Brown SimeonSIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you Mr Chair and thank you for an opportunity to speak on the Abortion Legislation Bill in the committee stage. I do just want to start by acknowledging Louisa Wall for her consistency in regards to the issue of referendums because she is consistent in her advocacy that issues like this should not be put out to a vote and I acknowledge the fact that she also voted against our referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill. So I do just want to acknowledge you Louisa Wall and your contribution on that issue and I do in acknowledging her position also acknowledge the inconsistency of many other colleagues in this House who view this issue and decided that they do not wish to put this to a referendum because they do not feel that this is the type of issue for whatever reason—whereas the issue of a referendum on the End of Life Choice Bill was of course for political convenience.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Sorry to interrupt the member but I should have pointed out when Louisa Wall was speaking—SIMEON BROWN: Point of order.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): —I'm just making a ruling—that we will debate the referendum under clauses 1 and 2.SIMEON BROWN: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yes I'm speaking to points not only raised by Louisa Wall but also by the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little who actually spoke on that very topic. So I'm simply entering the debate which I believe has already been opened.CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): You can have a debating point under clauses 1 and 2 but not under Part 2. So you can mention that but you need to make it relevant to Part 2 and so far you haven't.SIMEON BROWN: Right OK. Well I'll continue if that's all right Mr Chair?CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Yes; Simeon Brown.SIMEON BROWN: Thank you Mr Chair. Well I'd like to move on to some of the points raised by the Minister in the chair Andrew Little where he spoke in response to questions around Down syndrome and whether there was pressure being applied to women in these situations. He said that there was no pressure but there could be perceived to be pressure. I do just want to acknowledge the submission which was raised by my colleague Agnes Loheni where there is a clear case of someone who came to the committee who put in a submission and said This is the pressure that I am having. This is the pressure which is being applied by the medical professionals."—and the concern raised by that submitter as to what would happen if this bill is passed.I challenge Andrew Little the Minister in the chair on that point: how can he stand in this Chamber and say no pressure is applied? How can he stand in this Chamber and say that medical professionals are simply just doing their job? The select committee listened to only a very few submitters—160 submitters out of 25000. The select committee didn't take the time to actually go through the submitters and listen to what is a substantial number of New Zealanders who brought forward concerns who brought forward their views and their experiences to this issue and were denied the opportunity to come to Parliament and to be able to speak to those submissions in front of the select committee. So I challenge the Minister on that point where he says that and I challenge him to provide evidence as to what he bases his claim upon.I'd like to speak in support of the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) put forward by my colleague Melissa Lee which are SOPs 478 and 479 and in doing so I acknowledge the number of emails that I've received from people across my electorate of Pakuranga from the Downright Discrimination campaign and acknowledge their concerns which they are raising over how this bill will operate and discriminate against their community. I know many people in my community who have a very big passion for ensuring that we as Parliament and parliamentarians and me as their member of Parliament have a society that is free of discrimination. I implore Parliament to consider these Supplementary Order Papers which will go somewhat towards being able to make a positive difference in that space.I find it deeply offensive when language is used such as "Mothers make decisions in spite of what the medical professionals might say." when they talk about a diagnosis around Down syndrome. That language is the discriminatory language which then gets applied in our community against those mothers and those fathers who do have children who are Down syndrome and who pour their hearts and their souls and their lives into raising them. I just say to members in this House to be careful with the language they choose. Choosing language like "in spite of"—"in spite of what the doctor said" "in spite of what the scan said"—I find deeply offensive. I know that the family which Louisa Wall mentioned—and I think that's offensive language to them as well in terms of what she says and the language that she chose when she talked about Down syndrome children and the choices that parents have to make. I implore Parliament to consider these Supplementary Order Papers which seek to put in place provisions on the issue of not just discrimination on the basis of disability but also discrimination on the basis of sex. I know my colleague Dr Parmjeet Parmar brought an SOP on this issue which was voted down and I just want to acknowledge Melissa Lee for continuing the advocacy on this issue of sex selection. We know that this is an issue which is seen around the world.In this bill the Minister gets up and he says "Well we've put a declaration"—and the select committee says "We've put a declaration"—"in there that Parliament doesn't see this as being something which we approve of." I say good on you. Good on Parliament for putting a declaration into this bill. Then Parliament says "And we're going to ask the director-general after five years to issue a report." Well there's no ability under this legislation and the sections which have been put in place for the actual data to be collected. I put a Supplementary Order Paper forward when we debated this last week whereby we would actually be able to look at that issue and actually have the data collected so the Director-General could actually be able to make an assessment as to whether this is something which is taking place in New Zealand. Otherwise if we don't have the data collection all we've got is a toothless statement making a declaration—more virtue signalling.This Parliament's simply virtue signalling its virtues without actually being prepared to put legislation in place which says this is a practice that we will not condone and actually allowing there to be tools to ensure that it doesn't happen. That's what Melissa Lee is trying to do with her Supplementary Order Paper and I will be supporting it because it's something which needs to be in this legislation because we should not be condoning discrimination on the basis of the unborn child's sex. We should not be discriminating and we shouldn't be just happy with simply making a declaration which is what the Parliament is currently looking to do. I do just want to say that this is something which the Parliament should take very seriously because we talk a lot about discrimination we talk a lot about these issues of equality and we aren't prepared to take it seriously here in this bill. So I ask the Minister in the chair Andrew Little to please tell me how under this legislation he will ensure that that declaration is actually given effect to and how under this legislation the Director-General will actually have the information and the knowledge and the evidence to be able to issue a report to say after five years whether or not this is an issue which should be brought to this House's attention. Currently those tools aren't there. I challenge the Minister in the chair to be able to take a call and to explain to the Parliament explain to New Zealanders how there will actually be teeth applied to this declaration which has been put into this bill.In my last couple of minutes I'd like to touch on the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Joanne Hayes in relation to the amendment of the Care of Children Act. I find it deeply ironic that on one level we've got a situation where the legislation says that if my daughter goes to school and requires a Panadol I have to go through a process to give my consent for a Panadol but if my daughter had an abortion I as her father wouldn't be told anything. Now I can understand there may be cases where there should be a court process. I know there's been legislation and proposals brought to this House around the small number of circumstances where there may need to be a process where the parents are not involved but I don't understand how as a Parliament we can have such a huge inconsistency between a Panadol and abortion when it comes to this issue.So I ask the Minister in the chair to explain what other options were considered. Was this even considered as an issue to be addressed or was he simply just satisfied with the status quo when it comes to this substantial issue? I know that it's an issue which many many parents across New Zealand are very passionate about. Many people want to see the law changed in this regard but I understand also the circumstances and the difficult circumstances where there may need to be some level of other process whether that's a court process or some other tribunal which can intervene in those exceptional circumstances where there is an issue as the Minister did rightly raise in his contribution. So I look forward to the Minister taking a call and answering my questions and I do find it deeply ironic that issue in terms of where this bill is so inconsistent."