t be so; it’s simply a bureaucratic hurdle that this House can overcome. I do implore the people opposite to support this SOP. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Very pleased to take a call, the first of several I suspect, because while it’s a small bill, per say, it’s actually touching on something substantial. But pleased to talk, first and foremost, conceptually, because I think it’s actually a good bill, but also in support of my colleague Hamish Walker. He’s one of the real hard workers of this Parliament and working, I think, on the right response to need. We can often get some frivolous bills coming through this Parliament—member or Government—and, actually, this is really, really important.

So I suppose I want to direct, initially, my comments around the intentions and trying to, hopefully, with the assistance of the member in the chair—or have I just misled the committee in some way, I don’t know.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The member in the chair shouldn’t leave the chair. We’ll put it down to a first term.

SIMON O’CONNOR: As a courtesy I’ll wait for him to return, if that’s OK. I think that actually illustrates the hardworking member as he continues to serve the good of this House.

I suppose the question I have for the member in the chair is really trying to get my head around where his initial intention started, and to where the bill, as it now sits, has landed. So, fundamentally, we had a bill which was to provide empowerment to foster carers. But through a series of acrobatic flips we now end up with the amended bill basically returning, as I understand things—and I suppose I’d like to be corrected early on if I have this wrong—the powers of this bill back to things that already were. In other words, in some ways is the current bill—before we get on to the matter of the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP)—really affecting no change? So my understanding—and the member in the chair will, I’m sure, happily correct me, or his adviser—is that we have a situation currently where foster parents cannot open, on behalf of their foster child, a KiwiSaver account. They’ve always had to go to the legal guardian of what once would’ve been called Child, Youth, and Family Services, now Oranga Tamariki. That, in fact, this bill as currently amended and as we’re discussing in the committee of the whole House, has really just bought it straight back to the guardianship and is precluding and continuing to preclude foster parents. So, in fact, the initial intention of the bill, at this point, has been defeated. Therefore, we must and have to, I think, as a House—if we’re going to respect the member and his intention—bring forward SOP 258 in the name of Hamish Walker, which does make it very, very clear that a foster parent can actually undertake this.

I know there have been objections of short-term care by a foster parent. I would probably make the argument that that sometimes is, sort of, the nature of fostering actually. Then, because of the very nature of fostering, to still stop and not allow a young person to have access—that’s a little odd. I suppose the first fundamental question to the member is: has the intention of his bill as amended through the select committee and as we discuss it here in Chamber been circumvented? The second is around just the nomenclature, just the change of names. It’s a small technical question. I can see that the suggestion is now to call it, “Oranga Tamariki Guardians”. I suppose my simple question to the member is: if we are to agree to this, and granted it will come through in clause 1 discussion, and if we need to amend it in the future, is it going to require a legislative instrument? And why I say that is we’ve obviously got history in this House where we’ve moved from Child, Youth and Family to Oranga Tamariki. We obviously know there are some issues around Oranga Tamariki at the moment. I’m not presuming in this committee that there is going to be immediate change, but I just want to understand whether there will be any changes there.

The other question that I have at this stage is: has he consulted in any way around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues? Again, we are dealing with young people, and I suppose if there is a question around who can open the account, is there a fundamental right of the child to have an account? So at the moment, if I’ve read the bill correctly—and through the select committee there’s been a lot of discussion around who can open the account, and why or why not. But, actually, if we are to reverse the process—and again I put it to the member to consider it as the right of the child—then the nature of rights implies duties and obligations. In other words, if the child of a certain age has the right to a KiwiSaver account, then it must follow logically and legally that we as the Parliament have a right and obligation to bring this about. So I will just leave that there at this time.

DARROCH BALL (NZ First): There are just a couple of things that I’d like to say and make very clear from New Zealand First’s perspective. First of all, I’d like to congratulate Mr Walker on bringing this to the House. I sat through the select committee’s consideration when he brought it through, and it was clear to all of us there that he was very, very passionate about it and he wanted to make some changes, and we could see where he was going in his intent.

New Zealand First is supporting the bill as it has been reported back from select committee. But we are not supporting the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in Mr Walker’s name. I know that Mr Walker has said something contrary to that earlier on, but the reason why—and he quoted the Rt Hon Winston Peters. The reason why the Rt Hon Winston Peters said that was because we are supporting this bill and the changes that it brings. It does give access and delivers for foster kids, just not those that parents still have guardianship rights under the law. So there is a very distinct difference, and that’s the reason why we are supporting the changes in the legislation being brought back from the select committee but we won’t be continuing to support the SOP that Mr Walker has brought through. He has also brought up a couple of points, and I think that someone from the National Party did too, on the reasons why people are not supporting it.

Throughout the select committee deliberations it was made quite obvious to me—and I’m pretty certain every single member that was sitting on that select committee at that time—that the officials found some very worrying aspects of it, very complicated aspects of it, and aspects where it was just not feasible or workable in terms of where Mr Walker wanted it to go. I think that we traversed all of the issues quite thoroughly as a select committee, and, like I stated earlier, we all understood and accepted and appreciated the intent with which Mr Walker brought the legislation to the House. That, I think, shows that if there was a way that was workable and feasible, that didn’t have any of the complications that Mr Walker’s SOP would bring, then we would have supported that. But the fact is that the expert advice that was given to the member’s bill—and this is what Mr Walker needs to understand—is independent. It is assessing the legislation, the changes to the law, and the outcomes that it may or may not bring. The advice that we got, the advice for the select committee, was that the direction that Mr Walker wanted to go in could not be completed to his full fulfilment.

Lastly, I would also like to quote the Minister for Children, Tracey Martin, who gave a first reading speech on this. She made it quite clear that—and I quote: “it is very unlikely that New Zealand First will support any Supplementary Order Papers that [Mr Walker] brings forward in an attempt to bring this bill back to a wider or broader application that disempowers the parents who are still the guardians of these children.” And that is important in order to understand the reasoning why New Zealand First won’t support the SOP that he brings forward. Minister Martin also stated that we will support this bill in the way it’s written and the way the select committee has brought it back to the House. Thank you.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): It’s extremely disappointing that the Rt Hon Winston Peters, on the AM Show yesterday, said to Duncan Garner, “I’m going to support this bill because the current law is an ass.” What do you know? New Zealand First now gets up, back-flops, and they are supporting the bill—and I acknowledge that and thank you for that—but unfortunately the intent has been completely gutted out of this bill. Progress is progress but now it’s only going to benefit around 700 out of 6,000 children.

I just want to quote the Rt Hon Winston Peters from yesterday: “These foster children and their KiwiSaver accounts”—sorry, this is Duncan Garner asking Winston Peters. Winston Peters’ reply was: “Sometimes they say the law is an ass. Certainly looking at your programme this morning, thinking what on earth is wrong with that?” “Do you pledge as Acting PM to sort it out today?” “Yes, I do. Look you can’t agree with success, and what we’re trying to do here is we’re trying to change the culture of young people to start off by being frugal and being savers. What on earth is wrong with us?” “Do you give us your word on this today?” What do you think the Rt Hon Winston Peters said after being asked, “Do you give your word on this today?” It was, “Yes.”

Now, this isn’t the first time that New Zealand First has—

Hon Mark Mitchell: Welcome to the real world.

HAMISH WALKER: —flip-flopped on a few things. That is right, Mark Mitchell. I’ve been here two years but I’m learning very fast not to trust New Zealand First. I just want to address the members around the question of the birth parents still having rights. What he’s basically saying is that even though all the other rights of that parent have been taken away by whatever means, we still want to give them the right of ensuring they can stop our foster children from having a KiwiSaver account. I encourage the member to go out and talk to a foster child who has lost money or had money stolen by a foster parent. This is about ensuring that foster children have the same rights and are on the same playing field as any other child in New Zealand. We are elected to this Parliament to be decision-makers. Why are we letting Oranga Tamariki be the decision-makers? The Hon Tracey Martin, the Minister for Children—it would be great if she was here but obviously she’s too busy. She needs to take a proactive stance—

Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Mr Walker just referred to the member not being present in the Chamber, and that is against the Standing Orders.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes. That’s absolutely correct. The member is new, but he knows.

HAMISH WALKER: Thank you, Mr Chair. Let’s be very clear. A foster parent has lost every other single right, yet we’re worried about them losing the right to ensure we sign their kid up to KiwiSaver—and not one member has told me one negative aspect of doing so. What is so wrong with this SOP, which allows any foster child to have the same rights and obligations as any other child? Just think—what are we saying to those foster children? They don’t have control over many aspects of their life. They don’t have control over where they live. They often get moved around a lot. Yet this House, despite being elected for the people, can’t even get this decision right.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I am happy to make a contribution in support of this bill, the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill. And I’d also, like my colleagues before me, like to commend the member Hamish Walker for bringing to the attention of this House the plight of a very vulnerable group of young people in New Zealand, our foster children.

I’m pleased to be able to say that I sit on the Social Services and Community Committee and it’s been an eye-opener for me in terms of understanding that this challenge was there. I didn’t know that this challenge was there for these children in our country—a vulnerable group of children. I’d also like to acknowledge my committee members as we discussed this bill in our committee. There was a genuine desire to really find a solution to the challenges that I think Hamish has really illustrated very well in his opening statement. So there was collaboration and a genuine desire to work through this.

Prior to this bill being presented, I had no idea about the challenges that these parents faced in trying to do something good for these children. And it is something good. I don’t think anyone has ever said that it was a bad idea to open a KiwiSaver account for a child. And I think, and Mr Walker has stated as well—I don’t think there have been, actually, any concerns raised either through a public submission or through a member in this House as to why it is a bad idea to give this option to these children. What is the risk? What are the unintended consequences in allowing this pathway and giving this option to these foster parents?

So as we’ve presented in the report from the committee, members on this side of the House did present a minority view, which is, essentially, that this bill doesn’t go far enough in terms of the intent that was presented by Mr Walker, which is that, yes, we are going to reach some children and those children will be lucky. I think you’ve indicated 700. That still leaves another 5,000-plus who will not have the opportunity. So I guess, at the end of the day, the law is the impediment to providing that access, that process for these children, for those foster parents who want to give that opportunity to the foster children. So I’m fully in support of the member Hamish Walker’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 258, because it will address the inequity that exists for these foster kids—and this bill was actually about inequity of access. So this is what Hamish Walker’s SOP is about. So I am fully in support of that. Again, I would like to hear from any other members of the committee around what the unintended consequences would be in terms of alleviating and providing this channel, that process, for those families.

As a mother of five children, I have to say KiwiSaver is not something that is front of mind when I’m thinking of my children: in the day-to-day care of my children, food, clothing, a roof over their head, love, and support. But this is something that these foster parents are giving these children and yet we cannot give them the opportunity to support these kids, to give them financial security into the future by giving this access to them. So I really commend the member on highlighting this issue in this House and I support this bill and the SOP.

Hon MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): Mr Chair, I appreciate you accepting my call. To be honest with you, Mr Chair, I’m on House duty; I wasn’t intending to speak to this bill. But I’ve been listening to the debate. And, firstly, I want to acknowledge Hamish Walker because he’s a straight talker, he speaks from the heart, and he brought a great bill to this House that’s going to address—we’ve heard some impassioned pleas in this House today, earlier in the day in the general debate, about Oranga Tamariki and the kids that we see going into Oranga Tamariki care, and, you know, we should be focused on the kids.

The fact of the matter is we’ve got 7,000 children every year in our country, in New Zealand, that are stripped away of the right of actually having a KiwiSaver account. That’s wrong. There’s no downside to having a KiwiSaver account opened for a child to start providing the ability for them to have savings, and for them to be able to support themselves later in life, or even to have the ability to be able to access those KiwiSaver funds to get themselves into their first house. This is a good bill.

Hamish Walker—I know Hamish. He’s a man of integrity.

Hon Member: I hope you do.

Hon Member: He’s a colleague.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: Well, it’s not funny, Labour Party I don’t know. I haven’t heard anyone take a call. I haven’t seen—they’re all over there laughing. Someone stand up and take a call. This is a serious matter. This is actually about 7,000 kids that don’t get access to a KiwiSaver account. So stand up and take a call. Tell us why you’re not supporting the bill.

Hamish Walker is a guy that actually, when he shakes your hand, when he looks you in the eye, you can trust him. You can count on his word and you can see by his reaction in the Chamber today that actually, New Zealand First—sadly, he’s realised that New Zealand First are not people of their word. They don’t stand by their word. You had your Deputy Prime Minister, the leader of New Zealand First, on national media today. [Interruption] Look at their reaction. You can tell by their reaction how sensitive they are to it. It’s a disgrace that they go on national media and they say, “We’re supporting the bill.”

Darroch Ball: We are.

Hon MARK MITCHELL: You’re not. You’re supporting the first part of the bill that affects 600 children—right? So the sponsor of the bill identified the fact that he needed to make a change to strengthen the bill to make sure that all 7,000 kids were able to open a KiwiSaver account. Currently, the way the bill is, the part of the bill that you’re going to support will mean that 600 children can get a KiwiSaver account. That’s better—without a doubt that is better—but let’s all agree in this House: wouldn’t it be better for 7,000 people to have access to that KiwiSaver care.

Now I see the Minister for Children is in the Chamber. I’d like to see the Minister in charge of Oranga Tamariki stand and take a call and explain to us why—explain to this committee and explain to the 6,300 kids out there that won’t have a KiwiSaver account what the reason for that is. I can probably guess what the reason is: because the advisers have told her that there are issues around legal guardianship and it’s all about the parents.

Well, you know what? Do what Hamish Walker’s doing in not making it about the adults. He’s actually making it about the kids. He’s saying the adults have got it wrong, they can’t agree, they’re arguing, the kids have had to be removed from house—hugely unsettling for them. It’s difficult for them. He read a poem that was sent to him. If you listen to the poem, it’s from a young person—a young Kiwi that can’t even understand why they can’t get an account or some form of ID that means as a country we recognise they even exist. You all laugh. You all joke about it. It’s not funny. It’s not a joke. It’s a serious bill.

The Minister’s in the Chamber. Stand up and take a call and tell us why New Zealand First—yep, is supporting the guts of the bill; we acknowledge that, we thank you for that. Why aren’t you supporting his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 258, because he, as the sponsor of the bill, has clearly told you there’s a gap in the original bill? It’s been identified. Six hundred kids will get an account—600 kids or 700 kids will get an account; there are 6,300 that won’t. We want to see them have a KiwiSaver account. There is no downside to that. So I invite New Zealand First or the Minister to stand and take a call and explain to all of us and the country why you’re not going to support his SOP. Thank you very much, Mr Chair.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. I’ve just returned to the Parliament from being off-precinct at a meeting and, because I’m very interested in this topic, I watched the livestream through my parliamentary app. I thought I’d just come down and clarify that, considering that a statement was made by the member in the chair. I also thought—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! No, I’ve dealt with that issue and the member—

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I apologise. I won’t raise it again.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I’m on my feet.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: I beg your pardon.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): And members should not comment on the Chair’s ruling.

Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Kia ora. Thank you, Mr Chair. So having been watching the debate, there’s obviously been some questions that have been put to the member and the member has made some statements. It has been up and to this point a very respectful committee with regard to Oranga Tamariki and the children that are in their care. It is unfortunate that the member, through this process, has now decided to breach what has been the respect of this House and decided to make politics with these children.

The other statement that has been made—and the Hon Mark Mitchell had asked for me to stand and explain why New Zealand First will remain, as clearly articulated in my second reading speech, supportive of the bill that came out of the select committee, by majority, a process whereby this Parliament listens to experts and officials and takes the advice of those who know, because I’m sure the members in this House don’t arrogantly believe that they know everything about the law around guardianship. Apparently Mr Mitchell knows everything about the law with regard to these children. Mr Walker and Mr Mitchell apparently know everything about the parents that are involved in this situation. It is unfortunate that Mr Walker and Mr Summers have shown their ignorance around the actual reality of the legal guardianship rights, both in media and in this House, which means that the New Zealand public should be incredibly dubious of a Supplementary Order Paper that they put in at the last minute so that no other advice could be taken, in an attempt to completely null and void the select committee process—a process that is highly respected around the world. Our select committee process, through the advice of experts and Government departments, creates good law.

The select committee was advised that this would not be good law in the way that the bill was originally written, and the Government departments went out of their way to create the best possible solution for Mr Walker and the intent he had. That is what we pay them to do. That is what they have done, not just for this Government but for the previous Government and every Government before it. New Zealand First will not second guess the select committee. New Zealand First will not arrogantly think that they can override the advice of experts and the cross-parliamentary support that we get through a majority report back from a select committee. We will not do it, merely because Mr Walker and a friend think they know better, because that is the only argument that has been put forward. It is the most manipulative process I have seen in this Parliament since I came into it—the public way that Mr Walker and a friend attempted to manipulate a political party through media pressure in an attempt to change what had been clearly articulated at the second reading. And he stands and continues to manipulate the answers provided by the Right Hon Winston Peters, which were articulated correctly.

New Zealand First is supporting this bill. New Zealand First will support this bill and the way that the cross-parliamentary select committee reported it back to the House.

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I think the Minister for Children needs to go and actually talk to her leader about why he supported it yesterday on The AM Show, saying that he will give all foster children the rights to access KiwiSaver. The second point—

Hon Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order, Mr Chair. With regard to misleading the committee, is it a situation that I would have to take a complaint like that to the Speaker immediately or is it something that we need to deal with in the committee now?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): There’s been some heated things said in this debate, haven’t there? I think the member has been here long enough to know the process of dealing with the issue that she raised. I’m happy with the content of the debate so far. I think it’s been robust. I think that there is a debating point, which both the member herself and the member in the chair have been debating. So long as people stay within the rules of the committee, I’m happy for things to proceed.

HAMISH WALKER: I think it’s incredibly sad that the Minister is now playing politics before children. If she had a listen throughout the end of the select committee process, during the second reading, it was very clear that nearly every single National member that spoke said they were going to lodge this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). It was lodged late last week. There was no playing through the media. The Rt Hon Winston Peters was asked about this yesterday and I’m just reading out his statement.

Secondly, she said it’s too hard. She said it’s too hard, yet she’s the Minister for Children. Then why has it happened, the Hon Tracey Martin? You’re supposed to be the Minister for Children, sticking up for all foster children, not just the lucky few—700 out of 6,000. If she truly cared, she would make this happen and allow all foster children—give them all the ability—to ensure they are on the same playing field, something they can actually control in their life, and allow all foster children to have access to KiwiSaver.

Name for me one negative aspect—one negative aspect—of signing up a child to KiwiSaver. We haven’t heard one negative. These foster parents have lost their rights to look after their children through whatever means, yet we’re so concerned about giving a birth parent a right—they’re worried about losing their rights to enabling a child to have KiwiSaver. I think that’s completely wrong.

If we want to talk about what this truly means, I encourage the Minister to actually go out there and talk to some foster children. Talk to the ones that have saved up four years. They’ve saved up several hundred dollars, or the case of the young chap who wanted to save up for a decade or two to buy a house. He saved up $2,500, only for it to be stolen by the foster parents. As the Hon Mark Mitchell said, this is not about us; this is not about the MPs. But, clearly, the Government side prefers to play politics over children. Let’s put the foster children first and vote through this SOP.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): For reasons unrelated to this particular bill, I’m possibly the last person expected to take a call on it, but I’ve been moved to do so by the debate I’ve just seen. I want to rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of the bill and in support of the Supplementary Order Paper 258, in the name of the member in charge of the bill, Hamish Walker.

People sitting at home watching this debate might be trying to work out what it’s all about. I want to say it’s very simple, particularly the matter at issue over this amendment. It’s very simple. You see, humans are born more vulnerable than any other species. You know, we can’t walk for the first year, and that’s why we’re so reliant on our parents—more than any other species. That is why foster children, without their natural parents, are so vulnerable. That’s why it’s so important for the rest of our society to actually put in place support so that those children have the opportunity to make the most of their lives.

We’ve heard from Hamish Walker stories of kids who have gone from pillar to post—from one home to another, from one foster parent to another—and yet they have a determination to put something away, to give up spending today, so they can save and have a better tomorrow. That’s got to be one of the most admirable human qualities that I’ve heard of in this committee for a very long time. Yet, without the ability to open a KiwiSaver account, the risk is that as they go from pillar to post, they are vulnerable to losing their savings, to losing their property rights. This particular Supplementary Order Paper 258, what it would do for those children is make sure that they don’t have to have their particular Oranga Tamariki guardian signed up so they can have a KiwiSaver account.

This amendment that the Government parties—New Zealand First, the Greens, and Labour—are opposing would mean that that child would need only one of the foster parents opting in for children in their care to sign off that they can have a KiwiSaver account. That account might be very useful for them to protect their savings and their property rights if they find themselves, perhaps, in another home in a few months’ time. They shouldn’t need a particular Oranga Tamariki guardian to sign off so that they can have that safe haven for their nest egg. They should be able to get anyone. I would say they shouldn’t need anybody; they should be able to sign up for a KiwiSaver account as a right as an individual.

I think it’s a little bit unfair that New Zealand First have been picked on for not supporting it, because, actually, I think all of the House—all three of the Government parties—should be supporting it. Yes, indeed, New Zealand First should be supporting it because they fundamentally believe in private property rights and the idea that ordinary people can do extraordinary things and make a difference in their own lives, and that should extend to letting any kid in any foster situation open a KiwiSaver account. Then you’ve got the Labour Party, founded amongst the mining towns of the West Coast over 100 years ago, founded on the idea that working people who work hard and save and invest can have a better tomorrow—and Michael Wood knows because he’s got a wry smile, and he knows he agrees with me. He knows the Labour Party should be supporting this amendment. Then the next question is: what are the values of the Green Party? That, unfortunately, is beyond me right now, but I think they should vote for it on the basis that they say that every decision should be made at the lowest possible level, and in this case it should be that foster kid that just wants to save some money.

So it’s worthwhile putting in place an amendment that says foster children, any foster child, with any of their foster parents—anyone acting in loco parentis can sign them up to have a KiwiSaver account. That’s what this committee should do. That’s what the Government parties should do. I know that’s what the ACT Party will be doing. I commend Hamish Walker for bringing this bill, and with that thought, I will not prolong this debate any further. Thank you, Mr Chair.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): The intent of this bill is one principle called the equity of opportunity. That’s the whole point of this bill. When it first came through to the House, when Hamish Walker brought the bill to the House and also to the first reading and then select committee, which I was a part of, he talked about the family that came to see him. He talked about that while there was meant to be an opportunity for the young people that were in their care—and we’re talking about vulnerable children; children who’ve been through traumatic and difficult situations. So therefore that’s the intent and that’s the reason for this bill. It’s called the equity of opportunity.

Now, I know the Minister for Children, the Hon Tracey Martin, knows about this, because both her and I—and we’ve been in this Parliament for exactly the same time—have fought for the equity of opportunity for foster carers and kin carers, because there wasn’t that point; that principle was not there. So we fought, and I want to acknowledge her because she was a champion behind this, and this year she launched—and I was privileged to be there—that opportunity that was now afforded to them. This bill is the same intent. It’s about having the equity of opportunity.

The Minister talked about the select committee process. Well, I have to say, there’s nothing disingenuous about the intent of this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP), because, right from the start, the intent of the original bill was exactly what the SOP is requiring. You see, the thing is that when we think about the equity of opportunity, there are currently 6,700 children in care. Under the current rules and regulations, where they are at the moment, and the advice that has been given, there will now be around about 700 children that will have access to that opportunity—by the way, where they previously would not have had that opportunity if it were not for the advocacy of Hamish Walker and also, too, that being championed by their family. So now we’ve been given 700, so here’s—

Darroch Ball: What did the advisers say?

Hon ALFRED NGARO: We’re hearing the chatter about the advice. So the advice that was given was this: currently, there are 700 that are able to access, and we can actually allow for that, right? Then it also said that the access can be available to other parents through another process. But can I say this: the intent of this is to make it an obligation, because, you see, while we turned around and said previously that equity of opportunity should have been there, if it wasn’t for this advocacy we wouldn’t have had that. So if it wasn’t for Hamish Walker putting this bill in—we thought that it was automatically there, but it wasn’t. What it revealed is that there was an impediment—in other words, there was a barrier—in the system. The system said that was there for the care of all children, for those who are actually currently in State care—that opportunity was there—when we realised through this bill that it wasn’t. You see, that’s the point. It’s now opened the door to 700. So there’s nothing disingenuous about what the attempt of the member is, because what he’s trying to do now is bring it back again into here.

I want to make the point that the Hon Tracey Martin talked about the words that were spoken by the Deputy Prime Minister. This is a very robust place. There’s what they call parliamentary privilege inside the House, but there’s also accountability for any of the words that we speak outside of the House. So in the public space, if a member of Parliament, whether it be a backbencher through to the Prime Minister—all of the words that they speak, and we’ve all been in that situation, are held to account. If in the public space the Deputy Prime Minister has said this—and I’d have to say, the honourable Deputy Prime Minister, when he spoke those words, he spoke them why? Because he knew the intent was right. He knew that in what Hamish Walker was putting through, there would be again the equity of opportunity for all foster children. That was the intent: for all foster children.

You see, that’s the point of this SOP. The point of this SOP is that it was 700 at the moment, under the current conditions. The intent of the member, of Hamish Walker, is to open up the intent so that 6,700 children will have access to that right and that opportunity. We have to realise this. You see, at this point it’s not just about KiwiSaver. While that’s the intent of this; it’s the principle that we’re fighting for. It’s the principle that all of these children have the right to access an opportunity for them. Today it’s KiwiSaver. It could be other areas that we think are important. The Hon Tracey Martin knows this, because she championed for the equity of opportunity, because at that point in time it was just for foster carers. What she championed was for foster and kin carers, so that broadened that out.

So that is the intent of the member here. I want to applaud him for his attempt and what he’s trying to do. We on this side support this SOP 258—why? Because it is about the equity of opportunity for all children in foster care.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Look, there’s obviously been a lot of argument, discussion, and, I don’t know, barbs flying across the House, so I’m going to put a suggestion forward. I haven’t tabled it as an amendment yet, and it’s probably more of a concept to put to the member in the chair, Hamish Walker, to understand. There’s obviously a disconnect between the original intention of the bill, which has been very clearly articulated by the member, that this is to empower foster parents to support their children, and we’re talking around 6,000 young people. Through a select committee process, we’ve ended up with a situation where, in effect, the dynamics have not changed. It’s been, as I mentioned earlier, some changes of name, but, in effect, it’s up to the guardian, which more often than not is Oranga Tamariki, and I understand—and the member will correct me if I’m wrong—it’s, effectively, the chief executive; she or he may be able to delegate that power. But a suggestion, perhaps, for us moving forward is: how do we, in effect, still allow a foster parent to apply on behalf of or at the request of the child that they are fostering? Could they, in a sense, get a checkbox, a permission, a letter that they have to reference Oranga Tamariki—in other words, the foster parents are still able to act in the best interest of the child and, I would stress, probably at the request of the child. I’ve heard the member in the chair speak this afternoon. He’s been very, very clear that this cause is not coming from foster parents per se, nor is it coming from politicians; it’s coming from the young people themselves. So is there an opportunity—

Hon Tracey Martin: That might be misleading.

SIMON O’CONNOR: We’re just going to keep that very clear on record, but I—

Hon Member: Just ignore it.

SIMON O’CONNOR: No, I’ve chosen not to ignore it, because I’m very happy for this to remain on the Hansard. So we have a situation where there’s been an argument that the rights of the guardian are not being respected if we actually allow the foster parents to act in the best interest of the child that they’re fostering, which, I might put, by nature is the whole point: they’re there to foster, to enact—I won’t go into my normal Latinate discussions, but they’re there to foster, nurture, and look after the child. Is it possible—is it possible—that this House can find a way forward to say, actually—

Hon Alfred Ngaro: Come on—give us a bit of Latin.

SIMON O’CONNOR: I’m not going to give you any Latin, Alfred Ngaro—not tonight. Well, actually, you might get it later tonight. What we have is a situation where the foster parents can apply. Maybe they send an email, a letter, an indication to the guardian—that being Oranga Tamariki—who with just a quick form of process is able to actually say “This is perfectly fine.” To that extent, we end up solving three problems: firstly, the desire of the young person to have a KiwiSaver; secondly, that we have a foster parent whose rights in regards to their foster child have been respected; and, thirdly, we have the guardian rights, those primarily of Oranga Tamariki, respected.

I know there’s been a lot of talk about the full set of rights, those of the biological parents. I sort of understand that—

Hon Tracey Martin: Watch out.

SIMON O’CONNOR: —to a degree, but I think—you know, I won’t so much watch out, Ms Martin, but I think it is a delicate, delicate area. But if, of course, we’re to put children at the centre of all things, it’s the child’s right which comes first, and the fact that the rights of the child have to be expressed outside of that of their biological family begins to raise questions about why they had to be separated from them, and there are a whole lot of consequences logically and legally that flow on from that.

I’d be interested, too, whether the member in the chair wishes to or not—of course, we have a whole lot of cultural relationships as well and how they are being rightly exercised. In fact, I think there are discussions at the moment, both in this House and without, about the rights of cultural needs over the children and how, if you will, that’s to be respected. So the suggestion is relatively simple: is there some way that the foster parents can be brought back into this bill, as has been suggested in the Supplementary Order Paper, but a means—an openness, if you will—for the House to actually see Oranga Tamariki able to tick the box in their guardian duty but allow the foster parents to do their best by their foster child?

HAMISH WALKER (National—Clutha-Southland): I thank the member for his questions. It’s reasonably straightforward. Currently, the barrier in the way is the law. This creates a direct pathway for all foster parents to get there, if the Supplementary Order Paper is accepted. Currently, the only way or avenue is through a social worker, who needs the CEO’s sign-off from Oranga Tamariki. That’s the problem. That lady is so busy; she obviously has limited time. But that’s what this bill endeavours to do: give that avenue for foster parents to have a direct avenue. It also, most importantly, doesn’t discriminate and it gives equality to all foster parents across New Zealand.

ANDREW FALLOON (National—Rangitata): I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 258 in the name of Hamish Walker be agreed to.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.

Ayes 57

New Zealand National 55; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 63

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8.

Amendments not agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.

Bill to be reported without amendment presently.

Bills

End of Life Choice Bill

In Committee

Part 1 Preliminary provisions

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Mr Chair, thank you very much for this call. Part 1 of this bill deals with preliminary provisions. It starts by setting out the Act’s purpose—that the purpose is to give persons who have a terminal illness and meet the criteria lawful access to assisted dying, and to establish a lawful process for persons who so wish to exercise that option. There is an interpretation section, which defines quite a number of terms for the purpose of the bill. I think it’s important for people to recognise that those terms are used with very specific purpose throughout the remainder of the bill, and, therefore, often the full meaning of the bill as it’s read can only be appreciated if people look to that interpretation section.

Clause 4, “Meaning of person who is eligible for assisted dying”, sets out a number of criteria. A person must be 18 years of age. They must a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident. They must have, in the bar 2 version reported back from select committee, either a terminal illness likely to end their life within six months or a grievous and irremediable condition. I am proposing a series of amendments in a Supplementary Order Paper which would change those criteria, and that is the most significant amendment that I’m proposing in this part of the bill. What I’m proposing is that there be a limitation of the bill so that only those with a terminal illness judged likely to end their life within six months are able to become eligible for assisted dying. The other criteria, all of which must be met, are that the person must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability. The amendment that I propose would change that and clarify that it be a decline in physical capability.

There is a change proposed in the amendment I have which says that the person who is eligible for assisted dying must be a person who passes a new test defining a person who is competent to make an informed decision. This test is that they can understand information about the nature of assisted dying that is relevant to the decision, retain that information, use or weigh that information, and communicate it in some way. I would add that this test is borrowed from jurisdictions around the world that have similar laws allowing people to have assisted dying. I would also say that it has been used in legislation passed by this Parliament in the interceding years since this bill was first drafted and introduced to the Parliament. Finally—a rather mundane clause—of course, this Act binds the Crown.

Taken together, those preliminary provisions set out what this bill is about, what the terminology used in the bill is, and what kinds of criteria people must meet in order to be deemed a person who is eligible for assisted dying. I look forward to the debate and discussion. I’m sure that there’s not really a huge amount to be discussed when people see that most of the issues that have been raised have actually been dealt with in the amendments that I have raised, and I hope that we can have a speedy, efficient, and civil debate on this matter. Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Chris Penk.

CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Good choice. Thank you very much, Mr Chair. Sir, we have a deadly serious matter before us, and I will commence a detailed examination of certain aspects of Part 1 very shortly. Please allow me to prefix my remarks by noting the considerable importance of the detail that we are, as a House, about to consider in this matter—literally, life and death, of course.

I start with the purpose of the bill as set out in new clause 2A of Supplementary Order Paper 259, and note that it is part of a suite of changes that have arrived on the desks of members of Parliament very recently indeed—a little over 24 hours ago, in fact. And so it is that I take this opportunity to interrogate the detail of that very carefully. I will be making queries of the member who sponsored the bill to provide some guidance on these so that we can understand, in the absence of, particularly, much time to consider them before now, what it is that he is meaning and intending by it, and the extent to which this will be affecting the rights of New Zealanders who will be subject to the provisions for euthanasia and assisted suicide in this bill.

So let me start with the word “persons”. I ask the member if it was a deliberate choice to speak about “persons” with a terminal illness as distinct from “certain persons”, acknowledging that not all persons to whom the rest of this provision will apply will actually be eligible. So, for example, it will not be those who don’t meet the age criterion—and I don’t wish to get into the substantive detail of that at the moment. No doubt that will be fertile ground for much debate and discussion later by various colleagues across the House, who I know will take a serious interest in that matter. As a matter of drafting, it seems slightly strange to me and possibly unfortunate that Mr Seymour’s talking about persons with “a terminal illness.” I don’t know if he’s expecting that all these persons will just have one terminal illness between them. But it’s really just a matter of poor drafting rather than something substantive that I raise for his comment.

So we go, then, to the rest of that new clause 2A(a), and we see that if certain criteria are met, then the persons with this one terminal illness are to be given the option of lawfully requesting assistance to end their lives. I wish to propose to the member whether he’d consider an amendment to his amendment, whereby we would instead be considering “an option” of lawfully requesting assistance to end their lives—noting, of course, that a person who meets those criteria still does have, in fact, the option not to request assistance to end their life in the way that the bill contemplates. There is more than one option available, and so the indefinite article “an option” rather than “the option” of lawfully requesting assistance seems to me to be more appropriate, and I look forward to the member’s comments on that.

Going forward, then, to the rest of the purpose of the Act—the second part of that—we see that “a lawful process” is to be established for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option. Of course, the purpose of the Act is to do a lot more than this, and it seems to me that it would be helpful for a bit more detail in the purpose to be given at that point. But noting the member’s comments around the fact that it is to guide interpretation, that’s all the more reason for something that is quite unprecedented in New Zealand law since the abolition of the death penalty. That New Zealanders would be consciously killed by other New Zealanders other than in self-defence, the more guidance that can be given in a clause such as the purpose of the Act would be helpful.

So my final comment on that purpose of the Act, the new provision that’s been added, is why it doesn’t employ the language “assisted dying”, which I note is a defined term within the legislation, and instead we’ve got “assistance to end their lives.” It seems to me that it would be a matter of efficiency, albeit employing the euphemism “assisted dying” as a catch-all for euthanasia and assisted suicide, that at least the purpose of the bill and its definition and one of its key components, indeed, that of “assisted dying”, would at least be consistent. So if the member could provide some advice on that point, that would be very helpful indeed as well.

I also note, actually, one further note in relation to the purpose of the Act, that the phrase “terminal illness” is used. I commented before that it’s being used in relation—but I can’t understand why it’s being used in that way, in a rather short-handed fashion, so to speak, when it’s, again, not defined in the bill. I think the answer is obvious, probably, to all concerned, bar the member himself, why there isn’t a definition of that in Part 1 of the bill—the answer, of course, being that it is difficult to impossible to define such a thing as “terminal illness”. It’s not recognised in modern medical parlance, certainly not by the palliative care industry—if anyone would know about such things, you would expect that they would know. So it seems strange to me that we’ve got a purpose of an Act referring to such a key concept as “terminal illness”, but that’s not defined in there. So I would welcome the member’s comments on that aspect in particular, to the extent that it represents a departure from the bill that he previously provided to this Parliament some time ago, in which he’s now seeing fit to change so significantly in the last few hours—the dying days, so to speak—of the period prior to the committee stage.

So, moving to the interpretation clause—namely, clause 3 within that Part 1—I note that the member has attempted something rather interesting by deleting the words “a lethal dose of”. So what we now have under the heading of “assisted dying”, the definition of that, is “medication” as opposed to “a lethal dose of medication.” So too in the next subclause, “a lethal dose of medication” is removed. I wonder what justification the member can give for making the bill less clear by no longer referring to “a lethal dose of medication” and instead having a rather comforting and more generic term for medication, which has a totally different meaning to the minds of most people who would be subject to this bill, potentially, and certainly those medical practitioners who would be expected to apply it and to execute its provisions, if you’ll excuse the pun.

Then my next question in relation to the interpretation clause comes to the point that I can’t help but notice we’ve got a definition for “Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights”. Well, that’s a good thing to define, because we might as well know what is meant by that. But how interesting that now we have inserted, whereas we didn’t have before in the member’s previous version of the bill—suddenly we have this code of patients’ rights being introduced. It’s a novel concept, perhaps, to the member, or certainly as far as this particular bill is concerned. It does raise the question what consideration he’s given to a situation where the provisions of the code—the patients’ rights—conflict with the provisions of the bill.

I think that, particularly in relation to the notion of informed consent, for which certain very specific criteria must be met in relation to medical practice generally, as would be judged in accordance with the code or not—as compared with the bill, in which there is rather a different meaning of “informed consent” and a different concept in relation to the amount of coercion that can be applied—is clearly intended by him to be effective.

Continuing, we’re up to letter H so far, if you’re following along, no doubt you are: “health practitioner”. So that’s all very well to have the definition of that—and I do note, pleasingly, this has actually survived through from Mr Seymour’s first crack—but, actually, what we don’t have there is a requirement that the health practitioner, in order to be defined as such and eligible to carry out the functions under this bill, doesn’t need to have held a practising certificate for five years or more, and yet that is the case later on where we have the definition of an independent medical practitioner. So I wonder, if two medical practitioners must be involved in signing off such a momentous decision as one that a person be subject to euthanasia or assisted suicide, why would one of those medical practitioners have to be relatively experienced and the other one not at all? It seems rather anomalous to have such a requirement in two different levels. I would welcome the member’s comments as to why he would establish such an anomalous arrangement in the first place, and whether he would consider changing it, perhaps, by way of amendment to his amendment. I think I could probably just about get that on there before the ink dries fully on these changes that he’s provided to us so recently.

I note in relation to the definition of nurse practitioner—interesting that we’ve had this inserted, and I wonder why, suddenly, whether lots of nurses have been lining up to say that they want to be involved in ending the lives of their patients, such that we now need—[Time expired]

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to what is an incredibly serious debate. I, firstly, want to acknowledge the member David Seymour, who has led this particular legislative reform, and acknowledge the changes that he has made within his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). I do want to start with some preliminary comments about what I think this bill is about. Some people have said this bill is about life and death. Well, the reality of people who have a terminal illness is that this bill is only about death. There is no choice to live. I think that that particular purpose, that has now been added from David Seymour, I want to highlight, because we are here today debating this piece of legislation as it affects people who have a terminal illness.

So I think that clarification, actually, has made it really helpful, not only for us as a Parliament but also for New Zealanders. Can I say, having recently been through an experience of a family member who had a terminal illness, providing choice and providing an opportunity for people who are living with a terminal illness to actually take back some control of their lives when they have none, I think, is incredibly empowering. So I want to acknowledge that the purpose of this bill is now crystal clear; it will only apply to people with a terminal illness.

I do now want to highlight the difference between David Seymour’s definition of terminal illness and the one contained in the SOP, that I also want to acknowledge was co-written by my colleague Lawrence Yule, and, in doing so, I also have to acknowledge Sir Geoffrey Palmer and also Paul von Dadelszen—I always struggle with his surname—who assisted in us contributing to what is and was a discussion that seemed to be slightly chaotic. I hope that David Seymour and those who are interested in this topic realise that we did so because we are incredibly passionate about giving people the choice.

I do want to highlight that our definition of terminal illness means “a progressive condition that is reasonably expected to cause the death of a person within 12 months.”, and I’m going to talk about why 12 months. So 12 months, from our perspective, is incredibly important based on the mechanism, which is the second addition to the purpose of the Act. You need to establish a process. This isn’t random. It needs to have the checks and balances. We have to verify that a person has a terminal illness. We have to verify that the available treatments have been provided to the person, but, fundamentally, it was also about recognising that people in the last stages of their life need forms of palliative care that ensure that they die in a manner that means they do not suffer.

So when looking at a process that we felt had all the safeguards attached to it, we thought that a court consent process would allow that. We felt that 12 months provided the opportunity for people to prepare for death. Death is something that we will all face, but some of us actually have a bit of an indication of when that might be, based on a medical condition that we may have. So for us, 12 months would allow people to apply to the court with their physician. It would enable the court to verify, over a 21-day process, whether or not the person had a terminal illness, whether or not they’d exhausted all possible medical treatments, whether or not that person was receiving palliative care. From our perspective, it was really important that it was a joint application between the person with a terminal illness and their medical practitioner that was going to assist them in any process. It was also really important that we put, within the context of our mechanism, an ability for there to be an appeal based on technicalities of law, and, in doing so, we obviously thought that the time frame that we were proposing was sufficient to enable all those matters to be clarified before the person then actually had to deal with the fact that they were going to die.

One of the things that I’ve learnt recently is that people who are facing a terminal illness have lots of decisions to make. They sometimes have insurances that they have to claim for, and, in highlighting that, I want to acknowledge that if we look at the insurance sector, they’re really clear about who qualifies for a payout: it’s someone diagnosed with a terminal illness, and they’re expected to die within 12 months of diagnosis by a physician who specialises in that illness or condition. Why does the insurance sector have a 12-month time frame? They do it, again, so that people can apply, go through an administrative process, and it also enables them to settle any accounts they have, pay mortgages, obviously, setting up funds to pay for the funeral, but ultimately, it’s also about preparing—in my case, my brother leaving funds for his children and establishing trust accounts and those types of things.

I also want to highlight that Paula Tesoriero is our Disability Commissioner. We know she did not support this piece of legislation, fundamentally, but one of the things that she highlighted in her submission to the Justice Committee was that she would like to see the definition of terminal increase to “likely death within 12 months”, and she thought that was quite essential. I’m putting it out there because I would like David Seymour, the architect of this bill, to tell us why six months was deemed to be an appropriate time frame.

I guess the other aspect I’d like to highlight has been the narrowing of this bill so it won’t just apply to you if you’re old, won’t apply to you if you have a disability. Actually, it’s broader than that. You have to have a terminal diagnosis. One of the conditions that I’ve been incredibly aware of, in terms of the disability sector and their advocacy for this piece of legislation, has been the motor neurone disease sector. If you’re diagnosed with motor neurone disease, and the most common form is ALS—I’m not even going to try and pronounce that, Ruth; I know you know how to say it—but, essentially, a third of you die within a year, 50 percent within two years, and there’s no cure. So having a broader time frame for, again, people to prepare—that one year means that takes into consideration some of the phases of that particular diagnosis that can happen incredibly quickly. So you can move between phase two, three, four really quickly. So I think the time frame, from my perspective, is incredibly important when we think about how and why people need to prepare for death.

I just finally want to highlight that the House made, I think, quite a conclusive discussion about the fact that this piece of legislation is needed. You know, we’ve been discussing this topic now for over 20 years. It’s one of its time. Lawrence and I have been looking at all of the SOPs, and one of the SOPs that we talked about was Nick Smith’s, about the concept of unmanageable pain. His proposition is that if the physician says it’s unmanageable pain, then someone would qualify for help. That’s what we’re trying to do, is to help people and assist people in their final, maybe, months or days, where they’re having to cope with some of the consequences of having a particular diagnosis. I do want to highlight some of the cancers: pancreatic cancer, some forms of melanoma. People suffer. It’s not a nice way to leave this world. I think all of us would agree that the intention of this bill is to ensure that nobody suffers.

So from a first principled position, I just want to thank everybody. I think we’re going to have a constructive discussion. You know, everybody here has people that they love, that they have journeyed with through those final stages, and I know, for all of us, this is a topic that we will debate and discuss in a very respectful way. I might take a call later, but thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the call. Kia ora.

SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Madam Chair. Acknowledging what I think is a wonderful opportunity, the speaker who’s resumed her seat, Louisa Wall, noted 20 years this topic has been raised, but, actually, tonight starts a process where, I would suggest, for the first time we are able, as a Parliament, to properly interrogate this bill clause by clause, word by word. Fundamentally, we are about to change arguably one of the most fundamental principles of Western society, in particular, around life and death.

I would assume most in the committee will agree, as we start looking at Part 1 and eligibility, that if we are to provide the right for some, we must always make sure that the most vulnerable are protected and that no mistakes are going to be made. So I will immediately disagree with the member in the chair, David Seymour, who was suggesting at the start that we should get through this rather quickly. I find that unfortunately attempting to gloss over already what is incredibly serious, because I think, as I’ve mentioned in other speeches as I’ve been around the country, we get this wrong and people innocently die. I for one believe the number zero is fantastic. One would be too many.

The member who resumed her seat, Louisa Wall—and acknowledging her contribution—sparked in me a memory of a wonderful quote. It’s from an excellent book called A Canticle for Leibowitz, and it sums up my impressions of things, particularly around suffering. It says that it’s right and proper for the State to maximise security and minimise suffering, but, in seeking both, we found the opposite—it’s right and proper to maximise security and minimise suffering, but, in seeking both, we found the opposite. That’s the risk we have here tonight, so I’m looking forward to interrogating this very carefully, and I do it out of a sense of duty to those who may end up being able to terminate their lives through assisted suicide or euthanasia.

So starting with Part 1, we do need to look at the purpose of the bill. This is a major change. I think we have to note that there have been a number of changes, and I say that for two reasons. One—and my colleague Chris Penk has kindly pointed it out already—we’ve only just got this long-promised Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 in the last 24-36 hours, so I think, myself—and maybe I’m just speaking for myself—I have been scrambling, if you will, to try and catch up on this. The second reason I mention is that we were we told, when this bill was first introduced, that it was perfect—that the greatest legal minds in New Zealand, and medical minds, had pulled this together from the brilliance of jurisdictions overseas. So I find it somewhat—hmm—ironic, to be charitable, that here we are once again, with the greatest legal minds and the greatest examples overseas, debating a bill which I’m about to show—and I hope in a few ways—has problems that we need to fix first.

So we have a new purpose of the bill. It’s been raised by, actually, some other lawyers who have engaged me already to, sort of, understand what it’s actually saying. So the member might want to take a call on that, particularly clause 2A(b) of SOP 259, which says “to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option.” It seems a bit odd that we have to add the word “lawful”, and what does that actually add? It would be—I don’t know—a redundant oddity in a Parliament that we were to be establishing a non-lawful process. So it just needs a little bit of tightening up there, and I would suggest the member look at that if he wants to put some further SOPs forward.

We then move into again what strikes me—and, look, granted, I’m not a lawyer. I rely very heavily on lawyers, QCs, judges, and others to provide me information in this field. But in Part 1, clause 3—this is the interpretation side—we now have a rather circular self-stating first definition or interpretation. It says an “approved form” means a form that’s approved. I’ll read that again. It’s an approved form means a form that’s approved and—granted—issued. So it’s sort of circular, and I wouldn’t mind the member sort of explaining why we need a definition of “approved form” which says it’s a form approved. I mean, I’m very conscious we’ve flipped the words around.

We then go into what I think is actually a fairly substantial and important element, and Chris Penk touched on it in a broader context, around—I would use the word, for the first time, I think, tonight—euphemism. I mean, I’ve spoken to this many times before. If we’re going to talk about life and death, let’s be upfront and honest about it. The Dutch—I don’t particularly like their law, but, by Lord, they’re very good at just laying it out clearly.

So we’re talking here about assisted dying. Well, I’ve just been, actually, at the hospital, somewhat about to farewell a friend, unfortunately, who’s on his last legs. He’s being assisted to die currently. He’s been assisted to die by family and friends, palliative care, doctors, and loved ones, in a way that I think most of us, if not all of us, would accept is quite accessible and acceptable. It would be something in my final days—whether that’s tomorrow, three months, 12 months, or 12 years from now; maybe, hopefully, a lot longer—I’m going to be assisted to die. I know a number of doctors have suggested that the wording, while also euphemistic, is incredibly loose, because, actually, doctors, particularly those in palliative care, assist people to die every day, but they don’t do it by injecting them with something like phenobarbital and causing a massive cardiac arrest.

Why then—I have to challenge the member once again, as I’ve done many times—is he not able to call this what it is, which is euthanasia and assisted suicide? So (1) euphemisms: why are they being used if we want clarity? Secondly, why does this bill not actually, in the interpretation section, clearly spell out the two forms of death or mechanisms of death: euthanasia, where the doctor will inject you with, as I say, something like phenobarbital, usually with the muscle relaxant earlier; and then assisted suicide, which is where you are given the pill, sometimes a liquid, and you ingest and take those at your leisure? So just clarifying why the two specific elements are not there.

Look, it’s been touched on why the word “lethal dose” has been taken out. Look, a medication intuitively, to the populace—and, again, this is a bill we’re writing for all New Zealanders. When we talk about medication, we talk about—and we think intuitively—that it’s something which heals us. It’s a balm, if you will. A medication that ends your life is not really a medication. You know, it’s like saying a cricket bat whacked over the head is medicinal. Well, no, it’s not. So, again, I just encourage the member, in the committee, to consider all these little changes. Why is there not the confidence to just call a spade a spade? OK, it is a lethal dose. The drugs which will be used are exactly the same that they use currently in America for the death penalty. They are not medications.

We then move on to “attending medical practitioner”. That says “in relation to a person, means the person’s medical practitioner”. Again, and this is why I really encourage the committee to prosecute every word carefully—and I’ll always defer to the lawyers. It seems great. Oh, it’s the medical practitioner—the person’s medical practitioner. Well, does that actually mean your general practitioner, the man or woman that you see and have seen for every year? Well, it doesn’t prescribe that in any way, shape, or form. It just says a “person’s medical practitioner”.

In other words, at this point—and I’m more than happy for the member in the chair to correct me—it actually doesn’t specify that it must be a doctor that knows you or a doctor that has known you for a significant time. In fact, as we’ve seen in other jurisdictions across the world, we’ve seen sort of death buses driving around, where two doctors will jump out and certify that you are terminally ill and can go, and it’s all done and dusted. I mean, they knew you because they’ve just met you, so again I suppose I’m just using this as a singular example at the start to illustrate the need for us to prosecute and ask very deep questions. So I’ll probably look to introduce some SOPs or amendments to this SOP to make it clear, if that’s the intention, that the attending medical practitioner—which means a person’s medical practitioner—must include their general practitioner, or perhaps it’s a doctor that has known them for over six months, for example. So it’s again just an encouragement that we don’t get caught up in what looks like nice language which actually can mean something quite different.

I just want to touch very quickly on the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights—a different angle that Chris Penk has gone down, and we’ll prosecute this a little further later, when we get particularly to clause 4. At one level, there’s been a delight from some that we are narrowing the bill—and I think, actually, Louisa Wall has touched on a really good point that all of a sudden those with the likes of motor neuron, Huntington’s disease, and so forth have been taken out of this equation. However, it’s also been trumpeted that those with disabilities will now not be included. Now, obviously, as someone who wants to protect the vulnerable, I like that. However, we are moving into a strange situation that, actually, we are developing a discrimination against disabled people. Put very bluntly, you have the right to die, but, I’m sorry, if you’re disabled, you don’t. Now, at one level, we can say yay, because that protects the disabled; on the other side, we can go that’s a discrimination prima facie. So that has to be addressed there.

We also have—moving now on to page 4 of this new SOP; I’m afraid the ink, Chris Penk, is actually stuck on my fingers. But it says “competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying.” If you jump then to clause 4A, you find it’s again a circular argument. That competency—[Time expired]

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Madam Chair, as this is the first time I’ve spoken when you yourself have been in the Chair, can I take this opportunity of congratulating you on your position. I have no doubt you’ll do a superb job, and it is just another accolade in what has been a very significant parliamentary career that you’ve had since you came here in the 1993 election.

Can I just take this opportunity to make some opening comments on this particular legislation, and I do so because I was overseas at the second reading debate when I would’ve liked to have had the opportunity to state my position. I don’t intend to take numerous calls through the debate, but I will oppose this legislation, and I’ll oppose it for one significant reason: I cannot be assured that there won’t be some elderly person who is coerced into accepting assisted dying. In saying that, I want to acknowledge the work that David Seymour has done with this bill. I know that he has attempted to take away that risk, but I don’t believe anybody can give me 100 percent assurance, a guarantee that in the future, if this legislation is passed, some person won’t be pressured—maybe quite deliberately by family; maybe almost subconsciously by family—into feeling that they take pressure off a family situation by euthanising themselves or agreeing to be euthanised.

I want to also acknowledge, as this debate has progressed through the House, the very strongly held views on both sides of the argument, and I respect each and every one of you for your strongly held views. That’s why it’s a conscience debate. I’ve seen this legislation now come before this House—this is the third occasion, and as with any of the conscience debates we have in this House, I think we have some of the best-quality debates that we have at any time that I’ve been a member of Parliament. So I look forward to the debate as it develops, and wherever the result goes, I respect the democracy of this House. I’ll respect the views that are finally espoused through the debate and the result that is agreed to.

A lot of people say that as people are in their last days, you wouldn’t treat an animal like that, and I accept that argument. I’ve farmed for well over 40 years. I’ve, sadly, taken a number of my working dogs to the vet to have them put down because they were at the end of their life and suffering, but I don’t think you can have an analogy between a veterinary process and this legislation. Medical science is far better than that, and I do not accept that anybody should suffer in their final days. I think the ability of medical care, the palliative medical industry, is responsible for making sure people can live with dignity in their final hours.

On Monday of this week, I visited a friend who has not got many days to go; he is dying of cancer. I went through primary school with this man, I went through secondary school with this man, I’ve been associated with him in a business sense throughout his working life, and as we talked to him—I certainly didn’t raise the issue of euthanasia, but he knew he didn’t have long to go. But he was using that time incredibly profitably in that he was spending time with his family, with his business acquaintances. He was clearly preparing everything in a very logical, methodical way to make sure his wife and only son were left in a very tidy position. He was on medication—he talked about that. He wasn’t suffering. He was using those final days in the best way possible.

So I don’t, as I said at the start, intend to take lengthy calls. I just wanted to take the opportunity of explaining quite clearly to the committee why I respect the views of Mr Seymour and those that will argue with some passion for this legislation. I will not vote for it, for the simple reason that I fear someone will be coerced at some stage in the future into feeling they have to accept this option—deep down, they probably did not want to.

Hon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It doesn’t get any more serious than this when you’re in this House as a legislator, when you’re debating and deliberating the issues of life and death. I was honoured to be and privileged to be at a number of different public meetings throughout the stage of the select committee, and I can remember quite clearly a number of health practitioners when they stood up and they declared the fact that they swore an oath that they shall do no harm. That was the oath that they had, and hence the reason why a number of them spoke so strongly against and opposed this bill, because the intent of the bill continues to ask that question.

I believe that for us in this House as legislators, as lawmakers, we too need to ask that question, that we too shall do no harm. The question that we need to put to ourselves in debating this—and hence the reason it needs and deserves a robust process in this House, because at the second reading people talked about the fact of what couldn’t be achieved in a select committee process of 39,000 submissions, of over 400 meetings up and down the country, around a number of people actually coming and providing their submissions—that what couldn’t be decided there should at least have a robust process in this House. So I hope that that will continue, that we will allow for that robust process. This is not about filibustering. This is about as serious as it gets, and a number of us are taking these calls not only because we personally hear from people in our community but because we know the importance of this bill and what it will set as a precedent in this country. So I, like others, am willing to be able to do that. We want to take that on board as we continue to progress through the House.

When we begin the process of Parliament, there is a prayer that has been prayed for over 165 years. It began on 24 May in 1854, when Parliament was actually constituted in Auckland before it came down here to Parliament, and inside of that prayer it says this: “Laying aside all personal interests, we pray for guidance in our deliberations”. I know that there are personal interests. As the Rt Hon David Carter said, there are a number of stories. We’ve all got personal stories of family and friends who’ve suffered at times through a difficult process, and at times through a difficult death as well, but we cannot allow a personal process, like this prayer says—“Laying aside all personal interests, we must pray for guidance”. I do hope that we will look for the guidance of deliberation, the evidence that we can put forward in regards to this issue that is before us. It doesn’t get any more serious than this.

In talking to Part 1 of this bill, in proposed new clause 2A(b) of Supplementary Order Paper 259, it states this: “to establish a lawful process for assisting eligible persons who exercise that option.” I want to pick up the point and the word that talks about eligibility, and in this case, in eligibility, the age of eligibility is set at 18 years. Now, the Attorney-General’s report—when he wrote, he regarded three areas of recommendations. The one area that he stated was inconsistent with section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was in regards to the age of eligibility. In New Zealand, we’ve set that age of eligibility through this Parliament at the age of 16. So already we see that there is a weakness in this bill, because what it does do is it leaves an open door for an opportunity for litigation around opening the opportunity for this, in this regards, to not just being 18 but 16, 17, and maybe even further.

I can remember that when we were debating, a number of those who spoke on behalf of euthanasia in New Zealand who stated quite clearly “Well, we’ll not go to the discussion and the debate around age; that may be a bridge too far right now.”, but later on it could be a conversation. So when people talk about the slippery slope, maybe we’ll call it another name: there’s an open door that’s now made available for litigation to now see that in other jurisdictions—as I read from some of the summary of the 39,000 submissions that were supported, there were a number of submissions there that talked about countries like Belgium, other countries that have now opened that door where, now, the eligibility criteria has not only been challenged but now has been reduced down to even the youngest of children.

So people need to understand and know, not only in this House but also in the public, if our intent is not to do harm, then we could be opening the door around the eligibility criteria, not only at 18 but later on, as others have said. Right now, it’s a bridge too far, but the door will be open for that eligibility to go even further. I think it’s important that the consciousness not only of Parliament but of the nation needs to understand the importance of this point that we’re raising right here now.

Hon POTO WILLIAMS (Minister for the Community and Voluntary Sector): Firstly, I want to commend the member David Seymour for his courage, because the matter before us is probably the most visceral of any matter that we will discuss in our political career. So I thank the member for your courage for bringing this before the House.

I also want to challenge the committee and members who speak to this bill: it’s about accuracy of information, not misinformation. It is about debate, not conjecture. We must be honest with the public of New Zealand in the facts that we present, and I encourage all members to make sure that we are not creating a rod for our own backs when we say things that we cannot validate with fact. That’s my disclaimer to start off my conversation.

I won’t take a long time, because I know there are lots of people who want to speak on this, but part of my concern around this piece of legislation lies in the interpretation of “assisted dying” and what it’s intended to do. The discussion here is about the relief of suffering of one of our loved ones. Let’s face it, we’re talking about either ourselves, making a decision for ourselves, or supporting a loved one to make that decision.

Now, each and every one of us have got a personal story to tell about this, and my story is no different from many others, watching parents having terrible times at the end of life, where pain and suffering is something that, as family members, we have to sit and watch. Now, one of the discussions that hasn’t happened in this debate so far is the impact of death on those who are left behind. I’ve lost both of my parents and three of my siblings, and most of them did not have a happy end. I’ve lost many other people in my wider circle. The trauma that sits within me, watching that, is something that we have largely ignored in this discussion.

The issue is that family members should have an ability to be part of this discussion, because they are the people who are left behind, who witnessed the suffering, who witnessed the trauma of the death, and yet they have no say in this discussion; for me, watching particularly my mother pass, saying to myself “I just wish she would go.”, because I didn’t want to watch her suffer. However, when she did go, I just wanted to see her alive. So it’s this conundrum that we have as family members, is it not? We want to relieve their suffering, but actually we don’t want them to die. So that’s my contribution to this discussion—that in this we must ensure that the voice of families is considered, because we are the ones that hold the mamae, that hold the pain when our loved ones pass. Thank you, Madam Chair.

LAWRENCE YULE (National—Tukituki): It’s a pleasure to take a call on this bill. First of all, can I congratulate David Seymour for getting this bill to this part of the process, and can I acknowledge your courage in doing so. This is a very difficult issue, and the last speaker, Poto Williams, has reiterated a lot of what I wish to say. But I did want to take a call tonight early on in this debate, because how we handle this part of the committee of the whole House will define our relationships in this House and how we get to a point of commonality, whether the bill passes or doesn’t, and along the way, over many hours, we’ll debate the various points.

I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and the work she did. We worked together on a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP). You might say, “Well, how did that happen?” It happened because we happened to be at a function one day and we were talking about where this bill was, and we had very similar views about the concerns we had. So we worked together to draft up an SOP.

We are now in the committee of the whole House. I voted to support the bill at second reading because this is my opportunity to flesh out the things that I have concerns about. I also acknowledge David Seymour, the SOPs you’ve put up to try and acknowledge some of the concerns across the Parliament. This, for me, is not about choice, actually. For some it is, and I accept that, but for me it’s not about choice; it is about helping some people who have really difficult deaths and it is about managing that process and helping them. Even today as I flew back from Hamilton, I was in the airport with a lady and she said that she watched her mother die from pancreatic cancer and it was horrendous, and with the best of palliative care, there was still pain and suffering. That’s actually what I’m here to try and fix in this part of the process.

Louisa Wall and I did propose, and have got, an SOP which talks about 12 months. It talks about using the Family Court and it talks about using families, because in our view this is around a process of dying, a process of leaving. The previous speaker, Poto Williams, brilliantly articulated in a very sad way what happens. We don’t like or enjoy—and in fact, it is very upsetting—watching loved ones suffer, but we also don’t want them to go over that other side.

Many people have looked at our SOP, and some have said it’s too lawyer based, it will take too long, and the Family Court’s wrong. But I just want to say to this committee that our process of doing that is about trying to find a solution, because while I’ve heard people say already that people could be coerced or some people could die, on the other side of this debate there are some people that are having very difficult deaths. This Parliament simply needs to decide what that balance is.

I will participate and listen in these debates, because what happens here will determine what I finally do at the next reading. So in this Parliament and in this committee, as part of this, I am looking for solutions. I am not looking for this bill to be delayed for five months, as some I’ve read today said. I’m actually here to try and find some solutions to the concerns that I have, to see if there’s a way through this. I also think, based on my own electorate and what public opinion is, that the public of New Zealand do want us to try and find a solution.

I don’t know whether it’s going to go to a referendum or not. I don’t know where that’s going to end up. But if it does, I probably believe it will pass. And if it does, my job as a member of Parliament, and the job of other members of Parliament, is to make sure that the legislation is as good as it can be and as safe as it can be. The time I wish to spend in this Chamber at the committee of the whole House and on the nights and weeks ahead will be to try and find solutions that I believe get that balance right. Now, we won’t all agree and the vote will be tight, but I would hope that there is wisdom, decency, and maturity in this House so that we can get the best possible legislation.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Madam Chair. I take this opportunity to answer some of the questions as best I can that have so far been raised.

We had the first speech, other than mine, from Chris Penk, who queried whether the use of the word “persons” would imply that all persons with a terminal illness were eligible for assisted dying under this law. And the answer to that is: of course not. One of the central concepts of Part 1 is eligibility, and having a terminal illness is but one of those potential criteria a person has to meet in order to be eligible. We were asked if terminal illness was defined. Well, yes it is; if the member cares to continue reading after the word “illness”, it says, “likely to end [their life] within six months”. So you’ve got a definition there. He asked about the words “Lethal dose of medication”; he asked why that had been removed. It simply is a matter of efficient legal drafting. If he cares to look at the interpretation section, which is part of Part 1, it gives the definition that medication is a lethal dose of that medication. As I said in my opening remarks, people should look very carefully at that interpretation section, because words defined in the interpretation section have the meaning given in the interpretation section for the remainder of the bill.

We were asked if the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights—what happens when that conflicts with the bill? Well, statute law overrides that particular code. I will have to check, but I understand the code itself actually says that. We were asked why one medical practitioner, the independent medical practitioner, must have five years of experience. The fact is that the bill, as introduced, didn’t require either of the medical practitioners—either the attending or replacement medical practitioner, or the independent medical practitioner—to have a given length of tenure in the medical profession because the fact is that the medical practitioners, as you also see in the interpretation section, are defined as a doctor who is registered with the Medical Council of New Zealand. That is not a low bar and I think members of this committee should be very careful about how they describe the experience of medical practitioners. Those who are doctors registered with the Medical Council are already extremely highly trained and experienced people. I think stating that the independent medical practitioner must have five years of experience is a useful reassurance that that medical practitioner will be even more experienced than the other medical practitioner that’s examined the person.

We were asked about nurse practitioners and how they have been included as capable of undertaking a role under the bill. Well, first of all, I think it’s worth talking a little bit about what a nurse practitioner is. It’s somebody who has had 300 hours of supervised clinical experience, who has a master’s degree, who specialised in an area of nursing for four years. These are highly skilled and experienced nurses who routinely carry out procedures, such as filling out death certificates for patients who have died. I see no reason why, under the supervision of a doctor, they should not be able to carry out certain procedures that they are used to carrying out in every other area of medicine, under this bill. Particularly for those New Zealanders who live in remote areas where it can often be difficult to get access to a medical doctor, being able to have a nurse practitioner who is perfectly qualified to carry out a role seems like an appropriate thing to do.

We then had a very well-appreciated contribution from Louisa Wall. Louisa, I want to acknowledge that you are giving this speech a week after your loss and only a day after a funeral. I know that people talked a little bit about courage; that takes courage very few members would have. I want to thank you for your support of the concept. I also want to thank you for your industriousness, along with Lawrence Yule, in bringing an amendment that, really, is an alternative bill. It gives an alternate way of achieving the overarching objectives of the End of Life Choice Bill of alleviating suffering and giving choice to those who want it, while protecting those who want nothing to do with it. So I want to thank you for that and commend you.

I want to say, with some difficulty, that I can’t support that amendment. There’s a few reasons for that—one is that all around the world where assisted dying has been put in place, the question of whether the two-doctor model is superior to various judicial models that have been investigated has been asked and answered in a number of courts and select committees around the world. People have said, look, on balance, you are better to have two medical practitioners—the reason being that they have medical knowledge; they understand the medical conditions. To introduce a judicial officer would add, inevitably, some delay, although I accept Lawrence Yule’s word that it won’t be as big as it’s sometimes made out. But on the other hand, the judges are still relying entirely on the expertise of the medical officers anyway. I’m just not convinced that it will introduce the greater comfort that’s been promised. I’d further say that there are some other issues with the amendment that, in my view, are problematic. One of them, for instance, is that judge is effectively making the decision about whether the person has carried out the other possible terms of treatment that might be available. It’s very clear in this bill that it is important—and several members who are opposed to the bill have raised this; I think it’s one thing we all agree on—that it is the person in question who makes the decision. It shouldn’t be a judge deciding whether or not the person should have other types of treatment. So I want to thank Louisa Wall.

The other issue Louisa raised is the 12 months. Around the world, six months is the time period that has been used. I agree that for the purposes of insurance, for the number of preparations that people may make when they are ill, they want to be able to have 12 months or even longer to prepare for their departure from this world. However, I’m not convinced that it takes more than six months to go through the process of applying to become eligible for an assisted death and having one of those. So I think six months is the best practice around the world and we should keep that.

We saw Simon O’Connor ask why it is that we say that we’re making a lawful process. I think it’s important that legislation communicates to people outside this Chamber what the intentions of elected representatives are. It’s very much the case that we make sure there is a process that is lawful. I guess some people might be pedants and argue about redundancy and drafting but, frankly, I don’t think it serves the committee to have debates at that level. He also said that assisted dying is euphemistic and we should define the process as available. Well, again I point the member—and I said this in my opening address and I knew it would come up—to the interpretation section, where both the process where the person takes the medication that ends their life and the process where the doctor applies it to them are defined. Mr O’Connor, again, mentioned that term “Lethal dose of”, which, of course, is defined in the interpretation section.

I want to turn to David Carter, who is someone I’ve enjoyed a very good relationship with and have had a lot of respect for over a long period of time. Look, I just put two propositions to Mr Carter. One is that people always say that there’s the potential for undetectable coercion. Two things about that: one is that when we look around the world, we don’t find evidence of it, and, second of all, I don’t believe that it’s a standard that people apply to other aspects of law. They certainly don’t apply it to any of the other medical decisions that people make, and if they did, the entire field of medicine would be unworkable. I think if the member’s been prepared to preside over a set of statutes since 1994 that allow all of those things, then I’d urge them to consider this bill by the same standards.

Second of all, the faith in palliative care. I’m a big fan of palliative care. I’ve got great faith in palliative care, but I want to point out to the member that while there are many, many successful instances of palliative care giving people good deaths—in fact, those are by far and away the majority. In the Lecretia Seales court case it was accepted by both sides, uncontested as evidence, that palliative care is great for many but it does not work for all. Lecretia Seales, of course, was one of those very public exceptions.

We then got to Alfred Ngaro, who said that we should, according to the parliamentary prayer, lay aside all private and personal interests. I agree with him completely. He said that the Attorney-General had said that we were going to get possible litigation on the age, because the Attorney-General section 7 report recommended an age of 16 rather than 18, according to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I think we need to remind Mr Ngaro of why we’re here: we’re here because Lecretia Seales and her legal team took a case to the High Court calling on the Bill of Rights, arguing or claiming that Lecretia Seales’ rights under the Act had been violated by Parliament’s laws. The judge said, “I’m not going to make laws; you have to go to Parliament”.

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

DAVID SEYMOUR: Thank you, Mr Chair. I finished with a couple of calls just addressing some of the issues that had been raised by members in regard to Part 1 of the End of Life Choice Bill. In the first hour or so of the debate, I addressed things that have been said by Chris Penk, Louisa Wall, Simon O’Connor, David Carter, and Alfred Ngaro. I was about to get to responding to comments made by Poto Williams.

Poto Williams, I think, really made two important points. One is that death is very difficult, regardless of how it happens. There’s a paradox about it that Poto brought up, which is that on the one hand, you want to see one’s relatives stop suffering; on the other hand, as soon as they’re gone, you wish that they could come back. It’s a very difficult and paradoxical process that is part of the human condition. One of the things I’d say to Poto Williams and people that listen to her comments is that it is undeniably true that people come to the topic of death with a variety of perspectives, lived-experiences, faiths, and also a variety of practical situations—different conditions and different circumstances.

What this bill is about is giving choice and safety, giving people an ability to make a particular choice should it suit them. It doesn’t take anything away from all of the other choices people might have; it gives an additional choice to some people who might want it. I would put it to Poto Williams that for some people in certain circumstances—people of certain perspectives on the world—this is a choice that makes this suffering that much less than it currently has to be.

Poto Williams also said that we need to debate on the facts, something that we heard in the second reading very strongly from Deborah Russell in her contribution. I completely agree. I’ll make a quick comment that, on all of the issues that are debated on this particular topic, there is always speculation about what might happen were New Zealand to change its laws. But when we evaluate that speculation, we should always have reference to the considerable body of empirical evidence that has been formed in countries around the world—countries that are inhabited now by some 200 million people; countries that, in some cases, have had assisted dying laws on their books in operation for 20 years. That is where we should look if we want to demystify or clarify what we might think the outcomes of an assisted dying law in New Zealand should be.

Finally, Lawrence Yule made a contribution in regard to the Supplementary Order Paper that he and Louisa Wall have jointly covered. I’ve already addressed that Supplementary Order Paper to some extent, and that makes a response to Lawrence Yule’s views. But Lawrence also acknowledged something very important: that there is considerable support, and that we do owe it to think very carefully about the people at home and what it is that they might want, especially those who want choice. Thank you, Mr Chair.

SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Chair, for an opportunity to take a call on the End of Life Choice Bill. This is the first time and opportunity I’ve had to take a call on this bill. I come to this bill with a sad heart. This is not the type of legislation that I came to Parliament to debate. This, in my opinion, is one of the darker days in this Parliament’s Chamber, where we are debating legislation to do with the death of people caused by other citizens of this country.

I come to this debate and I challenge members who voted for the second reading of this bill to take calls, because many of them acknowledged they had concerns over the way that this bill was drafted. They had concerns over some of the safeguards—that they did not go far enough. And this is the opportunity they wanted, to be able to come down to this House, and to be able to make amendments to this piece of legislation. Well, tonight is that opportunity. Tonight is the opportunity for members of Parliament to come here and to propose Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), to explain their concerns, to have those addressed, and convince other members that those changes should be made.

I acknowledge the sponsor of the bill has tabled a large SOP with a number of changes—I believe around 30 changes in that Supplementary Order Paper. But I also note that that was only tabled yesterday. I have tabled a number of Supplementary Order Papers on this bill, and I intend to speak to them. I think it is important to highlight and to use this opportunity to highlight the danger that this bill does pose to vulnerable New Zealanders. I would like to highlight the Human Rights Commission, which defines a person as vulnerable if that person has been diagnosed with a chronic illness or a terminal illness.

So if the Parliament does accept the change which Mr Seymour is proposing, which is to limit this bill only to those with terminal illnesses, we are talking about vulnerable New Zealanders here tonight. One of the Supplementary Order Papers that I would like to speak to is in regards to clause 4, which does say that those vulnerable New Zealanders who would be entitled to this choice should have a terminal illness which will only give them up to six months left to live. That Supplementary Order Paper 282 proposes to replace six months with one month.

I bring this Supplementary Order Paper to this Chamber because I do believe that this is something which would actually, if this bill were to pass, put in place legislation which is for those who do genuinely only have a short amount of time left to live, rather than those who have up to six months.

I note that in the select committee report, which has been tabled, there were numerous submissions from doctors and medical experts who highlighted the difficulty in giving a prognosis of six months. It is, I think, highlighted particularly with the case of Lecretia Seales, who was diagnosed with weeks to live in March 2011, who then went on to live for three years. I acknowledge the campaign and the issue that she had been championing and she did champion. However, that in itself does highlight one of the weaknesses in this piece of legislation, which I do think members of Parliament do need to take very seriously.

This Supplementary Order Paper limits the risk of misdiagnosis. It limits the risk of diagnoses being made which are incorrect. It limits this risk substantially. There were people who came to the select committee who even had stories where there were family members who had been given months to live who are still alive today, and those diagnoses were given years ago.

I fear that vulnerable New Zealanders will be taking this choice upon themselves based on information which doctors themselves say is difficult to provide—diagnoses which are difficult to make. It puts enormous pressure and responsibility on our medical professionals who, under this legislation, will have to make these diagnoses, because, at the end of the day, this is a life and death situation. I ask members to support this Supplementary Order Paper.

Hon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that. When members debated the second reading of this bill in the House a few weeks ago, this Chamber was packed, and so was the public gallery. I imagine that as tonight wears on, both will fill again, and I certainly hope they will, because this is such a significant issue that we are considering.

On that particular night, I listened for most of the evening, and then towards the end of the debate I sought a call on several occasions, but I was unsuccessful because, of course, there were so many members who wanted to take the call and it was a time-limited debate. So, as with my colleague Simeon Brown, this is my first opportunity to contribute to the debate. And just as the Rt Hon David Carter did before the dinner adjournment when he mentioned it was his first contribution—he set out a few general principles explaining why he was opposing the bill—I’d like to do the same, because we are on Part 1 where we’re talking about the purpose of the bill, so I think there is a degree of flexibility there.

Before we get into some of the more specific provisions, I think it’s important that each member puts on record what it is that underpins their view. I want to say right from the outset I am a person of faith and, yes, that’s in part how I have reached my opinion. But to those who have communicated with me—and there’s been one or two members of Parliament who have said, “Well, you’ve got to put that to one side because that’s of no bearing.”—I say, “Well, how on earth can you put something that is absolutely fundamental to who you are to one side?” I can’t do that. But I also want to stress that I don’t actually think that that’s the main reason why I have reached the view that I have, and I’ll try to cover a few of these in this call.

I do want to say that I not only acknowledge the absolute sincerity of the member in charge of the bill and admire the way in which he has in the main gone about promoting this issue, because I think it’s taken its personal toll. I do admire his generosity of spirit in declining a ministerial position in the last Government in order to promote something that he felt was very important. That’s admirable. I’ve seldom seen that in this House, and so I do commend him for that.

I also want to say that on the night of the second reading, I thought it was Parliament at its best. Regardless of those who spoke for or against the argument, I felt that the views that were expressed that night were compelling, sincere, extraordinarily well presented, and I also thought that all other members listened with great respect and sensitivity to the views that were put forward.

I want to acknowledge Deborah Russell. I didn’t agree with the final point that she made—and I think I’ve already dealt with that in this contribution—but I thought most of her speech was outstanding, and that was true of so many. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and the Hon Poto Williams, who tonight has spoken in ways that I think are deeply moving, and that is true of so many. I shouldn’t single people out, because I was very impressed and, as I say, I thought that it was Parliament at its best and I felt proud to be a part of it—of a discussion of that nature.

All of the contributions I felt were sincere and compelling, but I also want to acknowledge that that reflects the way New Zealanders generally have approached this issue. We have as members of Parliament been “bombarded”—I hope that’s not too negative a term, but we have literally received so many hundreds, thousands of emails and phone calls and letters from people on both sides of this issue. I’d like to say to New Zealanders who may be listening at home or watching on the television, “We have listened to you. We have reflected on the views that you’ve put to us. We do understand the sincerity which has led you to communicate with us.” The fact of the matter is the moment any one of us stands up tonight to take a call, we know that we are going to disappoint tens of thousands of New Zealanders. That, sadly, is absolutely inevitable.

To those who have said—and we’ve had a few calls and emails on this—that we must listen to a particular opinion poll because that tells us the way we should all be voting, or we must reflect on the majority of submissions and the tenor of those submissions because that tells us what New Zealanders are thinking, I say no; they’re all important. Of course we reflect on them. Of course we respect them. But ultimately, as members of Parliament we must be true to our own consciences. Ultimately, we must look within ourselves to our own values and reach our own conclusions and then be accountable to our electorates. I have said on more than one occasion to people who said, “Well, I’ll never vote for you again if you go that way.”, “Well, that’s fine. You have that right, and I encourage you to stick to your principles and, if necessary, go and vote for somebody else at the next election.” But I will be true to my principles. I will articulate them as clearly as I can, and that, I think, is what is required of us all in a conscience vote.

I wasn’t at that time—although I am now—a member of the Justice Committee. I did nevertheless take the opportunity whenever the justice subcommittee came to my city of Hamilton—and I think that was on three different occasions—to become a sub on the committee so that I could hear what my constituents were saying and I was deeply moved. [Bell rung] Mr Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Tim Macindoe.

Hon TIM MACINDOE: Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to continue. Those who submitted in my city I’m sure were typical of people submitting all around the country. They were there in large numbers and their submissions were really heartfelt. Many of those who submitted had profound disabilities. Many of those had either nursed or witnessed a very painful, difficult death of somebody they loved and cared about deeply. It’s impossible not to be moved by those circumstances—as a result of which I want to say that even though I personally cannot for a number of reasons support this bill, I have the greatest of respect for those who do, and I have the greatest of respect for those who came to our subcommittees and who submitted to us who have reached a different view.

I have been in the home of constituents—one in particular who I remember, but I mustn’t name of course, who was in the final stages of a difficult death, and I wept with her over her circumstances. I don’t say that to be overly emotional; I just say it because I think that when we’ve had that extraordinary privilege of being that close to the issue, we cannot help but be deeply moved by it. So I do fundamentally respect the views of those who have reached a different conclusion from mine.

As I said, all MPs have been communicated with at great length and by many, many people around the country. I want to apologise to those who may be listening who will say, “Well, he didn’t reply to mine.” I did reply to hundreds of emails and letters, but I’m afraid I received thousands, and to those who I couldn’t reply to, I’m sorry; the spirit was willing but the task was impossible.

Last year, I held a very well attended forum in my city of Hamilton, attended by about 300 people. I want to thank David Seymour, who attended and, along with a well-respected Hamilton doctor, Dr Jack Havill, put the case for the bill. I acknowledge my very good friend and colleague Simon O’Connor, the member for Tāmaki, who at that stage was the chair of the Health Committee, who along with Dr Lara Hoskins, who is an equally respected consultant in the Waikato Hospital palliative care team, put the case against the bill.

We had, as I say, 300 people there of differing opinions. At the start of the forum, I asked them all to fill in a form to express their views on the issue and whether they had formed a view. I did that again at the end, and it was very interesting to see how many had shifted. The fact of the matter was a number had come along being undecided, and some had decided in favour of the bill, some had favoured it and decided against—in other words, the majority were no longer undecided.

What I hadn’t told them was that at the end of the event, I also intended to ask them the question of whether they would like to see this issue decided by MPs alone or by a referendum of all New Zealanders. I’m going to make myself unpopular, I know, with some of my colleagues on this side and on the other side of the Chamber by saying that, ultimately, I came to the view that I would feel far more comfortable—and that I think New Zealanders would feel far more comfortable—if everyone had a right to decide this issue.

While I want to be able to stay true to my own conscience, I don’t believe that my views should have any greater sway in this particular instance than any other New Zealander, and therefore I will, if we’re given the opportunity, support the option to go to a referendum, assuming that the vast majority of people will take an intelligent interest and attend meetings and study the issue carefully, because, ultimately, I think New Zealanders will accept the outcome with a greater degree of comfort if they feel that they’ve all had a chance to have a say in it rather than just 120 of us.

Nobody asked me my view on this issue at the last election. Why not—because it wasn’t an election issue. We didn’t know that we were going to be dealing with this particular bill. Suddenly, soon after the election, it was thrust upon us, and here we are in a position where 120 of us are having to make a decision on one of the most profound issues of our time without really having a mandate from our electorate. But as I say, I still believe that in conscience issues, we must as MPs form our own particular view.

The Rt Hon David Carter before dinner made a comment that I thought was very, very important. He said that no one can give us a cast-iron assurance that a vulnerable New Zealander won’t be coerced into agreeing to have their life terminated when this bill is passed—if it is passed. While I understand that there are arguments on the other side, I do think that we need to reflect deeply on that comment, because it is so true.

I want to respond to the many New Zealanders who have said that this is all about choice and to accept their argument that those who choose not to consider assisted dying are free to hold to that position but shouldn’t deny others who have a different view on assisted death and that option. On a superficial level that sounds fair, but I think it’s flawed. Unfortunately, I’m running out of time. I may have a chance to return to it at a later point.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I welcome this opportunity to engage on Part 1, and particularly the provisions that set down and define who it is that will be able to get the assisted suicide that’s provided for in this bill.

During my second reading speech, I made the very strong point that a fundamental part of New Zealand’s Kiwi values is a respect for life. What we see in clause 4 of this bill is a watering down of the protections that have long existed to ensure that our country treats human life with that respect. Now, the member in the chair told us when this bill was introduced that he had this definition 100 percent right. He was absolutely confident that the definition that we debate this evening on clause 4 was right. Yet what we see, as we see in other jurisdictions, is that the moment we go down this road of saying that assisted suicide is OK in some cases, we have an awful job in trying to define where in that grey space we should be. What we see already in the multiple Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs), including my own on clause 4, is that there is huge variation and judgment about who and who should not be eligible for assisted suicide.

Now, my concerns are this: the basics of this bill depend on a level of certainty from medical practitioners that does not exist. That is, at the select committee we heard from not hundreds but actually over a thousand different medical practitioners, who said that when we put in a law and say that this law on this assisted suicide should only apply to people, for instance, that have six months or less to live. The mover and supporters of the bill say “Well, that’s great. Nobody who’s got more than six months to live is going to be covered by this bill.” Well, that’s not true. The medical profession has made plain to the select committee and to the Parliament that these medical judgments are not 100 percent accurate, whether it is the judgment about the length of life that person has to live, whether it is the judgment whether that person is being coerced or is being inappropriately influenced, or the judgment—and actually one of the most difficult judgments is that judgment—as to whether a person is of sound mind. I’ll be upfront: if the doctors tomorrow gave me a terminal diagnosis, I would be depressed. I really would be finding it really tough. I’m not sure that I would say that I was of good sound mind to make a judgment about a suicide in my life. I think that would be true for many people when these difficult life and death questions are there.

So I say to this Parliament: if you really believe that we have a duty to protect life, and that this law would fail if even a single person dies when they did not intend to or should not have, then we need to be upfront that these provisions in Part 1 cannot give—impossible to be ever—100 percent surety that mistakes will not be made. I invite members to look at the very good evidence that was provided to the select committee in overseas jurisdictions about that very question. There is not 100 percent certainty. I just seek honesty from the proponents of this bill, including the member in the chair, to accept this fact. If this Part 1 is passed, there will be people who do not meet this criteria whose lives are terminated prematurely—have that honesty. Just in the same way in other areas of law, we need to be upfront that if we pass this law there will be people whose lives are lost, who are dead, from which there is no recourse, and that is something that this Parliament is prepared to accept. If we do not accept that reality, we are actually denying what this part says.

Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): I’d like to continue the theme of the difficulties of determining somebody who has less than six months to live, but as this is the first time I have spoken at all on this bill, I’d like to just commence with a few opening remarks. Colleagues and the public are aware of my own opposition to this bill, and that’s not going to change throughout the passage of this legislation. That said, I am going to bring an amendment to Part 2 to expand on the member’s sensible suggestion on conscientious objection. I’ll discuss that at the appropriate time.

Members on this side of the Chamber have heard of a couple of stories over the weekend, very heartfelt stories, of people I’ve come to know very well. One is Tracey Elliot, who has advanced breast cancer and is terminal, but was told in 2014 that she had just days to live. We all know about Blair Vining and the fact that he was told that without treatment, he had less than eight weeks to live, and even with treatment, frankly, I don’t think the best prognosis would have been that eight months later, struggling though he is with his health, that he would still be here. So I support Dr Smith’s concerns about the arbitrary nature of the determination of a terminal illness.

Now, as some members know, I have run surgical and aged-care facilities. I look at this from a sort of bioethical lens. One of those specific bioethical principles is the principle of double effect. In plain English, that means it’s OK to administer a treatment that has the primary effect of alleviating pain even if the secondary effect is the unwanted life shortening. In fact, sometimes some people would consider that that would actually terminate someone’s life. I suggest—in fact, I’d submit to the committee—that that’s actually a bit of a myth. The best evidence is that palliative sedation and pain management does not hasten deaths, and that’s the outcome of many, many studies. It’s a bit of a myth that somehow if we were to inject a bolus of morphine into someone that’s under pain relief, needing of pain relief, that that could kill them. In nearly no case does that occur. I’m very happy to cite the international research that underpins that.

The problem is, and it was brought up in a debate that I had with Mr Seymour in Timaru last year, that actually not even doctors are that well versed in this issue. It underscores to me the real need, the absolute need, for better training of palliative care in this country, and the dignified end of life care and support that is required for anyone that is going on that journey. What worries me about this is that while we have a bill that restricts, through clause 4, the eligible people for whom this bill will apply, there’s no doubt that this won’t be the end of the story. The select committee—and I only sat on a subcommittee in Dunedin—heard some fantastic submissions. Those submitters in favour of this bill suggested that there were many other factors that should be taken into account, including a desire to save families from watching. This is in addition to the grievous and irremediable suffering that they are perceived to be going through. A desire to save families from watching a family member suffer, a desire to avoid placing an undue burden on the health system, wanting to avoid being a burden on families, the right of those with chronic mental illnesses to choose end of life options, and the fear of the effects of dementia on the patient and their families—those were just an example of the sorts of submissions that the committees heard were preferred, as well as grievous and remedial suffering. I’m sorry to have to confirm, in my view at least, to the committee that this, regardless of what happens, if this bill passes into law, will be by no means the end of the discussion. There will be further attempts, I think, to broaden out. It’s that that worries me greatly, because doctors did not come to their professions to do anything harmful. I did not come to this House to enable life to be ended.

KIRITAPU ALLAN (Labour): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai. Tuatahi, ā, ka huri ake au ki ngā tāngata i tino māuiui i tēnei wā. Kua kite a rātou i tēnei taupatupatu i tēnei pō, ā, ka nui aku mihi atu ki a rātou.

[Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I turn to the people who are very sick at the moment. They have seen this debate tonight, and I would like to strongly acknowledge them.]

I thought it’d be appropriate to, I guess, share some thoughts and ask the member who has presented this bill before the House a couple of questions this evening. I didn’t take the opportunity in the first reading to add my voice to this Chamber, but I want to commend you, David, for the work that you’ve done in this very challenging area. It’s an emotive one, and one that can be taken over by emotions when the issues that we have been asked to consider as legislators go a lot further, I think, than the hyperbolic rhetoric that can sometimes overtake the debate. So I want to commend you on the way that you’ve conducted yourself through the course of the time that you’ve been championing this bill.

I was one of the people that voted No at the last reading, and I voted No because I wasn’t satisfied with the bill and where it got to at the end of the select committee process. I made the decision for myself that at every opportunity I would consider what we had before us at each stage, and at that stage I was not of the view that there were sufficient protections in place for some of those people that are most vulnerable.

I want to commend the member for some of the amendments that you’ve made to that bill that we were asked to consider at the second reading, in particular the amendments to clause 4(1)(c), the definition of who is eligible for assisted dying, and the inclusion of new clause 4(2) in terms of some of the issues I think many members of this Chamber questioned in terms of the mental disorder, mental illness, and so on and so forth. So I just want to thank you and acknowledge you for those amendments in terms of addressing some of our concerns.

That said, I still have some fundamental concerns, I think, with this bill, and for me, after a lot of soul-searching, it’s come down to, I think, the role that the medical practitioners play. I want to thank my colleagues Louisa Wall and Lawrence Yule, under the guidance of Paul von Dadelszen and Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Morally, for me, this isn’t an issue around morality, but process-wise, in determining who, in fact, is the best person to make the determination about whether somebody should or could make the choice to end their life—that’s the issue that I’ve been focused on. I want to commend my colleague Louisa and my colleague Lawrence—sorry, the member Lawrence Yule. The approach that they’ve taken, and it is one that goes down the Family Court route—and I hear the opposition in terms of, ultimately, it could be quite a judicial route, quite confrontational, and unnecessarily so.

I had the opportunity to work for a couple of years under Paul von Dadelszen, who at that time was the Deputy Principal Family Court Judge in New Zealand. Part of his role was to go in and deal with folks who were compulsorily sanctioned. I watched, under his guidance, how New Zealand already has a legal regime that enables the court and the judiciary to deal with people who are in very vulnerable stages of their lives, and to do so in a very compassionate way that is not adversarial, as a lot of the dicta that have come from this Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) might suggest. Some of the provisions that are in the member Louisa Wall’s SOP provide the discretion of the judiciary to be able to go to people in the most appropriate fora, whether that be their homes, the hospice, or so on and so forth. That, essentially, is already a process or an infrastructure that our legal system already has.

I step back and I ask myself: why am I so concerned about the distinction between the role of the medical profession in contrast to the role of the legal profession or the judiciary in making that determination? Perhaps it’s a little Old Testament - like, and we’re living in a New Testament - like world, but if you strip it back to the Hippocratic oath—and, look, I know that there’s a lot of comments that can be made about that, but the medical profession, in its basis and its foundation, was essentially one that was focused around the preservation of life. In contrast, the legal profession is one that is, on its daily basis, required to look at matters factually. It’s asked to consider a whole range of issues, look at the law, apply the law, apply those legal principles, and make a determination. That’s what that profession is geared up to. In contrast, the medical profession—and, look, yes, so the Hippocratic oath, it’s a little dated, and I know that there’ll be some comments that come out from those that say, yeah, like I said, it’s a little Old Testament, but it still provides the foundation for the medical practitioners’ code of ethics now. In there still is the overarching—I think you can pull away and say that there’s an overarching consideration that, again, is around the preservation of life but also ensuring, you know, the rights and dignity of those that require medical attention.

I think that the SOP that my colleagues have presented before this committee for consideration is one that provides some security that citizens that do want to make that determination, they can have a medical practitioner provide their medical reports, and that goes towards a factual inquiry. You have a judicial person to make the determination, and on the facts and on the basis of the lawmaker’s determination, I think that that is a much better approach in these circumstances. I know that’s not the member’s view who’s introduced this bill to the House.

On that basis, I then am required to look at the range of other SOPs that are before this House, and I’ve considered them all in detail, and some I’ll vote for and some I’ll vote against—I won’t go into those depths. But, I guess, from the member tonight I am interested in particular on what your considerations were in terms of having the discretion be reserved to those in the legal profession and from the judiciary. The role of the medical practitioners—and we have heard substantive views from the medical practitioners in their profession about the discomfort that they might be put into. There might be multiple views there, but I am interested in what your considerations were there.

I do, I guess, want to say, as a caution for the full House—whether you’re for or against or any which way—that we were fortunate to, I think, at the second reading, be a little devoid of some of the emotional rhetoric, and I pray that that is a practice that we maintain as we progress through this committee stage. So those are my questions for the member. Tēnā koe.

BRETT HUDSON (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. I appreciate that. This is my first call on this bill as it’s proceeded through. Unlike some members, this was a topic that was raised very often during the election campaign in Ōhāriu. In fact, I don’t think I can recall a single public meeting where we weren’t asked for our view on this bill. I said at that time—and I continue to maintain and it is my fundamental view—that people are their own independent beings. They are the masters of their own destiny. Where they are able to exercise choice in their lives, they should be free to do so, free from influence of Government. I’m a believer that less Government is more. We need as much Government in our life as necessary, and no more. I hold the exact same view for the courts.

My concerns that I expressed at the time were, essentially, in three areas. One was around the principle of safeguards, particularly around coercion but also around a broad-based eligibility that could allow a simple choice other than for a cause that was going to be terminal in a more immediate sense. So it’s to that particular matter that I want to turn in this contribution, because I want to talk to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 on Part 1, and particularly clause 4(1)(c), from the member in the chair, David Seymour.

The member has chosen and I know publicly he’s stated that, while it wasn’t his preference and perhaps still isn’t, in order to achieve broad support for this bill, he was prepared, and has done so through this SOP, to limit the scope of the eligibility for assisted dying under this bill, and it restricts that solely to someone suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end that person’s life within six months. That achieves all that I sought and I spoke to constituents at the time and since about the issue about broad-based eligibility, and I commend the member for making that choice.

It also, in my view, means that we don’t face, should this bill pass into law, the issue of a judicially-based scope creep to this legislation. It simply can’t happen. But it absolutely was a risk, in my view, when the grievous and irremediable condition existed, because the only way that condition could’ve been properly tested would’ve been in a court. But the idea of suffering from a terminal illness that is likely to end a person’s life is a diagnosis from a suitably qualified medical practitioner. The scope for a court in the future to extend or broaden the scope of cover is fundamentally addressed through this change—and, again, I commend the member in the chair for doing so.

I come to clause 4(2), an element which I think could be described as a belt and braces approach. I think clause 4(1)(c) sufficiently narrows the scope that 4(2) isn’t absolutely necessary, but I think it is helpful. It’s helpful for members in this Chamber as we debate this, but it’s particularly helpful for members of the public, who perhaps peruse legislation far less than we do, to know with absolute certainty that these conditions will, on their own—in fact, while they’re already excluded because of 4(1)(c), there’s just that almost double statement, which absolutely clarifies that position.

So the member, in his SOP to Part 1, has met one of my fundamental tests of “Could I go from qualified and conditional support to a statement that the bill is moving in a direction where I can continue that support and support it quite strongly?” I can, and I commend the member for listening to the concerns of other members of the public as well as members of this House. It will obviously change the scope quite considerably, but it certainly, I believe, presents a bill to the House which is more acceptable to members, particularly, perhaps, some members who have been somewhat equivocal in their support, waiting to see, as I was and have been, the condition, the state, that this bill would exit this stage of proceedings before finally determining support or otherwise for it. So I certainly commend the member for the change he is proposing.

PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you, Mr Chair. It’s an absolute privilege to be able to stand and speak about this bill in this committee, and I start by raising concern about the sponsor of the bill’s statement and position that medical doctors who have, even for the first time, held a practising certificate is sufficient. He was stating this in reaction to the point made by my colleague Chris Penk, where there have been Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) asserting for a prescription of qualifications or qualities of the medical profession that are to be involved in making this decision. So I raise the SOPs Nos 267 and 274 particularly, as they seek to prescribe for medical practitioners that they have held over a period of five years a practising certificate, and, for psychiatrists, that they have not been the subject of a written complaint to any relevant professional body in relation to anything done or failed to have been done in accordance with, or nominally in accordance with, this bill.

The object of trying to prescribe qualifications like these really goes to the possibility of the people having direct opportunity to determine the capacity of the person asking for assisted suicide or the provisioning of a lethal dose of medication to end their lives. The Oregon Public Health Division report from 2018 actually confirmed that, in practice, over the entire period the law has been in operation in Oregon, psychological concerns far outweighed related physical pain amongst the patients who were assisted in their suicide. According to the report, during 2018, the four most frequently reported end of life concerns and reasons for seeking assisted suicide were loss of autonomy, with 91.7 percent; decreasing ability to participate in activities that make life enjoyable, with 90.5 percent; loss of dignity, with 66.7 percent; and being a burden on family and friends or caregivers, with 56 percent. These were the main drivers of the decisions of many in Oregon over the lifespan of that law there.

I have heard and taken into consideration the life experiences of many members, and I would like to mention at this point that I do have life experiences as well in this regard. My mother is almost blind. She’s 86. She has a tumour growing in her lung, which we expect to escalate very, very quickly. My mother-in-law, whom I love as my mother, died of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). She had ALS. She had been diagnosed, and from the point of diagnosis she was said to have just a little time left. The message that I would like to bring to all the members is that while we may be looking out for ourselves or family members or people that we love and know, we don’t want them to suffer. I would like to suggest that this matter of death isn’t exactly, and always will be, just about us; it isn’t exactly just about us and what we feel and what our relations—[Time expired]

Hon TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora, Mr Chair, thank you very much. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First, to add our voice to the conversation this evening. I want to be very clear: New Zealand First members do not have a bulk position on the content of this bill. I take on board Mr Hudson’s contribution that this issue has come up during election discussions, not only in the last election but in the previous one; and as a New Zealand First MP, and my colleagues have done the same, we’ve answered that with what has been the standard policy of New Zealand First around this particular issue, knowing that New Zealand First MPs have brought this issue, in history, to this place—and that is that we believe that it is too large an issue for temporarily empowered MPs to make for the New Zealand public.

So my New Zealand First colleagues have delegated me to make sure that I put on the Hansard that New Zealand First will support David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259. We thank the member for listening, as others have thanked him. New Zealand First—as it’ll be no surprise to anybody who’s been listening to us over the last so many years—believe that this should go to a referendum, and we believe that the New Zealand public should have the best possible bill to consider at that referendum; for them to give their view, for them to give their opinion, they will be as informed as the majority of the members of this House. So New Zealand First will support David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259, because we want that bill placed in front of the New Zealand public. We believe that the member has listened to the submissions that have been brought forward, to the concerns not only of those who submitted but also of members of this House, and we believe he has done his best to represent what is the intent that he brings to this topic.

So I don’t feel that I need to contribute more. I feel I’ve made it clear why New Zealand First and the members of the New Zealand First caucus—dependent on a Supplementary Order Paper under Jenny Marcroft’s name—will vote in favour of this bill. In the first instance, we will vote in favour of David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper 259. We will also be advocating for support of Supplementary Order Paper 287, which would mean that this legislation would not be enacted until it had a majority Yes vote, at a referendum, by the New Zealand public. If that referendum did not take place within a five-year period, this legislation would be repealed.

Rt Hon DAVID CARTER (National): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I have a question of David Seymour. Following his answer, certainly, I want to congratulate him for the way he systematically went through the queries that were raised. I also want to congratulate all members. As I said in my earlier contribution, these conscience debates bring out the best debate in this House. It’s a serious issue that’s been taken, but there’s respect for both points of view.

When I spoke earlier, I spoke about my fear of coercion. David Seymour attempted to answer that by saying that there is no evidence of coercion—people being coerced to feel the pressure, frequently because, perhaps, dependents are looking for an early divvy of an inheritance. So in saying there is no coercion, I assume he’s referring to evidence that’s collected from other jurisdictions that have had this legislation in place. My serious question is: how would you ever collect evidence as to whether a person has been coerced to accept euthanasia—because they’re not there to answer the question?

I give the member an example that I’ve watched in the media over the last couple of days. You frequently, sadly, see it, where a person dies and then a disputed family—particularly, a disputed family member—will contest that will into the courts, and I think there’s been one on either Stuff or in the New Zealand Herald in the last few days, and in this particular case, and it’s in many others, the courts have actually decided that the person writing the will was coerced, was put pressure on to change, perhaps cut one descendant out etc., and the courts have made that will null and void.

But in the case of somebody elected to undergo euthanasia: (a) there is no way you can seek the evidence from the person who’s deceased; and (b) if you could—but you can’t—the decision is, obviously, absolutely irreversible. So I seriously ask the member if he would take a call to answer my question, when he says, “Don’t be worried about coercion. There is no evidence of coercion.”, how, possibly, could that evidence be collated?

LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I do acknowledge that I’ve had two calls, but just to let the committee know that if Part 1 of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) is out of order because David Seymour’s Supplementary Order Paper is voted on in the affirmative, then I won’t participate in the rest of the debate to push what we’ve been trying to do through our SOP, which, essentially, is to create another lawful process, and, in fact, I want to focus on that.

But before I do so, I just want to make a mention about the use of the word “suicide” in the Chamber tonight. A lot of people have talked about this being suicide. In fact, that was one of the rationales for the legislative reform in Canada, because people actually were suiciding because they didn’t have a choice, and they were taking their lives months before it was necessary, because there were no other options. So what I want to highlight about this bill is that the qualification is that you have a terminal illness, and then, obviously, we’re trying to create a lawful process, a lawful mechanism that then gives effect to a medical procedure. That medical procedure, as outlined in David Seymour’s SOP, is the administration by a medical practitioner of medication to relieve a person’s suffering; or the self-administration by the person. So to categorise that as suicide, I actually am incredibly offended.

Suicide by our experience of it here in New Zealand, are people who are traumatised, who have hurts, and who actually choose to die. As I’ve said earlier tonight, if you’re faced with a terminal illness, this isn’t a life and death decision; it’s a death decision and it is about how and when, as a person who has a terminal illness, you will die, and trying to give that person a sense of control over a situation that actually is incredibly uncontrollable. So the proposition, I think, we all need to consider tonight is: should someone with a terminal illness have that right to choose how and when they die?

That gave effect to the SOP that Lawrence Yule and I created, because, essentially, we suggest it does; but, obviously, it does have to have a context around it. And so for us it was about the patient and a medical practitioner involved in their care—whether that be their GP or an oncologist or a palliative care specialist, whoever—with their whānau, being able to apply to the Family Court, jointly, meeting certain criteria: that is they have a terminal illness, exhausted all possible treatment options—there aren’t any more options left that the public good provides—and that they were receiving palliative care. So we thought, as a context that would be permissive, right?

So then, I guess, the issue is what is the best mechanism? We thought it was the Family Court. I want to acknowledge my colleague Kiri Allan for talking about the Family Court and what Family Court judges have done within the context of the Mental Health (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 1992, because, in fact, within the context of legislation, to get a compulsory treatment, order applied for by a relative of a person, essentially it’s a 14-day process where the judge talks to the person, talks to their doctor, and can seek other medical professional advice. But, essentially, that medical procedure means somebody can go into a facility to receive mental health treatment for up to six months. So it’s a familiar process, which is exactly why we thought it would be the best process, from an objective position, to determine whether or not the person who had the terminal illness then could give consent.

I guess the extra criterion that we’ve included in ours is the involvement of, either, a psychiatrist, or a psychologist that, firstly, can attest to the fact that the person has the capacity to give informed consent and then, obviously, whether or not that person thinks the person has given informed consent by applying to the court with their medical profession, for the court then to give consent for that person to die, which is—Mr Chair, I’d like to continue just to explain—[Time expired]

Hon JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you, Mr Chair. I’d just like to start by acknowledging Mr Seymour for his management of the process of this bill. I think that it has brought out the best of this Parliament, and is, actually, Parliament as it should be, as it can be.

I just want to start by speaking to the changes to the bill that he has proposed in his Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259, and I am speaking on behalf of all eight members of Parliament who are members of the Green Party. That is because, although this is a conscience vote, we have been through a process in the Green Party some years ago to come to a position around how we feel about this, and, as a matter of conscience, we are supporting Green Party policy on this. So all Green Party MPs voted to support this bill on second reading so that we could get to this point with the debate in the House, and work towards these kind of amendments, and I really do want to thank David Seymour for his work with us, and with other members of the House to get to this.

As I said, our MPs are guided by a very clear party policy that was developed by our members, and it was a very difficult, and, occasionally, fraught process to arrive at that party policy, and of course it is, because this is a very emotional, and very personal, principles-based, and difficult issue for pretty much everybody. So we recognise that, quite rightfully, it’s one that New Zealanders care a great deal about, and from a number of different perspectives. So obviously where that leaves us is that there will be members of the community, right across the community who are unhappy with (a), where we land, and (b), with different aspects of where we land when we get there.

The policy that we’ve got is that terminally ill New Zealanders should be able to choose their end of life in a supported and an open way in circumstances of their own choosing, as long as there are clear safeguards, and I just wanted to enumerate those. First of all, that they are terminally ill. Second of all, that they are suffering enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them, and cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable. Third, that they have made durable and persistent requests for assistance in dying. Fourth, we also want to see a second opinion that can help confirm that that person has decision-making capability, and, fifth, that they are making an informed decision free from undue influence. The changes that David Seymour has set out in his SOP bring this bill very closely in line with our member-led policy, and that is why we will be supporting this SOP.

We will also be supporting two other SOPs, which closely align with Green Party policy, and they’re both from Simon O’Connor. First, that we make an explicit requirement for an education programme for medical practitioners to complete before administering assisted dying, and, second, to prohibit assisted dying advertisements. So we think those are both very sensible amendments, and we’ll be supporting those as well.

On the referendum SOP, we understand that supporting this is the most likely way to be able to achieve the legislative outcomes to ensure that medically-assisted dying in New Zealand—and for that reason we’ve chosen to support it, even though it wouldn’t be our first preference. I do want to acknowledge that amongst our members, amongst the wider public and supporters of all parties here, there are a diverse range of opinions, and I do want to acknowledge those who have come to us directly with passion, with fear, often, and with anxiety about this issue. I also want to acknowledge that this is an important issue for Māori, for whom issues of individual decision-making, and relationship to iwi and hapū and community cannot be easily disaggregated. So the importance of understanding those connections is an important part to this.

We know that for the disability community, this is a particularly difficult issue, and we would not have been able to support this legislation without restricting it to people who are terminally ill, and that’s because we simply cannot be confident that it wouldn’t further marginalise people with disabilities in the form that it was, up until the amendments that Mr Seymour’s made. We’ve met with the Disability Commissioner, with members of our own Green Party disability network, and with other people in the disability community to talk through what this means, and our policy is explicit that we could not support the extension of medically-assisted dying for people who are not terminally ill, until New Zealand has in place policies and practices that ensure full social inclusion.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Before I give the next call, I’ve noticed people are venturing off outside of Part 1, and I just want to let everyone know, namely, to come back, and just speak specifically to Part 1.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you very much, Mr Chair. I spoke at both of the previous readings, and I’ve outlined many of my concerns, in a general and philosophical sense, against euthanasia and assisted suicide. I have been the deputy chair of the Justice Committee, and have read, and listened to many thousands of submitters, and it is my intention in this call tonight to focus on some of their voices in relation to Part 1. But I would say to colleagues in the Chamber how important it is that we do retain a respectful dialogue here and that we debate things and listen to each other—qualities which are not always seen when we debate bills in the House.

But I, as a member of the select committee, was involved in the gathering of the evidence and the material. The select committee process has come under a lot of criticism, unfairly so. I would like to commend the staff, and the people who have worked extremely hard to do their very best with 39,000 submissions, and the logistics of it have been extraordinary. This document here, which is our report from the Justice Committee, really details, and summarises some of the people who have made submissions, so I urge members to read it, and, also, to understand that we were unable to agree that this bill be passed. Eight people had different views on this matter. It was very appropriate that it comes back to this place, and, in this process, that we all argue through the various points, and have our say, and reflect and channel and advocate for the people whose voices are not always heard in this place, and the people who have strongly submitted to us, that they feel that this is a very dangerous bill, and with many risks. The proposals that have been put forward in the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in the name of the sponsoring member David Seymour, number 259, do not change that. They do not make any material difference to the risks and the dangers that people feel about this bill.

So I would like to start by looking at some of the aspects of this bill, the purpose of the Act: to give persons who have a terminal illness the options. So how do you define “terminal illness”? How do you understand what that means, and, for many occasions, when we were at the select committee process, we had a variety of people who came forward to us, and told us that the prognosis is not an exact science, that doctors, on their own admission, get this sort of thing very wrong, very often. In particular, I’d like to draw the attention of members here tonight to the New Zealand Medical Association’s submission. They talked about “While advances in diagnostic tools and improvements in knowledge [generally] regarding the progression of disease continue, it is still an inexact science.” It is something where “Errors occur and individuals can still prove all of the experts wrong. According to The American Journal of Medicine and [The British Medical Journal] Quality and Safety,11 published studies indicate misdiagnoses occur anywhere from 10-15 percent of the time.” So the idea that anyone would rely on a doctor’s diagnosis of a terminal illness with six months—it is an arbitrary figure. It’s not used internationally. It is one that has no particular application and, really, does not give anyone any real safeguards.

So I think that while the member has pretended, really—or has attempted, perhaps would be a kinder way of putting it—to make the safeguards better by determining that a terminal illness should apply, I think it is still deeply flawed, and there is not anywhere near enough detail involved in that process.

I have looked at a number of elements in Part 1. I’ve put a couple of SOPs in. I’ll talk about the competency one in this call, but I would like to draw attention to Chris Penk’s Supplementary Order Paper 207, which looks to replace the name “End of Life Choice Act 2017” with “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act 2019.” I support that as a Supplementary Order Paper because I believe it tells it like it is. Words are important and definitions are important, and the euphemisms that the member has applied in refusing to use the exact terminology, I think, has really clouded a lot of the important issues that we need to discuss and embrace.

So from the point of view of Supplementary Order Paper 262 I have put in around competency, it looks very much at the Victorian model, which the member has drawn on for his amendment, but it goes into a lot more detail. I think part of the issue—and we heard this from the Alzheimer’s society, who made several submissions to us on this subject, and it’s part of the major issue for them—is the issue of competency and how on earth you tell that somebody has reached the point where they are no longer able to decide. The pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives—[Bell rung]

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): The Hon Maggie Barry.

Hon MAGGIE BARRY: Thank you, Mr Chair. The competency issues that they drew our attention to include four main points, and I would like to spell those out in some detail because I think that they are not well served within this bill. It is a weak piece of legislation, and the new definitions don’t change that.

They’ve talked about a lack of a cooling-off period. So in other jurisdictions—and remembering there are only 5 percent of the world’s jurisdictions that have gone down the euthanasia path; many billions of people manage to live very safely without it. And, by the way, if we do bring it in, there’s no going back, so that’s another reason why we need to pay particular attention to this.

But the nature of the tests for mental capacity, Alzheimer’s New Zealand told us, were very inexact. The tests are either open to question or they really don’t exist. This is from the body of experts. So psychogeriatricians typically would have a half a dozen episodes and appointments with people. I know with my own mother, who had dementia, it was a very long, slow process to reach a diagnosis. It’s not something that can be done in one or two sessions with a doctor. So good and safe decisions currently are not capable of being done under one or two appointments. That is a very clear point from Alzheimer’s New Zealand.

Also, people’s ability to understand can vary over time from complete to non-existent, and it depends on the day. These are the factors and the sorts of details that need to be incorporated if we want to have any sense at all that this is safe for people with dementia conditions.

Competence as a definition may provide little protection for vulnerable individuals was another point that the dementia groups made to us—that a small number of physicians making euthanasia their core business could result in people or families seeking out doctors to facilitate that easy path.

And I come back to the point the Rt Hon David Carter and others have made about coercion. Elder abuse in this country has far too many victims. Many of the people that perpetrate it are from within their own families—something like 75 percent of the people who are abusers are family members. When it comes to dementia and the subtleties around that and the easy ability to confuse, as we see from the Alzheimer’s society, there are no genuine ways in a very short appointment where doctors will be able to make use of what is a very low threshold for competence in this bill. In fact, as has been pointed out, it is easier to open a bank account than it is to get euthanasia under the provisions that exist in this bill.

The other point that they make: temporarily or partially impaired individuals are also at risk. So for those of us who know about people with dementia, we know that from time to time, from day to day, where their mood varies and where they might be upset with infections and so forth, their competency flies out the door, and it is apparent. Then they go back to another state where it becomes extremely difficult to gather whether they really do understand what is being put to them or not. So in the Supplementary Order Paper I’ve put forward, I want to emphasise that practicable and appropriate support really does need to embrace all of the information and the formats to give it the time to really process the information: to go back to the patient, to get psychogeriatricians, to get the right people in there to make decisions around whether somebody is competent or not to make an informed decision.

So the jurisdictions that have dealt with euthanasia and have had tests around dementia have not come up with particularly good ones. I know that in places like Holland, for example, they grapple with this all the time. The likelihood of people arriving on the right side of the ledger, and determining whether somebody wants to actually have assisted suicide or not, is an extremely difficult thing to do. So I believe that it is very important that when we are doing the competency tests, this bill is still not in any way appropriate or thorough enough to do the job and to do the people who have, perhaps, dementia, but in an early stage, justice.

So if the person is assessing whether someone is competent to make an informed decision for the purposes of this legislation, they must make reasonable steps and that assessment of time and the environment. So they need to actually go to the person’s home. They need to be alongside them, and they need to understand their needs. This is not somebody who is on a group of doctors on this committee that the bureaucracy in the ministry would set up. They are not in a position to know—they already; what do they call it? These are the doctors who are “willing to act”. Those are not the sorts of doctors who should be working with people with dementia and other mental health injuries. So that is why I would like to do the SOP.

DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to the, I think, almost 11 members who have risen and contributed since I last got up and addressed some of the concerns raised. I’d like now to address some of the accumulated concerns.

We had Simeon Brown, who suggested that we should support an amendment, Supplementary Order Paper 282, to reduce the prognosis period—the prognosis for somebody’s illness being terminal—down to one month. I can see his intention, but, frankly, this is a process where people are asked to talk to their doctor at times suitable to their condition. People are asked to talk to friends, family, and counsellors. Doctors are required to talk to those people. People really should have time to think and reflect about this, if they wish for it. To compress the process into a mandatory one month before a person could become a person eligible for assisted dying, I think, would actually run counter to many of the things that I suspect the member would say he was in favour of.

I want to really thank Tim Macindoe for his candour and the way that he got up and talked about his motivations, his considerations, and how he’s been considering the issue. Thank you, Tim. I always like a public meeting with 300 people, but the one that you put on was particularly good, there in Hamilton.

I want to also turn to Nick Smith. Nick Smith was critical of the fact that I have previously defended the inclusion of the criterion “grievous and irremediable”. He seemed to believe that I had somehow resiled from that defence. That is simply not true. The term “grievous and irremediable” is not something that we got from nowhere. It is in the Canadian legislation. It is a very well-defined term that has come out of jurisprudence of no less than the Supreme Court of Canada. I still think, and always will believe, that it is a good criterion for somebody to access assisted dying.

However, part of politics, as it turns out, is about listening. I have listened to the likes of James Shaw, from whom we heard a few moments ago. I’ve heard from people on both sides of the House, to my left and my right, and I accept that this Parliament does not want to pass a bill with that criterion in it. It’s with some regret, I have to say. There are people such as my namesake, David Seymour from Whangarei, who has motor neurone disease, is a strong supporter of the bill and bitterly disappointed at it being limited, but also, as the name would suggest, he is a man of great magnanimity, and he has accepted that this is the political outcome and he is supporting the bill still, as some people will have seen on Newshub tonight.

There was a question that came up, actually through multiple contributions to the committee, about the certainty of a doctor’s prognosis. The argument is, effectively, we all know, and I’m very pleased to know, people who had terminal prognoses a decade ago who are now walking around living very full lives and are very, very happy to still be alive. It is true that if we know somebody like that, it’s very likely that we think of them. What is true is that the overwhelming majority of people who have a terminal prognosis do not get such miracles, and, unfortunately, I can think of quite a few more people in that camp than people who do have miracles.

Now, bear in mind, it is entirely a choice for somebody who has a terminal prognosis and meets all of the other criteria to seek assisted dying. What those who say “What if you have a miraculous recovery?” are really saying is that they want to condemn every single person to suffering and hoping for a miracle when the reality is, for most of us, it won’t happen. If this bill passes, there will still be every choice for people who want nothing to do with this bill or assisted dying to hold on and hope that they have one of those cherished miraculous recoveries, but to pass this bill is to give those who want to choose to go on their terms, with their timing, the choice to have it their way. I believe that that is the nub of the issue, bearing in mind that the criterion of having a six-month prognosis then having two doctors independently judge that one is likely to have their life end within six months is but one of a number of criteria, the most important of all being that the person makes their own choice.

Nick Smith then got up and said that we need to be honest and clear that under this bill, people will die. Well, I’ve never denied that—I’ve never denied that—but I think what he was trying to say in his contribution was something that was echoed by David Carter in his second speech, and that was that there might be a case of somebody who was unknowingly coerced into an assisted death. The interesting thing about David Carter’s contribution is he started out arguing that it would be impossible for somebody to know or for it ever to be found out that coercion had occurred, and then, I have to say—and he may need to take another call—I struggled to follow his logic, because his proof that coercion occurred was actually citing court cases where coercion had been discovered after the person was deceased. You can’t hold these two beliefs simultaneously. If he has shown that there are examples of coercion being discovered posthumously, then it would be possible to discover coercion in the case of people who had an assisted death, but the difficulty for Mr Carter’s argument is that there are not examples of such findings in the case of assisted dying over 20 years in a dozen or more jurisdictions that now have an assisted dying law. So I would put it to him that the evidence is findable but is not found.

I’d like to continue my dialogue with Mr Carter, because I know that he’s a thinking man, and I would put it to him that he’s put in place a false premise. He said there could possibly, somehow, be a case of undetectable coercion somewhere, and that is enough to say no to this law, but, remember, by voting to oppose this law, he is also voting to retain the status quo, and he will have—and anyone that opposes this law will have—on his conscience the finding of our own High Court and the findings of the Supreme Court of Canada that a prohibition on assisted dying leaves people with a cruel choice. Some suffer terribly in their final days, and not only that, others take their own lives through what the Supreme Court called “violent amateur suicide”. Our own court, in Seales v Attorney-General, accepted that, actually, people’s lives are shortened through that practice, shortened, in effect, by the prohibition on assisted dying under the law that he continues to support.

So I’d put it to Mr Carter that he is supporting a status quo where people do die badly and do die wrongly in order to oppose a proposal on the speculation that there might be undetectable coercion, when he’s argued himself it could be detected if it existed but accepted that it cannot be found anywhere in the cases where assisted dying has been legalised. I see Marja Lubeck, whose ancestry goes back to the Netherlands. She’s very familiar with the experience of that country, and she’s nodding as I say it. So I put it to Mr Carter that he should think again, and I look forward to continuing this dialogue.

Brett Hudson—I want to thank him for his support, and I’m glad that we’ve satisfied one of his three key objections. I hope that we can go three for three on this.

Michael Woodhouse made a very interesting contribution where he said that palliative care does not hasten death. I say it’s interesting, because he needs to talk to Chris Penk, who has a Supplementary Order Paper which says that we should change the wording in this bill to say that assisted dying is hastening death. On the other hand, we hear from his colleague that, in actual fact, there is never any hastening of death in the case of palliative care. There’s going to be a contradiction between the two there that they may want to think about.

Then we come to Kiritapu Allan. Now, Kiritapu Allan made, I think, one of the most fulsome contributions so far. She asked about the consideration that had been given to the amendment proposed by Louisa Wall that she had worked on with Lawrence Yule. She asked, you know, had I thought about it and had I given a lot of consideration to it, and I can assure Kiritapu Allan that I most certainly have. I’ve had considerable legal advice from within the machinery of Government, from lawyers outside in the private sector, from people from Lecretia Seales’ legal team who are familiar with the laws from around the world, and come to the conclusion that it is not something that we can support, for a number of reasons. I hear what Kiritapu Allan has said about the fact that there is a process and a compulsory assessment and treatment where the courts are involved, but I think that is a mistake. It’s important to recognise that it is quite different for the State to impose something on somebody as opposed to an individual making a choice for themselves. So that’s the first really significant difference that needs to be considered in regard to whether or not the courts should be involved in making this decision.

The next thing I would say is that I don’t believe it introduces new information. Actually, instead of two doctors, it’s the testimony of only one doctor that’s relied upon in that amendment. So in terms of the amounts of clinical information available to be processed, it’s actually less than under the status quo. Then you come to the fact that, in a sense, the judiciary has been, I guess, in a way, involved in the decision. So if there was ever to be a suspicion of foul play or a complaint, one of the defences that the people involved are going to have is “Your Honour, a judicial officer was involved in this decision.”, but, of course, the judicial officer only had the information to go on that was provided to them by the doctor. So it’s very difficult to see how it helps to bring the judiciary into something that the judiciary is also the backup for judging at a later date, if necessary. I could go further and say that there is some difficulty with process and procedure here, which is that we’ve introduced, effectively, a new bill at the committee stage. I think that that presents some real difficulties. There are other issues that I think we can argue about: the stress and whether or not it is too confrontational.

I think an argument can be made that the Family Court is actually quite different from most courts in the way it operates. Nevertheless, I would also raise a couple of other questions around what Kiritapu Allan actually said—that this is not in the nature or in the essence of a doctor to be involved in assisted dying. I would argue, first of all, that in any groups of humans there’s a wide variety. There will be doctors and lawyers who are both opposed and not against. So I’m not sure when you apply it to any particular individual, bearing in mind that they have the right to conscientiously object, that their particular characteristic is what is important here, because there will be individuals in both camps that have different views.

I would also say that as far as the Hippocratic oath goes, that the Hippocratic oath, for example said that only men should practise medicine. It also said palliative care was a waste of time. People should be very careful quoting the Hippocratic oath.

Kiritapu Allan: I said it was Old Testament.

DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah. And I’d also add that we view this as a doctor alleviating suffering, very much something that a doctor is supposed to do. It’s difficult to see where people really draw the distinction between the various forms of palliative care and assisted dying, particularly when you get as far as things like palliative sedation. So I think the point is made. I’m happy to further dialogue in any context, but we really have looked into this pretty hard and I think if the members are of a mind to support that amendment, they should be of an even stronger mind to support the amendments I’ve put up in the final version of that bill.

I want to thank James Shaw for his engagement. That has been very sound and very enjoyable. Sometimes I agree with the Green Party, sometimes with Simon O’Connor, but both at once is far too much for me. So I won’t be supporting those amendments for reasons I’ll, hopefully, get into a bit later. I completely agree with Louisa Wall. Some of the trivialisation of suicide in this debate is, frankly, disgusting. I won’t say any more about that. Maggie Barry, I won’t get to the things that she raised in the time that I have remaining, but I want to thank the chair for her indulgence over three calls. Thank you.

MELISSA LEE (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I will start by admitting that I have never participated in this debate, not one call during the first reading or the second reading. However, I have taken part in some of the select committee proceedings and I have to say I want to thank everyone who participated, who made submissions, and actually came to the select committee to have their say. Hearing all those people, whether they are on one end of the argument or the other, I have to say they spoke with passion and they spoke with their heart. In this particular circumstance, I have to say it is rather an emotional topic for me. I have a friend who is actually dying in hospital with cancer, with days to go. On that note I’d like to acknowledge my friend Louisa Wall, who lost her brother. My heart goes out to you.

Look, the topic of death is actually a taboo subject in my culture. We don’t talk about it and this is the very reason why I didn’t want to talk about it in the House. We don’t talk about death just like we don’t talk about sex. Funny—[Interruption] Yes, we don’t talk about these things. I mean these are issues that concern all of us and actually have a major impact on our life, and yet we don’t talk about them. But I took the courage to talk to the Korean community to find out how they actually felt about this particular issue.

Their thinking is that this is actually not about end of life choice. This is actually about killing their loved ones, particularly when David Seymour gets up from his seat and actually talks about what the Rt Hon David Carter—who actually questioned him in terms of the issue of coercion. And when he actually states that there is no proof in the history of euthanasia—that you cannot prove that there was coercion, guess why? It is because people who have been coerced here are dead.

I will tell you that on Monday this week I had to deal with a constituent whose daughter had coerced her into signing a power of attorney document and she has been ripping the parents off. They are now having to prove that they’re competent enough to drive. They have to prove that they are mentally, physically, psychologically competent to deal with their own affairs. The daughter has taken their car. The daughter has taken tens of thousands of dollars from these parents. If we had this particular bill in place, I worry what she would be doing to these parents.

Her father has dementia. Her mother has had cancer. They’re elderly people in their 80s. I fear for them if this bill becomes law in this country. I honestly did not come into this country and actually believe that I’d become a member of Parliament to vote for people, for all of us, to make a decision to kill another human being. This bill will, in fact, do that, and I fear for the people in the ethnic communities who do not speak English as their first language. Often they can’t even decide what to order for dinner. For David Seymour and his supporters to actually think that doctors can decide and be competent enough to talk to patients who are suffering and stressed out in the final days of their lives to decide, in their stressful time, in a foreign language that they can competently say that they want to be put to death, I do not believe that they can.

So I’d like to take this opportunity to move Supplementary Order Paper 269 in my name to replace the definition of “attending medical practitioner” as well. I don’t think a medical professional who just comes to a patient who is actually ill, who is terminal, can just decide that they can actually be put to death. I think they have to have a personal relationship with the patient for at least six months. They should have been attending for at least six months, in my view. And they have to have a reason to—they must understand where these patients are actually coming from. And I do not actually believe that anyone—anyone—I certainly do not believe that I have the right to decide if I can put someone else, another human being, to death and I will not be voting for this. I cannot do it.

JAMIE STRANGE (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to take a call, my first call on this bill. I’d like to acknowledge David Seymour. Thank you for bringing this to the House; Maryan Street and others who previously have brought this to the House. I’d like to acknowledge all of those.

When I talk to people out there in the community, there is often a view that someone in their, sort of, 80s, 90s, even nearing 100—they’ve lived a good long life. They’re sick. They want to go. I often hear people say “Just let them go. You know, they’ve lived a good life. They’ve done their dash. Let them go.” I understand that there are a number of people out there who have that view.

I’d like to bring some balance to that view, which I don’t often hear as much, which is somebody in their maybe 20s, 30s, 40s, who is suffering, who may feel like they want to go. And it relates to this aspect here in Part 1, where a person is eligible for assisted dying if they’re over 18 years of age. One of the submissions on this bill that really stuck with me was the submission I heard—and I have permission to use their names but I’ll just use their first names. There’s a man and a woman, Glenn and Heather, and they got married in their early 20s. When they were in their mid-20s Glenn developed a brain tumour. About that time, they had a young daughter named Rachael. Glenn was given three months to live by the doctor. He was in his mid-20s and given three months to live. He defied the doctor. He lived for another period of, sort of, three or four years. Again he was given the diagnosis: three months to live, two months to live. He defied again. He lasted a few more years. Again, he defied the doctor three times.

He finally passed away when his daughter Rachael was nine years of age. Now, Rachael had nine years with her father and during that time Rachael as a young girl used to dress up as a nurse and look after her father. She had that valuable time with him. I actually spoke to Rachel and I said, “What was that time like? What were those nine years like?” She said, “Look, there is nothing that I wouldn’t trade for those nine years.” She values those nine years so highly. She once said to her mum, Heather, “If you and dad had decided to euthanise dad I really don’t know how I would have forgiven you for that.” Now, I know that’s quite an emotive story but it really does stick with me because Rachel had those nine years with her father that she wouldn’t have had if, under this legislation, her father had chosen to be euthanised.

The point—and it has been raised tonight, but it’s that doctors sometimes get it wrong. Now, we all value our doctors in society. They do an excellent job, but they don’t always get the prognosis right. We’ve heard from the member David Seymour that—he acknowledged, sometimes, miracles do happen. In this case you probably could call it a miracle. But the member said that more do not get miracles than do, and I agree. That’s correct. But then the member said, “Why put a large group of people through pain, for the sake of only a few who might get a miracle?” But I would say for those who do receive a miracle, their families benefit in such a huge manner by having that time with their loved one, that I believe it’s worth it. So Rachel had those nine years with her father that she wouldn’t have had. She is now 16 years of age. She often speaks of her father; she speaks, obviously, very fondly of her father, because she got to know her father because of this.

There’s just one final point I’d like to raise in the last few seconds, and that’s the aspect around dignity. We often hear this phrase “Death with dignity”. We enter this world in an undignified manner. We often leave this world in an undignified manner. That’s life; that’s simply the cycle of life. There’s a philosophical question there that members need to think about, and that is the aspect of: how much do we tamper with life? There’s a phrase, “The sanctity of life”, but we need to think about that. How much do we tamper with that life—the beginning and the end? So thank you for the opportunity to speak.

DAN BIDOIS (National—Northcote): It is an absolute pleasure to make a contribution to this stage in the End of Life Choice Bill, on what is a very dignified evening that we are experiencing this evening. I acknowledge that we are on Part 1, so I will try to stay as close to Part 1 as I possibly can. Now, I do want to say congratulations to the member for getting his bill to this stage. Of course, it will be on record that I voted against the bill at the second reading. But I want to be clear to my constituents that although I remain sceptical of this bill, I will do due diligence and make sure I read every possible amendment to this bill, and on the merits of those amendments before making my final decision.

So we come to this debate in Part 1, which really focuses around the purposes of the End of Life Choice Bill, the interpretation, and the criteria that people must go through in order to be qualified for the End of Life Choice Bill. Now, I think it’s quite reasonable to assume that in someone’s mind you can create a perfect candidate for this bill—someone who is at the end of life, who’s in an excruciating amount of pain, who wants to go, clearly wants to go, and who has a terminal illness. I absolutely empathise and can appreciate anybody who is in that tight definition who wants to come under this bill. But then there are a host of people who are in what I would call the grey area; those that are, in particular, vulnerable to using this bill, or perhaps for coercion—or not. Those are the people that I am particularly concerned about, those people who may, in fact, go down this line, who aren’t necessarily part of those tight criteria. Those are the people that I spoke about in my second reading speech around the most vulnerable people in our society. The most vulnerable people in our society that I see are the elderly, the mentally ill, the disabled, and our young.

Now, I can totally appreciate David’s Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 that seeks to address some of these vulnerable concerns. I do want to acknowledge the member for what is an SOP—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Full name.

DAN BIDOIS: David Seymour, who has made attempts to tighten up the criteria, to help address some of our concerns—for those who voted against the bill. So I do think that the SOP has some merit, although I do have severe reservations about the criteria in his SOP, particularly as it relates to our young because I think 18 years of age is still too young. I can appreciate that the other countries throughout the world who have this also have 18, but there’s no reason why New Zealand should not consider an age that is fit for purpose for this society. That is why I would absolutely support an SOP in my colleague’s name, Simeon Brown, which is SOP 283 which increases the age to 25 for assisted dying.

Death is not pretty. I think we’ve talked a lot about death tonight; we’ve heard a lot through the select committee process about death. It is very clear from the criteria that no doctor on terminal illness can, in fact, be clear that you’ve got six months to live. We heard that in select committee, and I’ll be listening very carefully to the member’s thoughts around tightening that up even further. But it is—again, death is not pretty. It’s a necessary part of life and it’s, in many cases, valuable. The final moments of people’s lives are valuable for those that are left behind, and that is why I still remain not convinced with Part 1 of David Seymour’s SOP. Just to those in my electorate of Northcote, I’ll be reading all of the SOPs very carefully and considering them on their individual merits. Thank you.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I want to drill down into Part 1 and clause 4, and ask a question, again, of the member in the chair that goes to the core of the debate. It’s this: how many mistaken deaths is he prepared to tolerate? I say to this Parliament: how many mistaken deaths are we prepared to tolerate?

I reflect back on a conscience vote that was held in this Parliament 58 years ago when the death penalty was abolished—fascinating argument.

Simeon Brown: I was there.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Simeon says he was there; I was not, despite the record. But the debate was fascinating in this regard: some members said, “There will be the odd innocent person who gets strung up, but I’m prepared to tolerate that so the bad bastards who really have done it face their punishment”—I make no apologies, Madam Chair. I’m on the side that says this Parliament should err on the side of life. I am not prepared even though—we look at the awful tragedy that occurred in Christchurch, part of me would love to string that man up. But my view is I don’t want the death penalty in New Zealand because I’m a realist and I know mistakes were made, and I don’t want to see a single innocent person die.

Now, the member in the chair has said he accepts that there will be mistakes. He has said that he acknowledges—quite honestly, and I agree with him—that there will be people who are diagnosed, who only have six months to live, who will not—and I acknowledge my colleague across the way who gave such a situation at the select committee. We met dozens of people who have been given a terminal diagnosis who still lived. So we must be honest as a Parliament and say there will be people who are diagnosed who are not going to die.

Then let’s go to the second test in the bill. The test is that the person is competent. The medical evidence is that that is one of the most difficult judgments for a medical practitioner to make. There will inevitably be mistakes. If you’re trying to diagnose where the person is depressed, particularly when we’re dealing with people that may be unwell, this Parliament needs to acknowledge that there will be people who are clinically depressed that will not be picked up, who will be authorised to die.

Then there’s the third test. Again, I would challenge this Parliament: put hand on heart and say every medical practitioner who signs a form and says, “That person’s not under undue influence.” will get it right every time. That is an incredibly hard test. How do you know, when you’ve got a patient in your surgery, that their son, their daughter, or some other person is not trying to unduly influence them? I don’t believe there’s a single member in this Parliament who believes that there will not be examples where that test is not met, the doctor does not pick up undue influence, and the person, as a consequence, has their life terminated.

Now, my very first experience in a Parliament was as a pageboy in the Delaware state legislature in the US as an exchange student. They were having a debate about the death penalty. There were two groups. There was one group who said, “Actually, we have absolute faith in the judicial system and the legal tests in clauses like clause 4, and there’ll never be a mistake.” The more honest said there will be mistakes. So my question of the member in the chair, and my question to members of the House is this—and let’s be honest—is the member in the chair and the members that are supporting this part saying, “Yep. The honest truth is there will be mistakes, and we’re happy to have mistaken deaths because we believe in the overall public good of the other people who may be in pain and want to die early being able to do so?” That’s a fair argument, but make it.

This Parliament cannot and should not pretend that this bill will not result in mistaken deaths, and we should err on the side of life.

AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. I’m pleased to make this contribution—my first one to the debate tonight. During the dinner break, I was fortunate to be able to attend a Pacific celebration in Wellington. It was the opening of the Pacific office of the University of Otago in Wellington. It is on this backdrop that I start my contribution to this debate. I’d also like to acknowledge all the members of the House that made contributions during the second reading, which I was also fortunate to be able to do. In particular, I thought that all those speeches from both sides were very well—they came from the heart, and they brought in the various experiences that we all have in this debate on life and death, and I believe it is about life and death. I’d also like to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill, David Seymour. Largely, I would agree with David on some other issues, but on this bill we will depart.

So I want to talk to this bill, in particular around the lens that I think has been missed in terms of how this bill has been constructed—the lens in terms of the Pacific community that I come from: the Pacific voices, the Pacific culture and the values that I have been raised in—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I just remind the member though, we are on Part 1. This isn’t a general debate about the bill; it’s on Part 1.

AGNES LOHENI: Madam Chair, thank you. So I want to talk to an amendment that I would like to contribute to this Part 1. The amendment is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 275. I would ask the member, David Seymour, if he would consider this amendment in terms of clause 3. The change would be the definition of “psychiatrist” to have been a psychiatrist for a period of at least five years. I think it’s important if we’re looking to really tighten up this bill any way we can, in terms of providing that minimum level of expertise of a specialist that’s in a very influential position in this bill. Ultimately, I would like all members of the House just to consider this SOP 275 in my name, which is really just to tighten up that minimum level of experience for a psychiatrist.

On that note, in terms of specialists who are in a position to convey information about this option to vulnerable people—and it’s one thing I’ve looked through in Part 1 of this bill. What is the contribution or the undertaking to understand the cultural context in terms of communication and language for people in Pacific communities or others where English is a second language? For example, there wouldn’t be that many doctors—a lot lower number of doctors and specialists—who would be able to help convey what the option is to someone that’s vulnerable, particularly when a family member isn’t in the same room and isn’t able to be part of that discussion. So I really would like the committee to consider that amendment on David Seymour’s amendment—five years as a minimum. I think that would really just help to add and to tighten up this particular part, as we move through. There will be other SOPs, but I would like the committee to consider my SOP. Thank you very much.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Thank you, Madam Chair. It’s a privilege for me to speak on the End of Life Choice Bill. It’s the first time I’ve made a contribution, and I want to acknowledge Melissa Lee for her bravery, because I have experienced a similar situation. I believe the impact of this bill will impact the vulnerable people in our community. I am concerned that, in many cases, those who will have access to the End of Life Choice Bill are the old, the unwell, and the people with devastating and difficult diseases. By definition, these people are often in a vulnerable position.

I stand to speak in support of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 208, 207, and an SOP in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry on new clause 4A. I belong to the Tongan community. I came here when I was 10 years old, and yet I still struggle to understand some of the English language. In the bill, the sponsor of the bill talks about, in terms of new clause 4A, “Meaning of competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying” In this Act, a person is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying if the person is able to—(a) understand information about the nature of assisted dying that is relevant to the decision;”.

I want to go to Supplementary Order Paper 262 by the Hon Maggie Barry that talks about the meaning, replacing clause 4 with new clause 4A—the meaning of competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying. It explains in subclause (a) “understand the information relevant to the decision relating to access to assisted dying and the effect of the decision;”.

Many languages are spoken in this country, and at every select committee that I’ve been to, all the communities—there are disparities in the Māori or Pacific community or new migrant communities. They are always put in the most vulnerable people where we struggle to provide the best services.

I want to share my experiences in the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Act 2018. The words “terminal illness” were talked about and discussed and debated by professionals, by medical professionals, in terms of the use of medicinal cannabis for those people who would be caught with cannabis in their possession if they have a terminal illness. At the end, the actual Act said those requiring palliation have an exception and statutory defence to the charge of possession, of use, of illicit cannabis. It was in defence of the green fairies who delivered this cannabis to people who were in their dying days.

I want to ask the sponsor of this bill: what was the conversation about the term “terminal illness”? Did anyone actually explain what “terminal illness” is—because in my experiences in the Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Act, not many people could do that.

I did say that I would support in terms of Supplementary Order Paper 207—I want to call out what I believe firmly that it is. It is the End of Life Choice Act replaced with the “Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide Act” of 2019.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Unfortunately, that is clause 1; not Part 1.

ANAHILA KANONGATA’A-SUISUIKI: Clause 1, not Part 1—sorry, I’m a bit emotional because it’s the first time I am making a contribution.

I want to use that because I firmly believe that we should talk about it—what it is. We should put emotions aside and actually talk factually, because when you are in a court of law, no emotions are there but actually lawyers defend things in terms of what’s written in the law.

We have pardoned a lot of people in terms of the fact that the judges got it wrong, that the jury got it wrong, that lawyers and courts got it wrong. The difference with that when this bill—[Time expired]

Dr DUNCAN WEBB (Labour—Christchurch Central): I move, That the question be now put.

JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Madam Chair. It is sad but a privilege to speak on this bill. I do say this is the first time that I’ve spoken on the End of Life Choice Bill, and I find it very, very difficult to actually do this. Three weeks ago, my sister passed from cancer. She lay in a hospice bed and we all gathered around her. She lasted for six days and during those times my older sister and my younger brother spoke a lot about this bill, actually—of all things to talk about while your sister is dying in the bed. We spoke about it when we were away in the lounge and how her children, should this bill have been passed as legislation, may not have had the time with their mother to the end.

This bill goes against everything that is in my culture. We have our children. We treasure our children. We treasure each other. And there is no way that we would ever want to see a bill like this passed into any piece of the legislation of this country. I don’t want to be part of it. And it will be a sad day for this Government, for this Parliament, should this bill end up passed into legislation. And I ask all of those who are supporting this bill to walk in my shoes. I have had a history of my whānau dying from cancer-related diseases whereby we sat through their journey as they passed over. And I would never trade that for anything in the world. They would never have opted or even thought about the possibility of dying, or being forced, or having options like this because we treasure life. And I believe that many of us in this Parliament actually treasure life. We treasure life. And you need to have your hearts come out and actually vote against this bill.

I stand here today and I am saddened that the sponsor of the bill admits that there may be mistakes if this bill gets passed—there may be mistakes. Has life—has human life—got so little and inconsiderate and we’ve become so inconsiderate that we treat it like that. “Oh, it’s just a mistake. That was a mistake.” That’s terrible. That’s absolutely terrible and we look at each other and we have to look at each other. And whatever happens if this bill goes through—will we feel good about it? I don’t think so. I will feel ashamed to be standing in this Parliament to have this bill go through.

As I look through it there’s so many gaps, so many gaps. The cultural gap—the cultural gap—and I can say my people won’t support it. And I know that, even to make little changes in it, to put in clauses. And as I stand here today, I look at the clause of the Hon Maggie Berry who has been a champion in driving and leading our side of the House in going against this bill. I stand here and I want to say to her—to congratulate her for trying to make some sort of sense, to give it some sort of something. So we look at her new clause 4A or Supplementary Order Paper 263 where there’s an insertion of new clause 4A, some principles. Because this bill doesn’t have any principles. It has nothing. It doesn’t value life. It values death over life, and that’s a damn shame. And everybody should be hanging their heads in shame if they support this bill.

Everybody will say “Oh, you know, it’s really hard watching people pass and that and the pain that they suffer.”, but that’s what whānau are there for. These principles that the Hon Maggie Barry is proposing in her Supplementary Order Paper 263 are some way through helping—some way through helping. You know we’re Ngāti Porou women in our family, and everything that she has in her Supplementary Order Paper 263, new clause 4A, for the principles—[Time expired]

GREG O’CONNOR (Labour—Ōhāriu): I move, That the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The question is that the question—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I move, That the Speaker be recalled.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You have to tell me what for.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are 10 substantial Supplementary Order Papers on this part. While it might be your assessment that there has been sufficient debate on this, there are a number of people here who could not be in the Chamber earlier who have come down in the latter stages or come down in the last hour or so to listen to the debate.

I have been here for a long period of time now waiting for Mr Seymour to answer the reasonable questions that he should answer for the New Zealand public. There has been no answer. There’s been no attempt by him, and, therefore, I think—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You need to actually—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —the debate should continue.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Right. [Interruption] No, no, no, no. No, you can’t. So what is the point of order that you—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I’ve recalled the Speaker. I don’t need to do much else.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So I’m going to put the question that the Speaker be recalled. All those in favour say Aye, to the contrary No. On the voices I would say that the Ayes have it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Personal vote called for.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You want a personal vote?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Yes, I’ve called for it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The Speaker has already ruled that on a procedural motion there will be a party vote. I have declared that the Ayes have got it because I could not tell on the voices. I’ve resorted to recalling the Speaker. Do you—you still want to—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Speaking to your ruling, Madam Chair. That is utterly ridiculous. The Speaker makes somewhat of a fool of the Parliament if he’s prepared to say that all substantive motions, individual motions, are given by individual vote but somehow parties choose whether or not the procedures of the Parliament continue or not.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): The member will be seated. I have ruled. You are challenging my ruling when you are the recipient of that ruling. We’ve had a vote. I have declared that the Speaker will be recalled. Are you withdrawing your challenge to that?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Yes; yes I am.

Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

Speaker Recalled

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Mr Speaker, the Speaker has been recalled. The member, the shadow Leader of the House, has suggested that there are still too many people seeking the call, that there are people—he maintains there are people who have Supplementary Order Papers who wish to speak to those and has contested the closure motion that I accepted.

In defence, I would say we have been debating this bill now for some time. I think it started around 5 o’clock. Since I’ve been in the Chair, I’ve made every effort to ensure that anyone that had a Supplementary Order Paper has had the opportunity to speak. There are people still seeking the call. I think, from my knowledge, all but one have already had calls and the debate has become more and more repetitive. I seek your judgment.

SPEAKER: Is there any anyone else who wants to add to that?

Chris Penk: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

SPEAKER: No. Mr Brownlee?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Mr Speaker, while I accept that the presiding officer has made a decision based on her view from the Chair, one of the problems that you have in a bill like this that is so divisive, perhaps the most emotionally charged bill that has been in the House, certainly any time that I’ve been here—

SPEAKER: Can we focus on the ruling?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I will. What we do end up with is two calls made now to close the debate from members who are supporting the bill, and, ultimately, a decision that looks like it is also supporting the bill.

This is a life and death bill. To have only three hours’ debate while there are others still wanting to talk seems to me quite unreasonable. It doesn’t seem to me a fair thing that if people have points to make—and there are 10 substantial Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on this. No one has tried to put in a whole lot of SOPs dumped on the table, bits of paper left, right, and centre. It’s been conducted in a very seemly manner. Everyone has followed a good process. It now only seems reasonable that there should be enough time for all of those who want to make a contribution, often to the SOPs that they’ve been part of writing, to be able to do so. [Interruption]

SPEAKER: No, I’m prepared to rule. It’s a very simple matter. The Speakers’ rulings on this are very clear on page 61. I’ll quote from Statham, reinforced by Burke, “The [chairperson] is the sole judge as to whether or not”—it does say “he” but in this case I’m sure it means “she”—“ought to sanction the putting of the closure motion, and it [is] … entirely in his [/her] hands.” It is a matter for the House to decide. I have been following the debate. I was following the debate at the time when the Chairperson started to put the motion. The consistent rulings over many years have been that once that is started, the process is not reversible, except if the House votes in the negative. That’s my ruling.

In Committee

Debate resumed.

Part 1 Preliminary provisions (continued)

A party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.

Ayes 65

New Zealand Labour 46; New Zealand First 9; Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand 8; ACT New Zealand 1; Ross.

Noes 55

New Zealand National 55.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 1 be agreed to:

Replace clause 4A with:

4A Meaning of competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying

(1) In this Act, a person is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying if the person is able to—

(a) understand the information relevant to the decision relating to access to assisted dying and the effect of the decision; and

(b) retain that information to the extent necessary to make the decision; and

(c) use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision; and

(d) communicate the decision and the person’s views and needs as to the decision in some way, including by speech, gestures or other means.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a person is taken to understand information relevant to a decision if the person understands an explanation of the information given to the person in a way that is appropriate to the person’s circumstances, whether by using modified language, visual aids or any other means.

(3) In determining whether or not a person is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying, regard must be had to the following—

(a) a person may be competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying in regard to some decisions and not others;

(b) if a person is not competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying in regard to a particular decision, it may be temporary and not permanent;

(c) it should not be assumed that a person is not competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying to make a decision—

(i) on the basis of the person’s appearance; or

(ii) because the person makes a decision that is, in the opinion of the others, unwise;

(d) a person is competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying in regard to a decision if it is possible for the person to make a decision with practicable and appropriate support.

(4) For the purpose of subsection (1), a person is presumed to be competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying unless there is evidence to the contrary.

(5) A person who is assessing whether a person has competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying for the purposes of this Act must take reasonable steps to conduct the assessment at a time and in an environment in which the person’s competent to make an informed decision about assisted dying can be most accurately assessed.

(6) In this section, practicable and appropriate support includes the following:

(a) using information or formats tailored to the particular needs of a person;

(b) communicating or assisting a person to communicate with the person’s decision;

(c) giving a person additional time and discussing the matter with the person;

(d) using technology that alleviates the effects of a person’s disability.

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

Ayes 44

Noes 73

Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to Part 1, except clause 4, be agreed to.

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

Ayes 75

Noes 42

Amendments agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of David Seymour to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 74

Noes 44

Amendments agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Louisa Wall’s amendment to Part 1, to replace clause 3 and delete clause 4, as set out on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 235 is out of order as being inconsistent with the previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Chris Penk’s amendment replacing the definition of “assisted dying” in clause 3, set out on SOP 205—

Hon Paula Bennett: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Sorry, I think the doors need to be unlocked.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, I beg your pardon. Thank you. Unlock the doors. Sorry, I had the wrong piece of paper. So Chris Penk’s amendment is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Melissa Lee’s amendment replacing the definition of “attending medical practitioner” in clause 3, set out on SOP 269, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. The Hon Maggie Barry’s amendment to Part 1 relating to decision-making capacity is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Agnes Loheni’s amendment replacing the definition of “independent medical practitioner” in clause 3, set out on SOP 265, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 267 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 45

Noes 73

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 266 in the name of Paulo Garcia to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 38

Noes 82

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 268 in the name of Chris Penk to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 36

Noes 82

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 272 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 31

Noes 87

Amendments not agreed to.

The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 32, Noes 87.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. According to Standing Order 3, page 2, I seek leave for the committee to suspend its activities now and resume at the start of members’ orders on 21 August.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): What Standing Order are you quoting?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Page 2 of the Standing Orders book.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): 32?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Page 2, under the provision of leave. Perhaps for clarity, Madam Chair can I say it says that “leave or leave of the House or leave of the committee means permission to do something that is granted without a dissentient voice”.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just check with the member: you are seeking leave to report progress?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): No. The idea of this is that the committee of the whole House determines its own destiny, and what I’m saying is that we simply suspend this process now and resume it at the start of members’ orders of the day on 21 August.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Which would be achieved by reporting progress. We’re talking the same thing, but the words—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, they’re two different things, Madam Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): So the difficulty I have, if I may make the suggestion to the member, is that as the committee of the whole House, we cannot tell the House what to do. We have no powers over that. So if the member seeks leave—[Interruption] Hang on, just let me finish. If you seek leave that we report progress, then when the committee resumes, it will resume at the same place. You will achieve that in a way that is consistent with the functions of the committee of the whole House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I read to you again from Standing Orders: “leave of the committee”—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that—I understand that.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —“means permission to do something that is granted without dissentient voice”. I’ve asked us to do something; all I want is for the leave to be put.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I understand that, Mr Brownlee. What I’m saying to you, then, is that in the committee of the whole House, we do not have the power, when the House is resumed, to set the Order Paper. So all we will have done is suspended. That’s all we will have done. We cannot tell the House that we want to resume. So, I mean, I can put that leave, if that’s what you wish. I’m trying to be helpful to you by suggesting that we report progress. OK, so I’ll put that leave. Is there any objection? OK, there is objection.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 271 in the name of Agnes Loheni to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 37

Noes 83

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 270 in the name of Chris Penk to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 273 in the name of Melissa Lee to clause 3 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 44

Noes 74

Amendment not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 274 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 275 in the name of Agnes Loheni to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 283 in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 4 be agreed to.

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

Ayes 48

Noes 72

Amendment not agreed to.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(c) to replace “terminal illness”, set out on SOP 284, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Chris Penk’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert “on the balance of probabilities”, set out on SOP 276, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simon O’Connor’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert “beyond reasonable doubt”, set out on SOP 277, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simon O’Connor’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to insert a reference to refusing medical treatment, set out on SOP 280, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Paulo Garcia’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to require unanimous agreement of medical practitioners, set out on SOP 281, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(c)(i) to replace “6 months” with “1 month”, set out on SOP 282, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259. Simeon Brown’s amendment to clause 4(d) to refer to “increasing disability”, set out on SOP 285, is out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the committee on David Seymour’s SOP 259.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 261 in the name of the Hon Dr Nick Smith to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 286 in the name of Simeon Brown to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 263 in the name of the Hon Maggie Barry to Part 1 be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

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

Ayes 70

Noes 50

Part 1 as amended agreed to.

House resumed.

The Chairperson reported the KiwiSaver (Oranga Tamariki Guardians) Amendment Bill without amendment, and progress on the End of Life Choice Bill.

Report adopted.

The House adjourned at 11.38 p.m.