Abortion Legislation Bill

Thank you, Mr Chair. I don’t intend to take a very long call. I just want to reiterate the number of reasons why New Zealand First is tabling a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which is requesting a referendum on this issue.

I’d also like to ask a couple of genuine questions, and we’ll see if they can get answered. Because one of the things that I’ve actually noticed tonight and through the day, as I have been in throughout the entire debate today, is that there’s been two quite distinct angles of debate on the same issue. First of all has been, and I think the Minister has said it, the bill itself is not about whether someone is pro-abortion or pro-life, or whether it’s based on someone’s feelings or points of view on whether abortion is correct or not; this is a piece of legislation that is taking something out of the Crimes Act. But then I hear some suggestions from some other members that this is a very contentious bill or topic, very personal, and very sensitive issue. They let me hear some stories, some personal stories, about their families, their children, and their relatives that give them the ability to form their view on their conscious view and conscience on this issue. So on the one hand we have just a bill that is about taking something out of the Crimes Act and then we’ve got something quite different, which is based on personal beliefs, personal moral stances, and personal experiences. The question is, that I have for this committee, if it isn’t about being pro- or anti-abortion then why isn’t this a party vote? Why is this a personal vote?

We’ve had questions from some members that say, “Why is this a referendum? Why are some people asking for this to be a referendum?” Well, the only question that needs to be answered, really, is the fact of why is this a personal vote to begin with? It’s a personal vote because every single individual in this Chamber has a personal point of view on it; whether that be a personal belief system, whether it be a personal family history or personal experience, but it’s all formed on personal life experience and moral compass, in some aspects, and belief system, in some aspects. Then you’ve got some people who are ignoring that altogether and having a look at this as purely something that needs to come out of the Crimes Act, and that’s their argument. Now, whether either side is right or wrong, that’s not what I’m up here talking about. What I’m up here and talking about is the fact that this is a personal vote, and this House demanded it be a personal vote, and why? Why not a party vote? That’s the first question that I’ve got to ask.

The second point that I want to make is that because it’s a personal vote it is an absolute admission by this House that it comes down to the personal individual and the personal individual conscience. What we see here in the last few stages of this bill are people standing up and giving their personal point of view and then suggesting that their personal point of view is worth more or less than any other personal point of view of anyone outside of this House. That’s something that New Zealand First disagrees with. We believe that every person and every individual in this country should have a voice on this issue, that their point of view, their personal history, their belief system, their moral compass, or whatever you want to call it, is just as valuable as ours. We have no moral mandate to decide for them. That’s why New Zealand First has had a consistent principle for every conscience vote and every conscience issue that this should go to the people. Just like we have two already this year on the marijuana debate and on euthanasia, New Zealand First stands firm on that principle—that’s why we’re putting forward this SOP. We believe that people of New Zealand deserve a voice in this debate. Thank you, Mr Chair.

I want to speak on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292, and Darroch Ball has been speaking on this. Now, he’s often made passionate, purposeful speeches in this House, and I’ve heard him speak about this, and just as he’s made his point of view in regards to the personal vote—well, these are personal votes. Why? Because they’re conscience votes. But I want to remind the member of the process.

So the member needs to remember that even though it is a conscience—and in this case this is a Government bill, by the way. This is a Government bill; you are part of that Government. You are part of that coalition Government. You cannot resile from that. So as a coalition member of that Government, you are part of this process. This is not a member’s bill or a private member’s bill that’s being introduced: this is a Government bill. I want to go on the record in stating that to Mr Ball as well.

I want to also state to him this: that he’s made his passionate plea. He’s talked about principle in the House. That the view of this particular issue—and it’s a moral and a conscience issue in regards to abortion and the reformation of this Abortion Legislation Bill—is that it should be the voice of the people. Well, Mr Darroch Ball, you need to remember that there was a submission process: 25,000 submitted—that is substantive. Just like you when you quoted the euthanasia bill, End of Life Choice Bill: 39,000—that is substantive. Out of that, 91.6 percent voted no. Now, how much of that is not a voice of the community and of the people? That is significant. Now, if that’s not enough to give you an indication as to how you should be directing your votes—on behalf of the party, by the way—then that to me lacks your responsibility in this House on what you have voted. You need to be part of the process. You’ve seen the submissions: over 25,000 directly telling us what they should be.

So the fact is that you’ve said that this referendum is part of your SOP. New Zealand First stands on that. So here’s the challenge I’m going to put to you: if your SOP is not voted on, you’ve block voted to vote for this SOP, will you block vote as a party, on principle—that you’ve come on in the House time and time again—will you block vote the other way then? If you do not get your SOP around the referendum, will you do the same? You’ve stood in this House and you’ve declared: “Let the people have their voice; let the people have their say.”

Let me just say, this is not just a small amendment that you’re making; this SOP is quite substantive. Clause 2 in here states: “(1)(a) means of a referendum held on [a] polling day … (b) includes any fresh referendum required to be held if the High Court, on a petition, declares the referendum under paragraph (a) to be void.” You’ve made it very specific and very clear in your explanatory note: “If the majority of electors voting at a referendum do not agree that the Bill should come into force, this Bill [will be] repealed.” You’ve been very specific, you’ve been very detailed, so my challenge to you, Mr Darroch Ball and to New Zealand First: if you’re going to stand on principle, then be principled the other way. If the SOP does not come through in your direction, then vote against the bill. Why? Because that’s the principle that you’ve spoken in this House on.

You’re telling the public, you’re telling the nation, and you’re even telling your own supporters that that’s what you’re voting for. So I’m going to be very specific in my speech in regards to your referendum SOP. Let it be heard in this nation that you’ve made that speech. Let it be heard in this nation, then, because if that SOP fails to go through, and then you have broken-up views on conscience votes, then I’m going to tell you this now, and I can’t use that word, but it could be “hypocritical”—it could be. It could be the fact that what you’re doing is that your words do not match your actions. So I’m going to put it on you. I’m going to make it really clear: if you do not have your SOP and your SOP fails in the House, then I would challenge you to block vote the opposite way and vote against this. Why? Because, as you’ve said very clearly, it goes against every single principle that you’ve voted on in every single conscience vote.

But, in this case, may I remind you that this is a Government bill. This is not a member’s bill. It’s the same Government that, by the way, you are a coalition member for. So in that case you have more responsibility. You knew that I was going to say this, so I’m going to say it again: vote to your principles. If the SOP fails, then vote to oppose the bill. Why? Because that goes against everything that you stood for.

Can I say this: this SOP here, 292—in our case there were times where there was a referendum; we’ve had them in our season as a National Party. Why? When we had the flag referendum, we had to stand on that view to put it out to the public. So I’m not opposed to referendums, but what I will challenge are people that stand in this House—a party that would stand in this House and stand on a referendum, and yet, when the proof in the pudding comes, they vote against it.

In light of that, I move that the question be now put.

Unfortunately, you don’t say the beginning bit; you must only move the motion and then I would have—

💬 David Seymour: It was still worth it. I move the question be now put.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No, no, it’s too late now.

Thank you very much. I’m always astounded that proponents of free speech are the ones very quickly to try and shut down debate and discussion, and, ironically, one on a referendum. So I’ll start where my honourable colleague Alfred Ngaro finished, which is around the whole question of referendum or, to be probably correct, referenda.

It will probably disappoint some, particularly in the pro-life movement, that I will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper: one, out of principle. I’ve always—well, I’ve articulated in the committee this evening, as I have in other weeks: I think consistency is important, and I have, in effect, been opposed to referenda as a mechanism around bills such as this. At the end of the day—and I think, actually, it was one of my colleagues Ian McKelvie who raised it last week or the week before when he was prophetically looking towards this part—we’re given the time and resource to put this together. It starts with the Government, and I think it’s important to note this is a Government bill.

I don’t know—this is obviously not a question for the Minister—how enthusiastically he accepted the ball or not, but it’s a Government bill, and it starts with a Government that has the resources of Government to put a bill together that it sees as right and proper. Obviously I disagree with that, but the bill has come in front of a select committee. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders sought to have their voices heard, and so I find it a little bit rich—again, not as a personal comment to Mr Ball but to New Zealand First—that we had a select committee process which actively and deliberately stopped people having their voice.

It remains an outrage to me, having chaired select committees for years, that only 150 select people’s stories were allowed to be heard, and yet now this House is discussing the possibility of having a referendum to go and talk to people. To be blunt about it, it’s just a crock. There is no intention to really want to engage the people; there’s just a desire to get this done.

But, as I say, we in this House were elected to be representatives. I think I’d be remiss and I think this House would be remiss if it doesn’t do its job, and if every time we come across a difficult question we throw it back to the people with some sort of moralising “Referendums are important for people to have their say” approach, I think we’d fail in our duties there.

I’m also noting that we have had inconsistencies over two life issues at the moment where referenda are being pushed—paddled about, if you will—as conveniences. I don’t intend to relitigate the end of life choice, and I’ve always said there is a distinction around the euthanasia and abortion debates. But a referendum was voted through on euthanasia for the simple reason that it was the only way, it seemed, to get it through, and people compromised their principles left, right, and centre to let that through. Tonight, there’s a hint that the referendum is not going to make a difference. People are more than happy to capitulate their views on referenda—“Oh no, no, no, we’re not going to have one on this occasion.” So I would certainty put out to the people who are watching and listening to look at who voted for the euthanasia referendum and then look at who votes against a referendum here, and note the galling, galling inconsistencies.

I also need to point out that I just see this as a continual New Zealand First ploy. I think there are many out there in the community who look to New Zealand First as some sort of conservative group, a moderate group, a considered group, but they are not. When it comes to the issues, they are not. If you have a conservative position and if you have a principled position on these moral questions, you stand up. Now, people don’t always like your position—people don’t like my position. That’s fine, but I stand up and I’ll take it. I’ll take the hits and I’ll challenge why. But having a referenda is just a ploy to avoid the tough questions.

So I really encourage those people who support New Zealand First on the basis—it is to me just a ploy. It’s just a ploy, and I think, fundamentally, we’ve got some problems there. [Interruption] So I think I may have touched a nerve, but I think it needs to be said. When we stick to principles, they must also stick to what we are called on to do in this House. Even if this bill goes, in a sense, against what I’d prefer it to do, I think that we have the confidence of the House, and we should have the confidence of the House, to actually be able to vote on this and to have—[Interruption] Sorry, I’m getting slightly distracted, which is a bit unusual for me.

We really are MPs with a confidence, if you will. We’ve had the time. Let’s put the select committee process to the side, but we’ve had the time to consider this, and I suppose my encouragement is for members to vote against having a referendum and to have the courage.

Thank you, Mr Chair. It is with some sadness that I have prised myself away from my desk and put my work aside to come down to the Chamber to make a contribution, because I have never ever heard, and I never ever expected to hear, from the Hon Alfred Ngaro such a sanctimonious, condescending contribution in my entire time in this House, and I’ve been here for a lot longer than that member has.

It strikes me as somewhat strange, having listened to the wonderful contribution by Darroch Ball on behalf of New Zealand First that, suddenly, the party that stands for principles—I mean, the same party that takes donations from the Communist Party. Many of these members that are here preaching their principles are only here because of donations from the People’s Liberation Army—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Order!

—but I’m saying on principles—

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): Ah—

Thank you, Mr Chair.

CHAIRPERSON (Adrian Rurawhe): No. Order! No. Steer clear of that—OK? We are debating clauses 1 and 2, a very narrow debate. It’s got nothing to do with donations. Title and commencement and everything around it—that’s it.

Thank you, Mr Chair. The contribution on the Supplementary Order Paper and the specific questioning and the challenging that’s come back on New Zealand First’s position that we would prefer and want to see a referendum—that is not something new. That has been signalled in New Zealand First’s manifesto for a long time. In fact, I think we discussed it in the coalition negotiations with the National Party, who didn’t seem to have a problem with it then.

But I’m going to say let’s deal with this question of who has the right to have the final say. A hundred and twenty people sit in this Chamber, many of whom will not be here after 20 September. In fact, most MPs who come here do one—one term. In fact, it was the Hon Trevor Mallard who told me, when I was a new MP being inducted, of that very fact—one term. So Mr Alfred Ngaro would say that 4.5 million people should be subjected to the decisions made by a bunch of one-term MPs on such a serious matter of conscience.

This is a serious matter of conscience to the nation, Mr Alfred Ngaro. It is not your preserve to stand up and tell all of New Zealand that you are right and they are wrong. Every New Zealander of voting age has a right to have a say on this matter. We would go so far as to say there is no longer—for all of those National Party MPs I’ve heard touting the benefits of electronic voting, it totally undermines one’s argument, because if one can have electronic voting for a general election, then what is wrong with giving the people of New Zealand a say on conscience matters? Why should it remain the privilege of 120 New Zealanders to determine this once and for all?

Let me be clear about this. I predict—and Mr Alfred Ngaro has rolled out his crystal ball and made a clairvoyant sort of prediction about what New Zealand First might or might not do if this Supplementary Order Paper falls over. Watch and see, Mr Alfred Ngaro. Don’t throw your silly little challenges around, pontificating and beating one’s chest, and playing Mr Righteous, Mr Sanctimonious in this Chamber, because it didn’t cut it on television.

Let me assure that member, for everybody watching it, it didn’t cut it, because most New Zealanders say, “Why should we be excluded from the democratic process?” Yes, 30,000 people have had their say—that’s good democracy in action—but there’s another 4.5 million out there, Mr Ngaro. Every one of those people, every one of those families who has strong feelings on both sides of this argument, has a right to have a say. If anyone denies those New Zealanders of that right, well, I guess they’ll answer for it on 19 September, won’t they, Mr Ngaro?

Thank you very much, sir. Like others, I speak against the referendum Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292 in the name of Darroch Ball of New Zealand First. It was once said, “Isn’t it funny how all those in favour of abortion have already been born?” The aphorism of Ronald Reagan—RIP—is appropriate to reflect upon as we consider whether a referendum is a good way of deciding such a fundamental matter as this.

The rights of vulnerable minorities are disproportionately engaged, which is the point that the New Zealand First members who have spoken in favour of the referendum have failed to acknowledge. There’s the possibility of a tyranny of the majority. That means that on certain fundamental issues it is right that those who are in a position, yes, of power and, yes, of privilege—that is a position that we 120 do occupy, admittedly temporarily, but that’s called a democracy. I presume the Hon Ron Mark would not have it any other way. So it is, and as a matter of consistency with previous stances that I’ve taken, along with Simon O’Connor, I too resist the call that there should be a referendum on this matter.

It has been said sometimes that males should not have the right to speak on the matter. I think far too many of my fellow males in this country do abrogate their responsibilities in relation to child-rearing, so I think that we have a bigger societal issue—my sex does, in relation to that.

Let me simply note that some of the strongest pro-life advocates that I’ve heard, and the most compelling, are females who speak from a point of view of connection—literal, physical connection—to the issues involved. I won’t repeat the points that others have made in relation to the New Zealand First position. It is a matter of consistency over time, I will acknowledge that much, but in order for that to be true then the third reading vote, if the SOP on the referendum fails, should reflect that; otherwise it will be clearly noticed by those who watch such things, I would say.

The debate has progressed through the House and the committee of the whole House, producing unusual alliances. There have been intersections of issues that have thrown together unlikely political bedfellows, in a sense—a classic example would be that of the free speech or free expression in relation to the so-called safe zones, in which some of us have found ourselves voting together with others whom we’re not normally meeting in these lobbies, the Ayes and the Noes, on conscience issues. But, nevertheless, that particular matter I thought was one of a matter of principle, and I applaud those who saw it along similar lines, notwithstanding that they’re on the other side of the debate.

My point in relation to the proposal that there be a referendum is that there are complexities that do play out in this House to which ordinary New Zealanders getting on with their lives as best they can in the face of a global pandemic this week, as it happens, are not necessarily concerned with, and should not necessarily have to be concerned with either.

The detail is important, likewise. There is a considerable amount of detail in this bill, and many of us have thrashed that out. Let me just say that I have much more respect for those who have spoken and engaged on the detail—notwithstanding that they have come to different conclusions than me—than those who simply refuse to engage. I do note that if New Zealand First wishes to state some sort of populist but apparently principled stance as lawmakers, then their engagement with SOPs other than those in their own name would be a really good indication of that; sadly, that has been lacking.

Others have made the point around democracy, and the need to respect that in the context of the select committee process rather than simply grandstand at the end of the process in relation to the referendum. I think New Zealand First voters might say to them, such as they are now, that in abrogating their responsibility in the way that they’re proposing this committee of the whole House does, “You had one job.” That would be the expectation of what I would say to New Zealand First from their voters: “You had one job.” You are lawmakers duly elected to this place. You are supposed to spend the time that you have in this place to consider these things, not pass the buck. As such, there is no way that I can support this referendum SOP; I will be voting against it accordingly.

I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Mr Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to take a call on this title and commencement stage of this bill. I’d like to put on record my views in relation to the referendum clause. I won’t be supporting this referendum because it’s a cop-out clause put forward by the New Zealand First Party to cop out of taking responsibility to make the hard calls, to make the hard decisions, and to actually look into the issues.

I sat here and I listened to Ron Mark get up and give a lecture to this Parliament and talk about this as being a serious issue of conscience for the nation. That is the first call that I’ve heard Ron Mark get up in Parliament and take on this bill, and it’s probably the last call that he’ll be taking on this serious issue of conscience. I tell Ron Mark: if this is a serious issue of conscience, it’s not just whether the bill goes to a referendum but what does that bill look like and what is the shape of that bill when it goes to referendum? Because there is more to the issue than just simply putting something to a referendum. I just think the New Zealand First Party should be ashamed of themselves for this cop-out position that they continually take on serious issues rather than being part of the debate, taking part in the issue, and actually looking at the issue and engaging in it like every other member of Parliament in this Parliament has. It is an absolute cop-out position from the New Zealand First Party.

I have a lot of respect for those who take a position that a referendum is something which might be needed to be looked at and is a position where the public should have a say. But when the party continues—continues—to ignore the process and continues to not engage in the process, that is something which I consider an absolute cop out. They’ll go traveling up and down the country over the next six months, telling all the people that they see: “Oh yes, we voted for a referendum so that you could have your say.”, and, “Oh yes, it’s such a terrible bill; we voted for a referendum but the rest of the Parliament didn’t.” They’ll try and convince New Zealanders that they’re on the conservative side of this issue, but I tell you, New Zealand First, New Zealanders will see through it. I can tell you that, tomorrow afternoon, we’re going to be in this House, and can you give this Parliament and your supporters a guarantee that you’ll be voting as a block against the bill if the referendum doesn’t go through? Alfred Ngaro asked that question, and Ron Mark didn’t even give it an answer. He said—

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it has come time for me to leave the chair. The committee is suspended and I will resume the chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow for the extended sitting.

Debate interrupted.

Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Wednesday)