O'Connor SimonSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. I'm always astounded that proponents of free speech are the ones very quickly to try and shut down debate and discussion and ironically one on a referendum. So I'll start where my honourable colleague Alfred Ngaro finished which is around the whole question of referendum or to be probably correct referenda.It will probably disappoint some particularly in the pro-life movement that I will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper: one out of principle. I've always—well I've articulated in the committee this evening as I have in other weeks: I think consistency is important and I have in effect been opposed to referenda as a mechanism around bills such as this. At the end of the day—and I think actually it was one of my colleagues Ian McKelvie who raised it last week or the week before when he was prophetically looking towards this part—we're given the time and resource to put this together. It starts with the Government and I think it's important to note this is a Government bill.I don't know—this is obviously not a question for the Minister—how enthusiastically he accepted the ball or not but it's a Government bill and it starts with a Government that has the resources of Government to put a bill together that it sees as right and proper. Obviously I disagree with that but the bill has come in front of a select committee. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders sought to have their voices heard and so I find it a little bit rich—again not as a personal comment to Mr Ball but to New Zealand First—that we had a select committee process which actively and deliberately stopped people having their voice.It remains an outrage to me having chaired select committees for years that only 150 select people's stories were allowed to be heard and yet now this House is discussing the possibility of having a referendum to go and talk to people. To be blunt about it it's just a crock. There is no intention to really want to engage the people; there's just a desire to get this done. But as I say we in this House were elected to be representatives. I think I'd be remiss and I think this House would be remiss if it doesn't do its job and if every time we come across a difficult question we throw it back to the people with some sort of moralising Referendums are important for people to have their say" approach I think we'd fail in our duties there. I'm also noting that we have had inconsistencies over two life issues at the moment where referenda are being pushed—paddled about if you will—as conveniences. I don't intend to relitigate the end of life choice and I've always said there is a distinction around the euthanasia and abortion debates. But a referendum was voted through on euthanasia for the simple reason that it was the only way it seemed to get it through and people compromised their principles left right and centre to let that through. Tonight there's a hint that the referendum is not going to make a difference. People are more than happy to capitulate their views on referenda—"Oh no no no we're not going to have one on this occasion." So I would certainty put out to the people who are watching and listening to look at who voted for the euthanasia referendum and then look at who votes against a referendum here and note the galling galling inconsistencies. I also need to point out that I just see this as a continual New Zealand First ploy. I think there are many out there in the community who look to New Zealand First as some sort of conservative group a moderate group a considered group but they are not. When it comes to the issues they are not. If you have a conservative position and if you have a principled position on these moral questions you stand up. Now people don't always like your position—people don't like my position. That's fine but I stand up and I'll take it. I'll take the hits and I'll challenge why. But having a referenda is just a ploy to avoid the tough questions. So I really encourage those people who support New Zealand First on the basis—it is to me just a ploy. It's just a ploy and I think fundamentally we've got some problems there. [Interruption] So I think I may have touched a nerve but I think it needs to be said. When we stick to principles they must also stick to what we are called on to do in this House. Even if this bill goes in a sense against what I'd prefer it to do I think that we have the confidence of the House and we should have the confidence of the House to actually be able to vote on this and to have—[Interruption] Sorry I'm getting slightly distracted which is a bit unusual for me. We really are MPs with a confidence if you will. We've had the time. Let's put the select committee process to the side but we've had the time to consider this and I suppose my encouragement is for members to vote against having a referendum and to have the courage."