Hipango HareteHARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Kia ora e Te Mana Whakawā. Just prior to the dinner break there was some miscommunication around a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that had been submitted in my name and initially ruled out of order. But it has been resubmitted and it is under SOP 384—in fact there are two of them—and SOP 385. I will address the committee in relation to SOP 383 as it relates to proposed new clause 27B of the bill at this time and that relates to—looking to the correct bill it is The Director-General may approve forms and issue forms for the purposes of this Act." CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can speak to SOP 384 but not SOP 383. HARETE HIPANGO: Could you please clarify Mr Chair why that would be? CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): SOP 383 has been ruled out as belonging to Part 2 but you can speak to SOP 384. HARETE HIPANGO: All right Mr Chair and then perhaps some inquiry will be made about SOP 383 because it's been communicated to me that it had been accepted. I accept that you don't have that before you at this point in time. In relation to SOP 384—and I need to get the correct papers to hand around that—that is talking about duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi as pertain to the responsibilities of the responsible organisation. In other words the health service provider would have a requirement around providing a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. My submission to the Chair to the House and to members of the public is that in relation to the director-general approving and issuing forms those forms would be as to the process and the procedure that would be implemented under this bill around the terminally ill seeking to not only provide informed consent but the treatment around medication or the injection to end their lives. The particular part in terms of the Treaty of Waitangi and under this Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to what is proposed in clause 27A on Supplementary Order Paper 259 is that there becomes a requirement and an obligation and a commitment as there is under other legislation pertaining to vulnerable persons in this land to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and that is around process and procedure. It's well-known as I've indicated in the House before that we have laws of the land we have legislation that is there to provide safeguards protections for our vulnerable people. In other words a classic example of this is our children under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989. Under this SOP it has been taken word for word the proposed amendment to proposed new clause 27A which I now have there inserted as proposed new clause 27B. It is taken word for word from the Oranga Tamariki Act section 7AA the duties that are incumbent on an agent of the State—an agent of the State—to comply with what the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are in terms of the application of process and procedure for the treatment of our people. I talk about specifically how this has bearing in relation to the recognition of the principles under the Treaty of Waitangi—as is well-known article 1 kāwanatanga. It is about that principle as it relates to governorship and the ability for Māori who would be the recipients of any type of treatment under this bill around them and the organisation that would be providing the service and the care to be bound by these commitments of principles of partnership. I talk about the kāwanatanga principle: the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern but Māori interests in particular having an appropriate priority. Coming back to this particular proposed SOP for an amendment to clause 27A is around the issuing of forms as it relates to process and procedure. I will be seeking to extend this call also because going into article 2 which is the premise of legislation relating to the protection of our vulnerable—that is our children; it is there clearly in law—there has been no consideration factored into this bill around the protection of our vulnerable. The principle of rangatiratanga which is the second article of the Treaty guarantees Te Iwi Māori the control and enjoyment of the resources of their taonga. We talk about and I've heard repeatedly in the House "He aha te mea nui? He tangata he tangata he tangata."—what is the most important? Our people our people our people. I sat and listened in the House last evening. There was debate around the Local Government Act and there was in fact from members in this House recognition in the importance of not only the Treaty and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi but the relevance of tikanga the relevance of tikanga Māori and that's where I come back to again: process and procedure—article 2 rangatiratanga principle. This SOP is also seeking to have endorsed and accepted by way of process and procedure article 3 the principle of equality and the principle of equity. We are dealing with a piece of proposed law here that is targeting our most vulnerable that is literally a matter of life and death. We must not overlook the relevance and the important of the principle of equality and equity for those who are seeking to be treated under the law. So the third article guaranteeing legal equality between Māori and other citizens—"other citizens" are also all other cultural ethnic groups the diversity that makes up the face and the shape of this nation. This bill does not address that in any form whatsoever—the principles the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi—and it is well-known that the legislation of this land requires that commitment which has been mandated in numerous pieces of legislation that have been before this House: last night the Local Government Act; earlier in the year the Coroners (Access to Body of Dead Person) Amendment Act and the relevance and significant of those cultural factors values considerations. I implore the members of this House I implore members of the public that we have a duty of care and responsibility to our most vulnerable. This bill that's proposed has no lens no optics whatsoever in terms of addressing that. I will state again categorically: I know that I am the only member of Parliament in this House who has practised law who has advocated for our vulnerable who has advocated for the care protection welfare oversight and also the checking and the tests of the evidence there before the courts to ensure that the safeguards are in place. In this bill it's purported that they are. I categorically can declare that that is not the case and I denounce what is proposed here. I will also go back to an earlier conversation that I had with the sponsor of the bill. I highlighted and brought to his attention that the template for these checks and balances around safety in a health procedural aspect is the Mental Health Act and the sponsor well knows that I said that that was the template and that was the standard. I have practised as a district inspector in the mental health courts where those of our vulnerable people have been detained in the mental health units and we have had the checks and balances. We have had independent scrutiny. It has not been left to the discretion of the medical practitioner who is not versed who is not trained in ascertaining what legal competency is—and the sponsor may well shake his head. I am yet to be enlightened as to whether he has those 30 years of practising experience that I have as a lawyer advocating in that place and in that space. But where the evidence is tested before an independent determiner of fact called a judge there is no optics or lens or oversight or independent scrutiny; the competency the legal capacity of that vulnerable person to make an informed decision around providing informed consent is left to a medical practitioner. In wrapping up this part of my address to the committee I am going to share from a personal experience. I was appointed as a welfare guardian for my father. I have a legal background and he was dying and it was very clear that the medical practitioner knew. It was on the record: they had seen it and they had initialled beside it that I was the person to have been consulted around any change in medical treatment and care. That medical practitioner took it upon herself—it happened to be an international doctor—to say "Nope. Not going to go there." and make the decision to withdraw any treatment. My father died soon after."