O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you Madam Chair. Can I acknowledge actually the last two speakers particularly from the other side—Anahila and also Louisa—for their contributions. I think it's appreciated. I will though take umbrage with Maggie Barry; I think she may have misled the House. I don't know anyone who can travel at 100 kilometres—or even 60 kilometres—in Auckland. Hon Maggie Barry: Not in Tāmaki.SIMON O'CONNOR: Not in Tāmaki that's right. Look in Part 3: Accountability—I was earlier touching on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 259 which was talking about the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand (SCENZ) Group making sure that it's maintained. As I say the drafting currently is shoddy. I know that the supporter of this bill said Oh well there's a whole lot of legal precedents out of money-laundering Acts superannuation and the like". I think we just need to draw the House's attention to the fact this is a life and death bill; primarily effectively aiding and abetting suicide. We're not talking about money-laundering or superannuation. Seeing it's such a serious bill actually taking this SOP and making the change to clause 19 to state that the maintenance of the SCENZ Group is an important aspect is not something too difficult to ask. But touching too on clause 19—it's more of a question; I doubt it can be answered. It does touch on the conscience rights but it directs of course in clause 19 that the Director-General of Health must establish this SCENZ Group—I'm always fascinated that we continue to use acronyms—but also in clause 21: "The director-general must nominate an employee of the Ministry as the Registrar". For both cases—in clause 21 and clause 19—where does the conscience right for that person come in? It's a hypothetical but again if you're dealing with life and death you try to cross every "t" and dot every "i". If we have in the case of the Director-General of Health who for whatever reason has an objection to the practice of suicide euthanasia how does that operate there? Maybe there needs to be some protocols put perhaps as an extension into Part 3 to take that on. It's not unusual—the more someone's trained in medicine the more they are against assisted suicide and euthanasia. That's absolutely evident from the evidence that comes through select committees and the like. The more you're medically trained and the more you understand medicine the less likely you are to support it. So the Director-General of Health what happens if they don't wish to be the person to establish the group? Is this law going to force them—with the added irony of course that choice is always put forward as the reason here although those who advocate choice are often more than happy to take it away from people if it doesn't suit them. Another SOP—it's a little self-indulgent it's another one of mine. It's SOP 339; it's a proposed amendment to say that this review committee—and again I just point out to the House that the review the accountability does nothing for the dead person. It does a lot for those who create paperwork and font types. But what the suggested amendment to clause 20 through SOP 339 is seeking to do is to say that the review committee must have a time limit of two years. Again the current structure of the bill as written doesn't actually have a time limit. So strictly speaking someone could be there for a long long time. We heard from Anahila a part of the counterargument which is you want some people with sort of institutional memory but I certainly think there is benefit to have a limitation of two years and a maximum of two terms of two years; so a total of four years. I think it's really unhealthy that a particular individual can stay on without a time limit and I think that the fact that there are no—well again there's nothing in the legislation. I do note it's in the explanatory note but for the sake of the House and those who haven't read it the legislation is very specific that the review committee—there's nothing to talk about how they can be removed because of unsuitable conduct or ill health or diminished capacity. So if there are no mechanisms—again a woeful oversight—then one of the simple ways through is to ensure that those put onto this review committee can only serve two terms. So I think SOP 339 has some merit. I would like to touch also on another amendment on clause 20. This is through SOP 340. This SOP is not in my name which may perk up some people's interest for a moment. This is in the name of Chris Penk and it's a proposed amendment to SOP 259. The earlier one that I touched on is a direct SOP change to the bill as it stands; this is an attempt—[Time expired]"