SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Thank you Madam Chair. This is only my second call on Part 2 of this bill and I made that comment when I spoke in Part 1—I hadn't spoken in the first and second reading—that I felt that this had been a very respectful debate with intelligent contributions on both sides of the argument and I still feel that way but I just want to make a plea to those members who are trying now to shut down the debate to remember that this is a bill that attracted a record number of submissions. There are tens of thousands of New Zealanders listening to this debate as we speak here tonight who have a deep personal interest in this issue. There are a large number of amendments. It is absolutely incumbent upon each and every one of us to do justice to that. Unfortunately we can't cover the full gamut of submissions but what I would like to do in this call is to draw attention to three very significant groups or entities within our community and ask the member in charge of the bill to answer some questions to them because as we look at the amendments in Part 2 a lot of them are around trying to protect organisations through freedom of conscience and that sort of thing. Now the first one I had just started to draw attention to when my last call was interrupted and that was from Hospice New Zealand. I ask the member in charge of the bill what he says to Mary Schumacher who is the chief executive of Hospice New Zealand—and the 19000 hospice procedures that are performed each year and how many people are represented by those—that the desire to ensure personal choice for a very small number of people who would want euthanasia will have a great impact on everyone diagnosed with a terminal illness in New Zealand. Does he agree with that comment and what is his—he's shaking his head. He doesn't it would appear but what is his response to Hospice New Zealand? I'm sorry I can't do justice to all of them but they have made some points and I'd like to put some of them on the record and ask the member to respond to them. Hospice New Zealand is supporting the concept that organisations would be able to object conscientiously. They make the point in relation to the Hon Michael Woodhouse's amendment that its inclusion would give hospices and others the right to choose whether they object as an organisation or not. It would allow hospices to operate under their founding tenet of neither hastening nor postponing death. It would ensure people wanting euthanasia can still access palliative care services and hospice services but if they wish to have euthanasia as part of their end of life care it won't be undertaken by a hospice employee or at a hospice inpatient unit of an objecting organisation and it will ensure that there is no disruption to funding from Government for organisations who object. I ask the member to respond to Hospice New Zealand to those particular points. Why is he so determined to push them down that particular path which is putting them into such a difficult position?The next one—and I'm sorry I'm going quickly but it's from the New Zealand Medical Association. I simply mention Dr Kate Baddock and have no chance to go any further but she drew attention in her correspondence to all MPs to a study of Quebec palliative care physicians' views on euthanasia that found that all of them opposed voluntary euthanasia. Only one of the 18 in the study felt that religious or political beliefs had influenced their views. Instead it was their professional experience in caring for dying patients that led them to oppose such legislation.Now we've all received that from doctors. We all acknowledge that not all doctors speak with one voice and probably not everybody in hospices do either but that enormous list of doctors around New Zealand who do not want us to pass this bill—many of them having written to us saying we would utterly compromise their profession if we do that. I have had people in my own city of Hamilton say to me—those who are working in palliative care teams and who are doctors—We would feel so compromised we might well feel we had to leave the profession." Where on earth would we be in this country in the provision of palliative care if a substantial number of those people felt so compromised and put in such an invidious position that they left the profession? We mustn't do that to them.I have met with the palliative care team at Waikato Hospital. I have met with the team at Hospice Waikato in my city. I have heard their concerns. I simply ask the member in the bill to acknowledge them as well and in particular to say why he won't consider these amendments that are being put forward. The final one—and I've only got 30 seconds—is just to highlight the concerns that have repeatedly been put forward by the Disability Rights Commissioner Paula Tesoriero because she speaks for the numerous people who live with disabilities in our community who are deeply concerned and who are actually terrified. Many of them turned up at submissions in my city and right around the country and spoke often wept with the fear that they feel at how vulnerable they feel. I ask the member in charge of the bill and those opposite who are trying to shut it down please to give an answer. Hear their voice—[Time expired]CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Can I just bring it to everyone's attention that we are starting to get quite repetitive with some of the arguments. All of the Supplementary Order Papers have been spoken to at least once. So I am now looking for new material otherwise I will accept a closure motion."