SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I rise and take a call on my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in Part 2: SOP 470. Before I do I want to acknowledge that it is an emotive subject that many people in our community have been emailing talking to us—people have been saying karakias and prayers. I want to acknowledge the fact that I was gifted this: this is a model of a 20-week-old fetus. It is to remind us of what we are actually debating about.I also want to acknowledge from Louise Kapene Green where she gave a korowai and this korowai is to acknowledge our pēpēs our young babies and the importance of what we are doing in this House. We talk about the vulnerability and the frailty of our children so I've brought this into the committee on their behalf to remind us what it is that we are doing in this Chamber. On that note this SOP is about safety and concern.In this Chamber many have actually talked about that the bills and the legislation we put through this House should ensure the safety and wellbeing of our community and of our people. If that is so—if that is a principle that many members of this House have followed and adhered to and claim to believe in—then I believe that this SOP is something that they should consider. I know there to be many members who have given their proxy votes over and have allowed the whim and the will of whoever that proxy's given to. May I plead and implore those members in this committee to look at SOP 470?This Supplementary Order Paper amends the Abortion Legislation Bill by inserting new clauses 16A and 16B which give the Health and Disability Commissioner a mandate to investigate contraventions of the regulations that govern the provision of abortion services under the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 and the Crimes Act 1961. Simply put this ensures that health practitioners are held to account in relation to their duties under this Bill. Without a means by which infractions of regulations related to abortions can be investigated the regulations have no power to protect women and ensure that abortion is administered in a safe and appropriate way." Can I repeat that: "in a safe and appropriate way." This may for example mean that a medical practitioner did not adhere to those restrictions imposed by the test for post - 20 week abortions.I want to read from the Law Commission who state this: " 'Without an enforcement mechanism there may be less incentive for health practitioners to give proper consideration to the test'. For the Bill to be meaningful in practice it must include a specific power of enforcement. This must include the power to review a health practitioner's actions in the administration of abortion. The explanatory note of this Bill highlights that the changes to the status quo 'will mean that abortion is in general provided like other health services' and that would mean there would exist 'avenues for health consumers to make complaints about their care and for complaints to be independently assessed by the Health and Disability Commissioner'."—from their submission. "The Health and Disability Commissioner is already well equipped to review the actions of … health practitioner[s] for breaches of the Code of Health and Disability Services [under the] Consumers' Rights."I put it to the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little: would he consider this as a precaution again from the Law Commission in which he commissioned the scope of the bill to ensure the safety and concern? This was purely from that perspective. Irrespective of how we vote in the Chamber I genuinely want to put this inside the committee and to the Minister: would he consider this as a precaution to ensure that? How will we hold them to account? How will we ensure that the services that are offered to women in regards to the abortion—and we've talked about the trauma at times that they would go through. What happens in the case where there is not only a legal but a breach of that convention to provide the best care possible and in this case a traumatic incident?I would say to the Minister that he should consider this SOP as being appropriate. I would say to the members of this committee even those that are not here: again irrespective of how you vote will you consider this SOP for a safety reason? "The Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 is drafted in such a way that the [Commission] 'may' investigate but is at no stage required to pursue an investigation. Such a distinction ensures that the Commissioner is not required to investigate spurious claims." I believe that this is a well-considered well-constructed appropriate SOP that I would like to put on to the Table for the Minister to consider but also more importantly for the members of the committee to consider this as an appropriate safety measure."