Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you to all members who have so far risen and spoken in this discussion. I want to try and reply to some of the things that have been said starting with Chris Penk who said MPs should do work they are paid to do". As I listened to him speak I couldn't help but agree. I think he's right. I think he's reflected something that quite a number of people have actually said in this debate. But I think there's a false assumption when people say that because the people of New Zealand would be able to have a vote somehow that takes away from the work that has been done in Parliament. It's actually not an either/or; it's an and/and. What is happening here is that this bill has had by far the most comprehensive going over both in the select committee and in the committee of the whole House that I can think of of any bill in the time that I've followed New Zealand politics. That is quite an extraordinary analysis that's been undertaken and I think actually the fact that we've done that doesn't take anything away from letting the people have a say about ratifying the bill or vice versa.We had Jenny Marcroft who described the Supplementary Order Papers put forward in her name Nos 361 and 287. I think she did a very good job of that but I just want to repeat some of it for the benefit of Andrew Bayly. Andrew Bayly said that he was uncertain who would define the question. I think it's important to note that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 361 actually sets out the question that would be asked as I said in my opening address. So that's not something that Andrew Bayly should be worried about.We then had Alfred Ngaro who said that because there had been a certain proportion of submissions in favour of and against the bill in the select committee stage it was not necessary to have a referendum. I can see where he's going with that but I think the logic actually works in reverse. If Alfred Ngaro is correct then he should actually vote for the referendum in order that the people of New Zealand have an opportunity to stop the bill—unless of course he's incorrect and the select committee did not represent the views of New Zealanders and he knows that in fact a referendum will lead to the bill being passed. But in any case I'm not entirely sure that his logic is sound when he says that the select committee submissions somehow negate the need for a referendum. If anything they make the case for giving the people a say if his proposition is indeed correct.We had Michael Woodhouse say that he felt the title was incorrect because institutions would not be able to choose. I actually don't want to relitigate the debate that we had over his amendment—I don't think it's proper in this part—except to say that in the discussions I've had with Michael Woodhouse about that amendment I don't think the concerns he has about the effects on institutions are borne out in overseas experience in the way that he's claimed. He's told me that institutions in Canada are closing. I've asked him for the evidence of that. He's sent me emailed links to articles that did not say institutions were closing so I reject that argument. We had oh Simon O'Connor Louisa Wall. I'd like to pay some attention to Louisa Wall. I've got a great deal of respect for the very conscientious way that Louisa Wall has engaged in the debate throughout and the fact that she's actually a supporter of New Zealanders being able to have this choice. I believe that her concerns are genuine and well-founded when it comes to the effect that a referendum might have. I make a couple of observations for Louisa Wall that I hope might salve some of the concerns that she's raised. She quoted I think a Professor Quinn from Sydney if I've got that right and I think she's been heavily influenced by some of the really objectionable conduct that occurred in the referendum over marriage equality in Australia. I suspect having not read Professor Quinn that that's what has driven that. For one thing we know that public opinion research in New Zealand—and in Australia for that matter—shows that the fear of a particularly close referendum vote is probably not well-founded on this topic. In the case of Australia with marriage equality in some states it went right down to the wire. I think some states maybe even voted against in the case of New South Wales where Professor Quinn's based. So I don't think that we will have that issue if the bill is allowed to go to referendum. I also think that one of the issues with the marriage equality referendum in Australia is that it was about whether or not a specific group of people should have rights and that led to the targeting of the group of people rather than the issue. I don't think in this case this is about extending a particular right to a particular group of people in a way that any particular group is going to be victimised. There's not a motive to attack a group of people in that way. There might be some people that refer to a group of people and even say that a group of people are potentially going to be victims but not to vociferously attack them and that's one of the reasons that I'm less concerned. I think that Louisa Wall's concern can be salved by an analysis of some of the finer differences. I appreciate Mark Patterson's contribution. I acknowledge it has been a sincere commitment of New Zealand First over a long period of time to have more direct democracy. I particularly want to come to Tim Macindoe. If you'll bear with me you know I sometimes think about the history of our Parliament. I think about members travelling by coastal shipping before there was reliable rail or roads in our country travelling far away and going back to their constituents after visiting this place for several months with limited telecommunications and delivering the news to their constituents. "What did you deliver us?" they might be asked. "You went there. Did you stand up for what you said you'd do for us or were you somehow compromised by perhaps bigger bullies that you may have encountered while you were in the big smoke?" I think about those people and what it must have been like to be a representative in the early colonial days of our Parliament. I don't think it would be credible to go back to one's constituents and say "I changed because I didn't like the name." I just don't. You know Michael Laws was raised earlier and Michael Laws said that politicians are sometimes the most sincere because we convince ourselves first. But I'd say to the member: I don't think that what he is proposing as a course of action is the right one. I appeal to his strong personal history of integrity and particularly two words in Latin: virtus pollet. I think those are the words that he should be reflecting on as he reviews what he's gone through in the last 24 hours because I've got a little bit of understanding and empathy for what it may have been like and I'd remember those very fine words to him from the words "ad augusta". I'm sure he can come to his own conclusions. I want to thank Kieran McAnulty for a very well-reasoned and knowledgeable speech.Andrew Bayly: I've spoken to one of his comments but the one thing I would say is that he believed that the fine electorate of Hunua is evenly divided. If he was to ask David Farrar who provides polls to his party whether the people of Hunua are evenly divided I think he would find that in actual fact the people of Hunua are probably for a semi-rural electorate like that about 70 percent in favour and about 20 percent opposed. I know Andrew Bayly is a very numerate man and will appreciate the importance of a randomly selected representative sample.I want to finally come to a comment that was made by a number of people about the politics or at least alluded to—that somehow having a referendum might in a way detract from the election or be too complex for New Zealanders to process. I don't believe that this is beyond the wit of New Zealanders to process. I'm somebody who has travelled and done over 30 public meetings literally from Kerikeri to Gore on this issue. In my experience the amount of thought and insight that New Zealanders have when it comes to this topic is much greater than perhaps they're being given credit for by some people. It is often rooted in some of the most personal and intense experiences that New Zealanders have. That has led them to think about it intensely. And of course the polling that opponents have referred to showed that even when they had the options broken down and referred to a majority was still in favour of the bill. So I don't think we should underestimate the public. I think we do that at our peril.Finally people say there's a political element. The fact is that if politics really crossed over with this particular moral issue after the last two or three years of me being the public face of it ACT would be polling at 70 percent and we're not. So I think people on either side of politics can be quite certain that this issue does not cross over with the purpose of next year's election. Thank you Mr Speaker."