Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe Madam Chair. I thought it was worth following up my earlier call regarding my position on Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) 287 and 361 to concur with what David Seymour said. In fact all my fears are founded on what happened in the marriage equality plebiscite in Australia and the referendum in Ireland because the net cost to the community actually resulted in a 65 percent increase in violence and bullying and calls to helplines because people essentially had the intensity of their lives debated in the public and they had to deal with widespread negative attitudes.When I think about who may be demonised by this process for me it is the vulnerable and it is people with disabilities and older New Zealanders. I agree with my colleague Harete Hipango that we do have a duty of care and I also agree with Simeon Brown that our job is to do no harm. So if there is a process or a mechanism that has the potential to harm specific cohorts of our citizens then I can't in good conscience vote for the referendum even though I 100 percent support the bill.I guess this is my opportunity to put some pressure on New Zealand First because it seems inconceivable that they would say to this committee that unless you vote for our referendum we will vote this bill down at third reading. So I want to put on the record that I think that is appalling and that is abhorrent because we have in good faith engaged in a discussion that we have been having since 1995. That was started by New Zealand First as I highlighted earlier. You're putting us all in an untenable situation by saying If you don't vote for our SOP then we will not vote for the bill." I have to say that because this issue for all of us affects our families—it affects the people that we love. We've all had to contemplate every step of the way what it means for not only us but the people of New Zealand.So I'm finding it really difficult—but not because my principles will not let me vote for the referendum even if it means the bill fails. I'm sorry to Maryan Street who's here. I'm sorry to Ruth Dyson and I'm sorry for the campaigners and the people in the gallery that are here to support end of life choice death with dignity to provide the choice for people who have a terminal illness but I cannot in good conscience in doing so make other people vulnerable. I do not think—CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair. Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.LOUISA WALL: Tēnā koe Madam Chair. So just to conclude my kōrero can I just say that in terms of the Irish referendum obviously it was a function of the fact that they have constitutional law and the only way the Irish could have both marriage equality law reform and abortion law reform was through a referendum. So that context dictated the mechanism of direct democracy or the mechanism of a referendum.I juxtapose that with what happened in Australia for example. Australia didn't need to have a plebiscite. But the reality of that political context was there was a division within the Liberal Party and the Government couldn't come to a decision. You had Turnbull on one side and Abbott on the other and so they had to go to the people if they wanted marriage equality in Australia. My contention is that is not the position here in Aotearoa New Zealand. We do not have to go to a referendum.I guess the other fundamental principle for me is that this bill has been incredibly complex as dictated by the debate and discussion in this Chamber through this committee stage process. There have been hundreds and hundreds—well hundreds I'm not sure of the exact number—of SOPs and I know that because sometimes we've had to stay well past midnight to vote on those SOPs. So for the public to understand the nuances of this bill and to make a decision about how this bill will affect them through a public referendum as I said before the dinner break I think will demonise older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. I can see the "No" campaign essentially saying that those of us who support end of life choice are trying to terminate or end the lives of older New Zealanders and people with disabilities. Obviously I do not agree with that proposition. Obviously I do not believe that that's what the bill does. But when there's a public debate the public end up getting fed things that they believe are true that aren't. Kia ora."