Clark DavidHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Thank you Madam Chair. I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 295 in the name of Michael Woodhouse which has not been debated as much in the last period that I've been following the debate. Mr Woodhouse and I run in the same seat in Dunedin and there are often things we disagree on. This is one of those occasions where I agree with Mr Woodhouse and the SOP that he has put forward. I want to acknowledge the thoughtfulness of the SOP and encourage members from both sides of the debate to consider its merits. It's an SOP that is designed to create an exemption for organisations that have a conscientious objection to assisted dying. I think it's quite a constructive SOP. It's not designed to stop the passage of the bill. It's not designed to stop the effect of the bill should those people who are proponents of it have their way. My concern—previously brought to the fore in this debate—is around those who are most vulnerable and I just want acknowledge that overseas examples that have been brought to my attention suggest that those who are of lower socio-economic status or marginalised in society are those who are most likely to end up having assisted dying or euthanasia and my concern is around the vulnerability of those people.This Supplementary Order Paper doesn't entirely get to that issue although there may be some overlap. What it does is it proposes—it's Supplementary Order Paper 295—that there be an exemption for conscientious objection by an organisation. That could be a faith-based organisation or another type of organisation involved in providing care in the community perhaps in the area of physical or intellectual disability. It might be palliative care. It might be aged residential care or hospice care.The effect of the SOP is to ensure that no department Crown entity or other public sector entity responsible for funding commissioning purchasing or procuring services may make a discriminatory decision on the basis of a conscientious objection by an organisation. That includes funding decisions so that a hospice that wishes to ensure that euthanasia is not practised on its grounds is not in any way discriminated against in a funding decision and so that services can continue to be provided into the community that are clearly free from those influences.Now why I think this is a worthy amendment particularly is because it's not trying to scream from the hilltops here; it's trying to create a compassionate carve-out for those who would think differently on the issue—and recognising that in this debate the members of Parliament across the House are thoughtful on both sides of the House. There are a lot of people who are both for this and against this and I believe on good conscience on both sides—people who have personal experiences that have formed their views both for and against assisted dying.For those who would wish to attend an organisation that is very clear that it does not want to have to do with assisted dying for faith reasons or for other reasons it seems reasonable that they should be able to attend those organisations that they should continue to be provided in the community. Particularly where the language of choice" is used by the proponents of this bill this is another kind of choice. This is a choice people might want to make to go to a place where they feel safe in their final years of life or moments or whatever it may happen to be.For those who oppose the bill many I have heard—or some perhaps—are voting against all amendments. I would say this is an amendment for those who oppose the bill who even though they may not like what comes out the other end—if the early indications are anything to go by—might see a way that some of their concerns may be tempered through the provision of services deliberately to the public for those who wish to avoid being in an organisation that practises euthanasia.It does get to one of my concerns around vulnerability particularly with the disabled community and so on because I do believe there will be organisations who will make a point of saying that they will not have these practices on their premises and that will give some parents and friends and family the comfort of knowing that they can refer somebody to a service where this will not be something they need to be concerned about. I commend SOP 295 to the House."