SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. I wasn't going to begin by talking about clause 8 but I just want to endorse the words of the Hon Dr Nick Smith who I think has just very eloquently and persuasively set out why it is so crucial that family must be part of this particular choice given the gravity of—sorry that's a bad pun but the severity of the issue. I too think that most families around New Zealand are the best people to know honestly and sincerely what the wishes and the circumstances of those who might be in this position would be. As Dr Smith has said to be shut out of that decision at probably the most serious point in one's life would be something that would be very difficult to cope with and possibly never forgotten. I do in this call want to speak in support of Supplementary Order Paper 295 in the name of my colleague the Hon Michael Woodhouse which is in itself seeking to amend Supplementary Order Paper 259 in the name of the member in charge of the bill. There were some members who had spoken on this particular amendment before the dinner adjournment but as we've had that break this is the first opportunity to return to it—it refers to the issue of conscientious objection. I want to commend the member in charge of the bill for the fact that in his amendments which he has tabled under Part 2 new clause 5A (1) he is proposing that A health practitioner is not under any obligation to assist any person who wishes to exercise the option of receiving assisted dying under this Act if the health practitioner has a conscientious objection to providing that assistance to the person". I'd be very surprised if any member of this House would be opposed to that particular provision and I commend the member for adding it to the substantial body of amendments that he's put forward. But I am puzzled and disappointed as to why having adopted that logic himself in relation to health practitioners he has indicated his opposition to the amendment in the name of the Hon Michael Woodhouse who unfortunately because of his commitment to parliamentary business overseas is unable to speak at this point in favour of his amendment. So I hope the committee will enable me perhaps just to put into the record some of the comments that he has made to explain why he has tabled this particular amendment which is designed to provide protection for organisations that have a conscientious objection to assisted dying being practiced in their facilities.So the difference here is that we are talking about organisations and he's made the point that the sponsor of the bill has proposed an amendment offering protection to health professionals—and I've just read it out—who have a conscientious objection to participation in assisted dying. As Mr Woodhouse has been at pains to state he is simply asking for the same protection to be extended to non-Government organisations. He goes on to make the point that many organisations presently offering aged care long-term hospital-level care dementia care and palliative care were established by groups whose ethos is grounded in beliefs that are opposed to assisted dying. They may be faith based—and much of the opposition has come from faith-based concerns—but by no means all. He's making the point they may be faith based or they may have a mission of care that recognises that dying is a natural part of life and that while good care at the end of life is important death should not be hastened. The final point I want to just highlight in Mr Woodhouse's submission is that there was widespread concern amongst some of these providers that should the bill pass into law pressure will be brought to bear on them to allow health professionals to enter their facilities to provide assisted dying and that Government funding could be conditional upon that service being provided. His amendment therefore is designed to ensure that they have protection from that pressure. I hope that all colleagues will look very closely at that particular amendment for we have received overwhelming evidence and concerns from organisations such as Hospice New Zealand that absolutely bears out that concern. They've made the point that as the national organisation representing all hospice services in New Zealand providing palliative care to more than 19000 people each year Hospice New Zealand plead with Parliament to ensure that their voice is heard that their experience is recognised and respected. I am putting that on the record now asking all members to do just that—particularly with the narrowing of criteria to terminally ill people only. The other person whose submission I particularly want to draw attention to in this regard is from Dr Kate Baddock the chair of the New Zealand Medical Association (NZMA) who made a submission to the Justice Committee. Her organisation has continued to liaise with all of us to advocate for this very clearly. The NZMA remain passionately opposed to the passing of this bill and it's vitally important that we take that on board."