Martin TraceyHon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. First of all can I do something that I never thought I would do: can I thank David Seymour for his work with New Zealand First and with myself. I also want to acknowledge Brooke from his offices. There are not many issues that you see a politician make such a commitment to over such a long period of time. Often you don't see a politician who has been as open to change and to amendment and as flexible to try and do the best by this House and all the perspectives in this House because they hold on to their own ego and they hold on to the stick in the sand and they make it about them. I am surprised that it's a leader of the ACT Party that I'm talking about but I believe that David Seymour has shown himself to be a gentleman of character and that he has made this issue bigger than him. So I want to acknowledge that. It'll be the last time I acknowledge anything like that Mr Seymour. David Seymour: Thank you. You can stop now. Hon TRACEY MARTIN: Thank you. So on behalf of New Zealand First I stand here not because New Zealand First and its members agree on this piece of legislation. We have a variety of views as every other caucus has a variety of views. Simeon Brown: Have a conscience vote then. Hon TRACEY MARTIN: But the one thing—and it is a conscience vote. I can hear you shouting out sir and it is a conscience vote. But what we do have consensus on in the New Zealand First caucus is that the conscience of the New Zealand public is just as important as the consciences in this room. I wished you hadn't rolled your eyes when I said that because we believe that on issues—not every issue of course not but this is an issue of such import. If it wasn't of such import Mr Penk wouldn't have been as committed to his position as Mr Seymour is to his. If it wasn't of such import it wouldn't have taken two years and the many thousands of submissions to get us to this place. So because it is such an unusual topic such a momentous decision for New Zealand we agree that it is right and proper that our consciences—I hear the words of others who talk about the tyranny of the majority. Surely this would be the dictatorship of the minority around such an issue.Now I know that people would like to have this done and they would like greater certainty about the numbers to fall on their side not the other person's side but we trust the New Zealand public to be able to understand enough about us that they voted us here in the first place. But they didn't vote our consciences here; they voted our party manifestos. They voted the things we stood up—Dan Bidois: They voted for us to make these decisions.Hon TRACEY MARTIN:—on platforms and argued. Mr Bidois—and I'm sure he will seek a call—is announcing that he believes that the New Zealand public voted us here to make this call. Did they know that? Did they know each and every one of them—each and every one of them—what this bill was going to look like at this moment in time when they asked us to cast our conscience? The answer cannot be yes because none of this was in place when they voted us here. What we have said is it has passed through all parts—I believe hopefully—of this House today; the New Zealand public will now have the opportunity through the bill through the regulatory impact statement and through I'm sure contributions by Mr Penk and others. If there is a fear of false information then that is what behoves us to call it out Mr Penk and make sure that when we're campaigning on the campaign trail we don't fall below our own standards and make sure that we don't start to put out misinformation in an attempt to win an argument. This should be now for the New Zealand public. We've had our two years. We've had our hours and hours and hours of debate and this is where we are. We trust them to put us here; we should trust them with their own futures however it lies.The reason why I believe that the New Zealand public should welcome a referendum particularly a referendum in this style: the bill is there for you to see. The regulatory impact statement is there for you to see. There will be rules around the information that can be placed before you and who can place it before you making sure as best as we can that it will be truthful and factual and honest. But it also gives you a very clear choice—probably I think for the first time I've seen in my life—of what the question is: Yes I support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force." or "No I do not support the End of Life Choice Act 2017 coming into force." This is clearer than it has ever been before for the New Zealand public about what they are voting on.I need the New Zealand public to know this: "If this Act does not come into force under subsection (1) within 5 years after the date on which it receives the Royal assent this Act is repealed." What it means is should there be a change of Government and should there be a change of mind in the make-up of the Government if the New Zealand public wish this bill to be implemented—if the majority vote Yes—then that Government needs to implement it. If it does not the bill automatically repeals after five years. This is an important moment for the New Zealand public. If this bill passes this third reading they have never had a power like this I believe in my lifetime.This is incredibly serious and we need the New Zealand public to know how serious it is and that is on us. If this passes and it now goes into the public domain it is on us to be the grown-ups to carry the respect that has been shown in this House to lead by example and to go out there and help the New Zealand public be as informed as possible be as respectful to each other as possible and make the choice that they believe that this House should implement. So New Zealand First will be casting all their votes in favour of this bill so that the New Zealand public will be able to make up their mind. Kia ora."