Tolley AnneEND OF LIFE CHOICE BILL In Committee Debate resumed from 11 September. Part 4 Related matters CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Members when we were last considering the bill the committee had completed the debate on Part 3 and we come now to Part 4. For members' information all the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) on the End of Life Choice Bill that are fewer than five pages long have been collated into sets on the Table and Supplementary Order Papers longer than five pages are on the Table individually. I wish to let members know that SOP 383 in the name of Harete Hipango which relates to duties in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi and SOP 382 in the name of the Hon Alfred Ngaro which relates to cultural considerations set operational requirements that should have applied to the provision of assisted dying services—i.e. taking account of that person's ethnic background or a person's family and whānau participation. As such these amendments should be in Part 2 and cannot be in Part 4 which contains only provisions of general application. Therefore there will be no debate on these Supplementary Order Papers. That brings us then to Part 4 debate—Hon Michael Woodhouse: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Thank you for that ruling Madam Chair. I just wonder whether there were references in Part 2 to cultural dimensions and if not whether or not the presiding officers have considered whether that SOP or SOPs would therefore constitute a new part. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yes we have considered that and I think the writers of the SOP also considered that. In Part 2 we did consider the taking of cultural family or whānau into consideration. That was debated. Chris Penk: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. With regard to both of those SOPs you've advised to be ruled out I seek your guidance in relation to for a start SOP 382—the cultural considerations one we might refer to. In fact you'll see that the scope is broad enough that it would also include Part 3. So it might be your ruling that it's not appropriate for Part 4 in that it relates to Part 2 and Part 3 but I think with all due respect you can't fairly say that it relates only to Part 2 and should therefore have been confined to that debate. It refers to any person or organisation that is defined as responsible accorded a duty under the Act and that clearly could be not only a person or organisation under Part 2 but also Part 3—for example the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group and the review committee. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I thank the member for clarifying my ruling to include Part 3 as well as Part 2. OK so now we're on Part 4. Hon Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): A point of order. I hope we're not going to keep on debating because I have actually ruled. Hon Alfred Ngaro: Not wanting to relitigate your ruling Madam Chair but just in regards to Part 4 Related matters" and clause 24 "Other rights and duties not affected"—under that is there also provision and ability to be able to look at parts which have been ruled out on SOP 382 but do relate to the aspect in regards to the roles and responsibilities that could be under that provision under other rights and duties especially in the duty of care of those as health practitioners? So I'm just wanting to seek your clarification because it is relating to Part 4. It is about related matters. It does go to the point of clause 24 other rights and duties not affected by that. So I'm just seeking your clarification. Also in clause 25 "Effect on contracts of death under this Act" we do know that there are other forms of legislation that do talk about responsibilities under the Treaty—the Coroners Act in particular—to do with that which has been before this House where there are particular roles and responsibilities under the duty of care especially the effects on contracts of death under this Act. So I'm just seeking your clarification because those particular parts of those SOPs actually do relate to parts in Part 4. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Yeah look I understand exactly the concern that the member is expressing. I refer him to his colleague's SOP 364 which proposes an SOP that is in a form that is in order. That could have been used to achieve the ends that the member was trying to propose with his SOP. So perhaps the member might like to have a look at SOP 364. Hon Alfred Ngaro: Speaking to the point of order Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I don't need any more help. I've actually ruled and I've been pretty indulgent. Hon Alfred Ngaro: Just talking about process not wanting to take against your ruling then. Since you have then opened the opportunity under that are there parts of the SOP that you've ruled out—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I've ruled out the whole lot. Hon Alfred Ngaro: —that we can speak to? That's correct but you've also said that under SOP 364 there is potential provision there to include that. So is there a way to—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): No no. I'm sorry; the member misunderstands me. Your colleague Melissa Lee phrased SOP 364 in a way that was in order. You might like to have a look at it and resubmit an SOP in that form which may well be in order then—may depending on how it's worded. In the meantime the other two are out of order and not necessarily to be debated even though we've debated them quite well. OK so that brings us to Part 4."