Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): Thank you Madam Chair. I want to indicate my opposition to the view that the difficult choice on this End of Life Choice Bill be made by way of referendum. I am disappointed by the double standards and inconsistency that is being applied by this Parliament to the issue of when the public should decide issues and when Parliament should do its job.I find it so frustrating and duplicitous that members particularly those of the Government say when it comes to an issue like abortion—because they're confident that they've got the numbers—would deny the public a referendum. But somehow because it's convenient on this bill that they can only get the numbers by way of agreeing to a referendum we are going to have a referendum by those promoting Supplementary Order Paper 287 that we are debating this evening.If we are to have referendums on issues of morality and conscience then at least this Parliament should be consistent. We should have one on cannabis or abortion or euthanasia and not play this convenient game where we'll have a referendum where it suits us where it has a referendum where it will suit a particular agenda.I am one of those of a view that says that on constitutional issues whether we're going to have a four-year term whether the Parliament might be 100 members or 120 members whether the Parliament is elected by MMP or first past the post they are absolutely questions that should go to a referendum because quite frankly this Parliament has a conflict of interest because we are MPs and they are constitutional issues. But when it comes to issues the life and death issues in this bill around euthanasia when it comes to the issues of cannabis actually we MPs need to do what we're paid to do and that is to dig into the detail and with all conscience and effort try and make decisions that are in the best interests of New Zealand.What I say to my voters in Nelson as the only MP that's been repeatedly elected 10 times—and I tell you on many occasions my constituents have disagreed with my view. What I have said to them is I will apply my conscience as carefully and diligently as possible and if you think I'm doing it wrong you have an absolute right to sack me and to put someone else in the role as the member of Parliament for Nelson. As Edmund Burke so accurately put it members of Parliament owe this Parliament owe the people of New Zealand to apply their conscience to such issues and not to pass the buck and avoid the sorts of hard decisions that we face over this End of Life Choice Bill.So my concern is that we're being manipulated. I don't think a majority of members I even don't think the sponsor of this bill David Seymour—the only reason he is supporting a referendum on this issue is it's the best way for the policy that he has been an advocate for. I actually don't think he in his heart of hearts prefers this as a message for determining such issues. He's a rational sensible member and generally understands the role that Parliament plays. It's not a criticism of him. It's a criticism that this Parliament should not go down the road of passing the buck and not being prepared to make a decision on this sort of issue.This Parliament needs only look at the constitutional mess that is confronting the mother of all Parliaments over Brexit to realise that the easy populist answer of throwing things out to referendum does not necessarily result in what we all should be after and that is the very best decision and the very best laws of our land.I implore this Parliament to do its job and to make the decision and to not pass the buck.