Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Madam Chair. May I start perhaps in an unconventional fashion to seek your indulgence for a two times five-minute call? I appreciate that's a decision you'll make closer—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): You haven't got it. You've got one. You've only got one left.CHRIS PENK: I believe I've only spoken twice Madam Chair. I would respectfully request that you—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh OK. But you're not getting two.CHRIS PENK: Thank you very much—pardon me? I'm not getting—well with all due respect Madam Chair I believe having placed before the committee a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I think is very substantial both in terms of length but also in terms of the hugely important issue that it speaks to—in any case I look forward to having the opportunity at least as much as I am afforded to speak to that.Particularly I'd like to appeal to those of our colleagues who have by their own admission stated that they are comfortable enough in principle with the idea of euthanasia but have expressed real concerns regarding the specific provisions and processes within the bill particularly the lack of meaningful safeguards and have expressed a concern with how those would play out in reality and have made it very clear to us—and we've heard a couple of such members speak tonight—that they will base their decision at the third and final reading on the way that these are addressed.This is the context of my SOP 302. It is quite detailed in its provisions and I've had a chance to speak only to some of that detail and I'd like to continue to do so now. The purpose of an independent panel of practitioners to determine whether pressure is present in my SOP 302 is specifically needed because the member's bill even as amended by his SOP does not provide these provisions satisfactorily in itself. There is only one doctor who is required to turn his or her mind to the subject of coercion. We've got such absurdities as that person being expected to ensure that a person understands their options for end of life care. It is impossible ever to ensure that someone understands something. You can ensure only that the person is told those things. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.For the absurdity of someone in a white coat who is respected as an authority figure particularly by elderly New Zealanders to be questioned in terms of the information that's provided and in the nature of supposedly a free and frank exchange of information but in fact in the nature many would feel in that situation of a directive for that person to be merely having to do their best without any reference to what exactly that might look like in the circumstances quite frankly is absolutely absurd. That is why I have taken the trouble to put forward an SOP that actually sets out some meaningful safeguards and I say to members who might be more likely to vote for the bill as a result of that getting passed—well I have mixed emotions about that because I have made no secret of the fact that I don't regard the practice of euthanasia as safe in any case but at least for those members who are basing a decision at the third and final reading on whether the provisions of Part 2 in particular are in fact safe would they please give serious consideration to the particular points within my SOP.Those are as I have touched on briefly before the establishment of a panel of no fewer than 12 members a membership that's specifically designed to have a breadth of experience that is particularly relevant—social workers and elder abuse experts are very relevant for reasons that colleagues have already spoken to and I will not repeat that material. The purpose of having the chair of the panel appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General after consultation with the Minister of Justice Minister of Health and the Minister for Seniors is an attempt to reflect in the process the reality on the ground that actually decisions in this space will invariably be matters of justice invariably be matters of health and invariably be matters under the purview of the Minister for Seniors—except of course when it's a younger person but overwhelmingly it would be an older New Zealander. These people—I've gone into the trouble of spelling out in the SOP—could not be appointed members of the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group or the review committee either because that would constitute a conflict of interest.So I've gone again to some considerable trouble to spell out these matters in good faith in the hope that they'll be adopted by the House including in particular to have specific requirements about a report to be written in each individual case. The purpose of a report of course is that there's an evidential record of exactly what's been considered of exactly what's been decided and this is the detail that I've put in my SOP that's frankly not in the bill. I challenge the member in the chair to explain why he has not included in his bill a process more robust than one medical practitioner who never needs to have met the person before making such a decision.