Smith NickHon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson): I firstly want to express concern that at a time when our country and the world is struggling and coping with the challenge of the coronavirus Parliament under extended hours is rushing to pass through this very controversial legislation. I think that is inappropriate. I think on such issues of which there are such impassioned views Parliament needs to take a breath and ensure that it gets such legislation that goes to the very core of the protection of life with some caution.I want to speak on the issues around a referendum. I make no apologies for being a conservative. I believe that this bill goes too far particularly with respect to the lack of protection in the latter stages of pregnancy and so I am tempted—knowing the Parliament has the numbers—to support the amendment moved for a referendum. But I've opted to take a principled stand. It is my view that this Government is being very convenient and manipulative in when it chooses to allow New Zealanders to have a vote and when it decides that Parliament should decide.You see when we came to the issue of euthanasia I said No these are really detailed issues and actually Parliament needs to do its job and write the law" and I voted against the referendum on that issue; the bulk of the Government voted in favour. When we come to the issue of cannabis liberalisation the Government is of a view that the public should have a say. So why is it that the Minister in the chair Andrew Little on the issue of abortion takes a different view? The Minister in the chair should be honest and that is simply: "We've got the numbers and as a consequence we're not going to let New Zealanders make the choice on the issue of abortion."There is actually a very strong parallel between the issues of life and death at the end of life that have surrounded the debate on euthanasia and the issues in this bill that we're grappling with in terms of abortion. It is my view that the Government is conveniently manipulating the system of Parliament and of the public in its choices about where it wants to give New Zealanders a vote and where it does not. It has a very liberal agenda whether it be on abortion whether it be on euthanasia or whether it be on cannabis. Rather than taking a principled point of view it will simply choose the track of which it can advance its liberal reforms that I believe in all three cases go too far and undermine some of the essential features of New Zealand society as a caring society that values life.It is my view that there are issues that should be put to referendum. There are issues of which I'm sorry we as parliamentarians have a vested interest—if it's a substantive constitutional change whether we have a three- or four-year parliamentary term whether we have MMP—Darroch Ball: Or a flag.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —whether we're going to have a decision on a flag—but I noticed New Zealand First opposed the referendum and that just shows you how unprincipled and manipulative members of the New Zealand First Party are. It is my view that on those constitutional questions where Parliament does have a vested interest such referenda are entirely appropriate. But on issues like abortion or euthanasia or cannabis the devil is in the detail. Actually in my view there are quite different views about short- and early-term abortions as compared with late-term and in issues of conscience the detail of the bills are important and that is why Parliament should do its business.So reluctantly I am voting against the referendum because I believe that this bill goes too far. But I want us as a Parliament to actually think about taking some principled approach about where we have referendum and where we do not. I actually think that we undermine our fundamentals of our democracy and the way our society works when we conveniently pick and choose where we have referendum rather than taking a principled approach. Let's be clear: the Government has a liberal agenda and this is just their way of getting there."