Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you Mr Chair. Can I just take a call to speak in support of my own Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 472 and 476. I've had some queries from colleagues from both sides of the House because the second part of SOP 472 looks remarkably similar to SOP 476. I've submitted SOP 476 earlier today to cover off the eventuality that the second part of SOP 472 might be determined as out of scope by the presiding officer so that's my back-up provision. But I'd like to just explain briefly what these two SOPs do and why the select committee that I had the privilege of chairing didn't recommend these changes.Members of the committee will know that in the bill there is provision for conscientious objection. So if there's someone anywhere along the spectrum of engagement with a person seeking an abortion or seeking emergency contraception the person to whom that request is made is able to say I don't do this."—they can register a conscientious objection. The Abortion Legislation Committee did a very generous and fair allowance for conscientious objection in my view. The bill further says that if a woman is seeking emergency contraception which avoids her getting pregnant—that's the purpose of emergency contraception—she might go to a chemist who says "No I'm a conscientious objector; I'm not going to dispense that prescription for you." the bill requires that chemist to give the woman the name of somebody who will dispense the prescription to her.What the select committee didn't think of and what this SOP seeks to correct is that there's no requirement for that information about the non-conscientious objector to be nearby. So we could have a woman in Whanganui—a fine town if I may say so—seeking emergency contraception and the chemist says "No I'm a conscientious objector; here's a provider." and the provider's in Invercargill—hopeless. So all my SOP seeks to do is say "the nearest provider." It delivers what the select committee's intention was and clearly provides this House with security that any opportunity that we have to avoid unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortions should be taken. So that's why I'm strongly supportive of that.The second part of my SOP 472 which is now in new SOP 476 is to require the Minister of Health to ensure that emergency contraception is available throughout the country. We heard terrible stories at the select committee about a lack of equity of access to services both in emergency contraception and in abortion services. We know that we have a large number of small isolated communities and if you happen to live in one of those areas—Kiritapu Allan will be able to name many of them from her part of the world—it is totally unacceptable for women in those towns to be unable to access emergency contraception solely on the basis of where they live. So that's what the second part of SOP 472 and the new SOP 476 seek to address: making sure that the information that the woman gets is helpful—they will be able to go down the road or you know not too far away to get access to emergency contraception—and the Minister of Health will have an obligation to ensure that it's provided. So that's simply summarised my two SOPs. Mr Chairman thank you for the call."