SpeechHon TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): I was a little bit hesitant because I was hoping that the Hon Maggie Barry might be able to continue but I would like to pick up where she's left off in speaking on Part 3. In doing so I would just like to mention that after the debate was shut down—prematurely I think—on Part 2 three weeks ago I received a lovely email which was sent on behalf of the chief executive and the board chair of Hospice New Zealand Mary Schumacher and Richard Thurlow and I hoped that I could just put on record some of their comments because they and members of their organisation around the country are watching this debate on Part 3 tonight. I can only assume that there would be thousands of people watching the debate who have a strong interest in it. They made the point that while a number of speakers have been imploring the member in charge of the bill to respond to the concerns that they have—and theirs are quite unique concerns. I would like to think that every member of this House appreciates the huge importance and the compassion of the work done by hospices around the country.Now I'm not one who is looking to string out this debate unnecessarily. I accept the fact—David Seymour: Who is? Name them.Hon TIM MACINDOE: —that the member in charge of the bill has the numbers and yet he interjects while I speak on behalf of an organisation whose members will be required whether they like it or not to do what he is legislating for. I ask him to show them the courtesy that is required in order for their concerns to be heard.David Seymour: Which section is the member debating?Hon TIM MACINDOE: I'm talking about Part 3 but I'm asking the member to respond to the concerns that I think have been emailed to all members certainly to a large number of us by not only the national organisation of Hospice New Zealand but there was Dr Arthur Morris who is the chairman of Mercy Hospital and probably some other hospices as well. As they have looked at the provisions of Part 3 of this bill they have raised with us further concerns.Now one of the main concerns of course was over the right for conscientious objection but that's now been taken away from them. So as we look at Part 3 we have to look at what the implication is now. They've made the point and I hope Madam Chair that you'll allow me to put their words on the record. Once again Hospice New Zealand in the email that they have sent to us as members of this Parliament charged with making one of the most important decisions that will come before this House in our lifetime urge MPs to consider the gravity of the subject we are debating and ultimately deciding upon because Hospice New Zealand members and staff members say that they are feeling very marginalised in this discussion. With the narrowing of the criteria to people specifically with terminal illness they are the most affected party in the provision of end of life care but they feel that they have had very little opportunity to be involved in this discussion. Certainly they had opportunities to make submissions but during the course of the debate in this House they feel they have been totally shut out.So as the Hon Alfred Ngaro did when he spoke on Part 3 a short time ago I urge the bill's supporters—not just the member in charge of the bill but all of the bill's supporters—to stand tonight and take a call and answer directly the concerns of Hospice New Zealand and their members to show that they have an understanding of the extraordinarily difficult position that this bill and Part 3 puts the hospices and their wonderful staff in.Now in the time available let's look at Louisa Wall's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) because that involves an application to the Family Court. I have great respect for Louisa Wall. She knows that I believe she's a very thoughtful and principled member and so I acknowledge the fact that I genuinely believe that she's doing her best to make this bill the best that it can be. But the concern that has been put on is that this will now require a reference to a Family Court. Now Hospice New Zealand are saying that if the intention is to relieve the pressure on doctors they will still be required to undertake the euthanasia of the patient but now this puts an extra burden on them to participate in another formal process around that request. So we do need to think carefully about whether that's a reasonable demand to put upon them particularly as they are medical people; they're not legal people. So should we pass that SOP clearly it is something of concern to Hospice New Zealand. Let's just point out that they're a national organisation providing palliative care for more than 19000 people per year. Their concerns must be heard.