Ngaro AlfredHon ALFRED NGARO (National): I would like to add to the debate with some fresh perspectives but also too I just want to build on what I think is a very substantive contribution by my colleague Harete Hipango in regards to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 384. If one looks at the Supplementary Order Paper the particular part that I want to draw attention to is proposed clause 27B(1) where it states Any organisation that is accorded a duty or responsibility under this Act (a 'responsible organisation') must perform those duties or responsibilities in a manner that recognises and provides a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi". I want to talk about in my contribution what those practical principles and commitment entails. Mr Seymour when talking about cultural competencies and considerations said it was a very serious issue but then said "Just let the people choose." If that was the case then why is it that we have disparities and inequities for Māori currently even in our current health system? Why is it that consistently—if Mr Seymour was to go back to that comment then there would be no need or consideration to have interpreters to have a consideration under law as we live under a bicultural nation. Why? Because it's important to have those principles there and it just seems that Mr Seymour dismisses it as not being important. I want to state on record why those are important picking up the point about a practical commitment. I want to quote from the guidelines for cultural assessments for Māori under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act 2003. This is an Act that has been passed in Parliament. It is in law and in particular around disability and health issues that face those in which an assessment needs to be made it's stated quite clearly here under section 23 of this Act that a Māori cultural assessment is carried out consecutively with a specialist assessment and support needs assessment which identifies disability and medical needs which goes to the heart of this issue that we're debating today. It is likely that a different person to the Māori cultural assessor will undertake a specialist assessment. Therefore it is important that the Māori cultural and specialist assessment complement each other and have a clear focus on the best outcome for the person and their whānau. That's the practical commitment that's made in this SOP. So while there are high principles that have been discussed and have been debated here in this House I want to go down to this SOP which talks about the practical commitment that actually is in law which is in policy which is activated. Nowhere in this bill has there ever been any consideration. I think it's dismissive of Mr Seymour to stand up and say "Cultural consideration? It's important but let's just let the people choose." If we had allowed that we would have a system that does not allow for the complexities of language and culture. In this it's quite clear that it talks about those assessments. It goes even further because I want to quote from the Medical Council of New Zealand which talks about a statement on cultural competencies related to this SOP. Stated here in the SOP which talks about a cultural competency and if we look at proposed clause 27B—and I'm quoting from subclause (2)(c)(iv)—it is "provide and regularly review guidance to persons discharging functions under this Act to support cultural competency as a best-practice feature of the responsible organisation." Under the Medical Council of New Zealand there's a statement on cultural competency that clearly states this: "The Council has developed a complementary Statement on best practices when providing care to Māori patients and their whānau which deals with the standard expected of doctors when dealing with Māori patients." There is nothing in this bill that requires that for any health medical practitioner—in particular to deal with Māori as this SOP is—they are required to both understand and know and be competent to be able to reflect their values and their views. In particular in some cases where the language that's used in this circumstance has to be quite specific I think that's critically important. If as a nation and as a Government and as a department we have made sure that these safeguards are in place why has this not been enacted inside this bill? Why are members on the other side not standing up and taking a call to also too advocate that this be in place? I think it's critically important that these cultural competencies are practical are pragmatic but more importantly ensure that those safeguards are in place for the safety of anyone that makes the freedom to choose assisted suicide."