Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. Tēnā koutou katoa. I specifically want to speak to two Supplementary Order Papers. The first is Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 209 in the name of Simon O'Connor. The reason I've chosen his SOP to speak to tonight is really the nullification I'll call it of the current clause 6(2)(b) which is proposed by the proponent of this piece of legislation. Essentially the proposition from Simon O'Connor is that if you conscientiously object to undertaking end of life choice requests as a medical practitioner then as is proposed by David Seymour that medical practitioner must provide information about the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group which will then provide the patient with the name and contact details of a replacement medical practitioner. I actually think this speaks to the whole issue of individuals not participating in a practice as Simeon Brown has just talked about that may contravene their values and beliefs. But at the heart of the second aspect of the current proposed clause 6(2)(b) it is actually about a duty of care. So my proposition is that you may not as a medical practitioner want to support your patient in their choice of end of life choices but at minimum you should provide them with an alternative. I base it around the concept of duty of care because actually it's a legal obligation which is imposed on an individual requiring adherence to a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others.I guess within the context of that relationship between a medical practitioner and their patient are they doing harm to them if that patient has requested end of life choice information or support and they then choose not only not to provide that service to their patient in the first place but then to refuse to actually ensure that that patient has access to adequate and sufficient information to enable them to then engage with a medical practitioner that then does want to assist them in terms of accessing if this bill goes through end of life choice options? For me that also dovetails into SOP 295 in the name of Michael Woodhouse because essentially his proposition is that organisations should be able to express a conscientious objection in the provision of end of life choice options. Again for me definitions are incredibly important. A duty of care from an organisational perspective from what I've been able to discern from medical law definitions is that a hospital or organisation providing medical services would normally owe a duty of care to a patient of a doctor employed by the hospital or provider of medical services. So in fact the issue of conscientious objection by an individual I think requires them if they are to practise from a patient-centred approach perspective—and I do want to draw on my own SOP in terms of that particular concept because if we look at modern concepts of patient-centred care it is about respect for patients' preferences and values. It is about providing emotional support. It is about providing physical comfort—information communication and education are critical—continuity and transition; coordination of care; the involvement of family and friends; and fundamentally it's about access of care.So I think if we look at it from another perspective and that is presuming end of life choice does become an option should a patient if their medical practitioner does not want to offer access to end of life choice—at minimum should that medical practitioner actually ensure that they have information through the Support and Consultation for End of Life in New Zealand Group to find somebody that will enable them to exercise their right as a patient to end of life choice? I haven't quite finished and the reason I am going to ask for another call is because I've found an example of a district health board—[Time expired]