SpeechClauses 1 and 2DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Thank you Mr Chair. I don't intend to take a very long call. I just want to reiterate the number of reasons why New Zealand First is tabling a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which is requesting a referendum on this issue.I'd also like to ask a couple of genuine questions and we'll see if they can get answered. Because one of the things that I've actually noticed tonight and through the day as I have been in throughout the entire debate today is that there's been two quite distinct angles of debate on the same issue. First of all has been and I think the Minister has said it the bill itself is not about whether someone is pro-abortion or pro-life or whether it's based on someone's feelings or points of view on whether abortion is correct or not; this is a piece of legislation that is taking something out of the Crimes Act. But then I hear some suggestions from some other members that this is a very contentious bill or topic very personal and very sensitive issue. They let me hear some stories some personal stories about their families their children and their relatives that give them the ability to form their view on their conscious view and conscience on this issue. So on the one hand we have just a bill that is about taking something out of the Crimes Act and then we've got something quite different which is based on personal beliefs personal moral stances and personal experiences. The question is that I have for this committee if it isn't about being pro- or anti-abortion then why isn't this a party vote? Why is this a personal vote?We've had questions from some members that say Why is this a referendum? Why are some people asking for this to be a referendum?" Well the only question that needs to be answered really is the fact of why is this a personal vote to begin with? It's a personal vote because every single individual in this Chamber has a personal point of view on it; whether that be a personal belief system whether it be a personal family history or personal experience but it's all formed on personal life experience and moral compass in some aspects and belief system in some aspects. Then you've got some people who are ignoring that altogether and having a look at this as purely something that needs to come out of the Crimes Act and that's their argument. Now whether either side is right or wrong that's not what I'm up here talking about. What I'm up here and talking about is the fact that this is a personal vote and this House demanded it be a personal vote and why? Why not a party vote? That's the first question that I've got to ask.The second point that I want to make is that because it's a personal vote it is an absolute admission by this House that it comes down to the personal individual and the personal individual conscience. What we see here in the last few stages of this bill are people standing up and giving their personal point of view and then suggesting that their personal point of view is worth more or less than any other personal point of view of anyone outside of this House. That's something that New Zealand First disagrees with. We believe that every person and every individual in this country should have a voice on this issue that their point of view their personal history their belief system their moral compass or whatever you want to call it is just as valuable as ours. We have no moral mandate to decide for them. That's why New Zealand First has had a consistent principle for every conscience vote and every conscience issue that this should go to the people. Just like we have two already this year on the marijuana debate and on euthanasia New Zealand First stands firm on that principle—that's why we're putting forward this SOP. We believe that people of New Zealand deserve a voice in this debate. Thank you Mr Chair."