Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I'd basically like to speak to just one Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in this discussion but I'll preface that if I may with a brief discussion of a point that I think is relevant to a number of the SOPs that we've covered this evening. The first is in relation to how we divide our attention as a committee of the whole House between that which is a matter of rights—I'd argue human rights a matter of logic—versus what it is that the general public believe in and how we should view the attitude of our fellow Kiwis to this kind of legislation; the issues that are raised particularly by the SOPs. It's worth noting that credible public polling conducted by Curia concluded that 90 percent of New Zealanders opposed sex-selective abortions. Now that was the subject of an SOP in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar in Part 1 but I would argue that by analogy I would be surprised if there isn't a similar result in relation to disability selection which is the subject of an SOP in the name of Melissa Lee relevant to Part 2 on which I have previously spoken and on which I won't dwell now. But suffice to say that even on that basis it is worth this committee of the whole House considering the fact that it is obvious to many outside this Chamber if not to a majority within it the rights and wrongs of that particular issue. Similarly in terms of parental notification—the subject of another Supplementary Order Paper of course tonight—some 79 percent in that same poll thought that parents should be notified if their young daughter was seeking an abortion. So I place that not as a matter of argument definitively given that it seems to me that in this House we've got a responsibility in matters of life and death that is higher simply than taking the pulse of the nation but it is worthwhile guidance I think to us as legislators: the fact that these issues appear in much clearer view to many outside this place than to those within it seems at times. I do want to speak to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of the Hon Ruth Dyson; it's number 483. I think she would agree with my characterisation of it as in the freedom of conscience space also sometimes known as conscientious objection. Of course the word conscience" literally means "with knowledge" and in this case it seems to me appropriate that a person be allowed to exercise their freedom in a way that reflects their knowledge and understanding of what the act of abortion does entail. From that point of view it's not a matter of what a person can do or will do; it's a matter of what they are prepared to do in a sense—in the rawest sense—what they may or may not do according to their conscience. If our attitude in this Parliament remains as it has been historically that matters of conscience are practically irreducible that means that we have to be pretty determined in our consideration of attempts to water that down or erode that right.So it is that in Supplementary Order Paper 483 Ms Dyson proposes a regime where someone who is exercising a conscientious freedom not to perform an abortion service would nevertheless be required to basically undertake research and advice about how the person seeking the abortion services should go about getting that. That seems to me a step too far. I would argue that the first stage essentially in the process should activate—namely that the person would advise the seeker of the abortion services that they do have a conscientious objection and be allowed to leave it at that and to walk away.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I'm just not sure what the SOP number it is.CHRIS PENK: Supplementary Order Paper 483 Madam Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): OK.CHRIS PENK: Remains 483 thank you. So that's clause 14. I should actually make it clear to those who are following along that we're talking about amendments to the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003.So it would be the case that someone who's exercised their freedom of conscience would be required to make calculations not only most obviously and easily about physical distance between a provider who was prepared to conduct the services but also take into account considerations such as the date and time of the original request the operating hours of the provider of the service that was requested and so forth. That's a burden that I don't think it's fair to place on a person who wishes to exercise their freedom of conscience does so in good faith advises accordingly and then is required to take extra further active steps against their conscience; that seems to me too far. I will be voting against that Supplementary Order Paper"