Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for the opportunity to take a second call on the Abortion Legislation Bill. I just want to take on from where my colleague Kieran McAnulty was asking questions earlier of the Minister of Justice around the issue around Down syndrome children and whether this legislation would allow for them to be aborted. I don't feel the Minister actually adequately answered his question because the question was shrouded in the language—and I know that Kieran McAnulty has probably been receiving the same emails that I've been receiving. I acknowledge everyone in my electorate who have been emailing me around whether this legislation will allow for abortion up to birth for those children with Down syndrome. I ask the Minister to answer the question. Remove the language abortion up to birth"—it's not language that I've used. I ask the Minister to answer the question as to whether this legislation will post - 20 weeks allow for the aborting of a child who is at a gestational age post - 20 weeks at any point. That is the question that my constituents are asking in that email. That is the question which I believe he needs to stand up and give a straight answer to. I just want to acknowledge the amendment that Greg O'Connor has put forward. I will be supporting his amendment and Supplementary Order Paper 460 in the name of Agnes Loheni. They both seek to do the same thing in many ways which is to ensure that for those rare cases where there are—and I've heard it being said by the Minister and I've heard it being said by members on the other side. "Rare and exceptional cases"—that there are very clear and defined terms as to what those rare and exceptional cases should be. Greg O'Connor is very right to say when he looks at this bill and reads it that the terminology post - 20 weeks is very vague. When I spoke on this bill at the first reading I said that one of the key concerns that I had on this bill was that it was around the post - 20 week criteria. I accept the argument which is being put forward around—and I think Greg O'Connor said it—removing the argument of abortion from it. Well I ask people on the other side of this debate from me to also remove the argument of abortion from it and whether it is right or wrong and ask the question: what should the law be post - 20 weeks? I think the vast majority of New Zealanders would accept that if the law was going to be the same as it is now then that is where the law should lie. That is something which I'm asking the Minister: on what basis does he believe that post - 20 weeks in New Zealand the law needs to be changed to the criteria that are in the bill that is before Parliament? What examples can he give of women seeking abortion and requiring abortion now who can't get it but will be able to under this law or who can't get it but should be able to under this bill? I ask the Minister to give some examples to the committee and to explain that to this committee as to why he thinks that that change is justified because I've heard from the Minister that we have to justify our reasons why the change shouldn't happen. I think the Minister needs to stand up and actually take a call and explain why the change does need to happen. What's the justification for making the change? What are the cases where there is a need for the law to be changed to legislation which is more vague which is more permissive and which he is arguing there is a case for the change because I haven't seen it. I ask the Minister to take a call and explain to this Parliament and explain to the public and explain to those people who have been emailing me—my constituents—that one question: will it allow for the abortion of those children with Down syndrome post - 20 weeks? I implore Kieran McAnulty—he said that if it happens once he said he would oppose that. So I ask the Minister to clarify: will it happen once?"