Pugh MaureenMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Madam Chair. I do intend to stick strictly to Part 3 and accountability as mentioned in the bill. I would like to from the very outset voice in this committee and state publicly because this is the first time I have spoken to this bill that I do not support the End of Life Choice Bill. I believe that it has not protected the most vulnerable and to that point I would like to speak to Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 73 in the name of Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi which seeks to amend David Seymour's SOP 259. The reason for that is because the number of members of the SCENZ Group does need to be specified. It needs to have a range. In this SOP it is suggesting a range no fewer than seven and no more than 13.We have heard tonight from several contributors about the contribution that Dr Theo Boer made in the absolute essential condition of getting this group the SCENZ Group—I'm just trying to find it. It took me quite a long time to find out what SCENZ meant but it actually is Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand. How absolutely essential it is to have that oversight completely locked in because that is the only oversight that there is for the doctors performing these procedures. SOP 73 seeks to amend—Hon Tim Macindoe: It's 329.MAUREEN PUGH: Oh sorry—it was SOP 329.Hon Tim Macindoe: That's the one you're talking about. You're on the right one; it's just a different number.MAUREEN PUGH: Oh OK. Excuse me Madam Chair. I just got a bit distracted. So this SOP would then read the number of members that the director-general considers appropriate but in any case no fewer than 7 and no more than 13". As my colleague Paulo Garcia has just mentioned the skill set that is required on that oversight committee the SCENZ Group is essential in ensuring that these procedures are carried out in accordance with the bill.We heard tonight from Dr Boer that it is essential for that group also to have access to the complete patient file. He was really adamant about that when questioned in detail because himself being a doctor and being on one of those SCENZ groups it gave him the opportunity to read the entire file. He spent two to three hours per file examining it prior to going into the review process and it was interesting to look at the statistics around the difference it made in having a very rigid process with oversight from a range of experts and having access to those patient files. The quote he gave us was that there are about 10 cases a year that are found to be not compliant with the bill in the Netherlands; where he compared with Belgium where they do not have the same access to patient files by the same kind of oversight group there had been one case in 20 years that had failed to meet the criteria. So I think it's really really important that if we are to go down this path we do have absolute certainty in the make-up the professionalism and the access to information of this Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group. The other issue that I would just like to raise very briefly is a concern about the people that are actually undertaking these procedures—the doctors that are involved—and what kind of pastoral care ongoing psychological long-term tracking will be done in terms of them having to perform these procedures. I do have concern for them as individuals being involved in this and so my question to—[Time expired]"