Woodhouse MichaelHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. In my intervention I'd like to talk about Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 396 in the name of the Hon Tim Macindoe who proposes a change to the title of the bill the End of Life Choice Bill. In his opening remarks the sponsor of the bill Mr Seymour and indeed in his interjections on the Hon Maggie Barry several times used the term choice". And indeed it is true that because of the changes that had been made by his SOP 259 there had been clarity around the protection of the choice that an individual seeking assisted dying can make and protection against the coercion that could be brought to bear on that person. There are differing views in the House about whether or not they will be effective.He also introduced choices for individual health practitioners particularly doctors and nurses: the choice of the right of conscientious objection. But what this committee has rejected—and the reason why because of that I support Mr Macindoe's SOP is the rejection of choice for organisations and institutions. And one of the things that I don't think the sponsor of the bill and those who opposed that SOP in an earlier stage understood was the structure of the staffing in aged-care facilities palliative care facilities hospitals and so on. Most doctors almost all of them are not employees of the institution and therefore have particular admitting rights and responsibilities that are different from and independent of employment arrangements. And there is a glaring lack of choice for them because of this committee's rejection of that proposed amendment.The choice for an institution providing aged and palliative care to say no to end of life choice; to say that it should be a condition of admission as a resident to those facilities that if one does come in they understand that they had a choice to choose that facility knowing that it didn't provide euthanasia services—CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): I'm going to interrupt the member. Just a general warning. This is a very narrow debate on clauses 1 and 2. The member needs to make the linkage. It's not an opportunity to re-debate SOPs—Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I accept that Mr Chair.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —I understand that—that have already been rejected by the committee. So I really want you to make linkages to what's actually before the committee.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I understand that but it is important to understand the reasons why I think Mr Macindoe's amendment is important to me. It is because what is being put to the committee isn't what's on the tin. The member says it's end of life choice. There are limitations on those choices for many stakeholders who are going to be affected by this bill not the least of which are the very people who run the organisations in which many of the services that could be offered when this bill goes through are going to be made. And my question is this: how can we say that that is choice when what the sponsor of the bill has said is (a) such an amendment was not necessary but (b) he believes funders should be able to set as an expectation of their funding the expectation that these services be offered? And that gives these organisations Hobson's choice. And there are organisations which knowing that they might not have a choice when this bill is passed will close their doors and I—the member rolls his eyes! When was he last at Mercy Hospice Auckland or the Little Sisters of the Poor in Dunedin?—important institutions which have provided end of life care the natural dying process for 100 years and he rolls his eyes. When they close choice is reduced to the very people he is saying will be given a choice by this bill and for that reason as I say: what's on the tin is not what's in the bill and Mr Macindoe's amendment is a very very important one."