Abortion Legislation Bill

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I was saying last night, we’re debating the title and commencement, and, in particular, we’re dealing with a Supplementary Order Paper from Darroch Ball, which I call the “cop-out clause”, which is being applied to this bill, whereby the New Zealand First Party is trying to once again cop out from taking responsibility and actually coming to this House, and coming to this Parliament, and actually making a serious decision on whether they support this bill or not. What they’ve decided is they would prefer to go to the public and say, “We’re going to have a referendum.”, and then hide behind that, rather than actually being clear as to where they stand on what Ron Mark called a “serious issue of conscience”. Well, if it’s a “serious issue of conscience”, I’d like to know what their conscience actually says or whether they’ve actually got one.

The second message I’d like to say to members in this committee is that there is going to be a lot of inconsistency on display this morning as we debate this amendment. Only a few months ago, this Parliament was dealing with the End of Life Choice Bill, and we had people stand up in this House saying how much they hated the idea of referendums: “We shouldn’t be sending big decisions like this to referendums. The Parliament’s the one who should be making this decision, but, in this instance, if I don’t vote for a referendum, this bill won’t go through Parliament. So in this instance, whilst I don’t agree with referendums, I’ll be voting for a referendum on that bill.” That was what we saw on the End of Life Choice Bill, but today, those same members of Parliament are going to re-find their principles, and they’re going to stand up in this House and say, “No, no, no. I don’t agree with referendums and I won’t be voting for Darroch Ball’s Supplementary Order Paper.” There is going to be inconsistency on display in this Chamber—unprincipled decision-making by members on this issue. But I say to Darroch Ball, this is the “cop-out clause” and something which I will not be voting for for the same reasons I didn’t vote on the End of Life Choice Bill for the Supplementary Order Paper on that bill.

I’d like to come to the title, and I will be seeking another call, because I will be moving an amendment to the title to the bill. The bill has been entitled the “Abortion Legislation Bill”. And it’s been titled in such a way where the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, seeks to try and portray that this bill is some sort of just tidying up of the provisions—just bringing the language into the 21st century, just sort of modernising things and a bit of a tidy up. So by naming it the Abortion Legislation Bill, the Minister’s trying to sanitise the language of what’s actually happening through this piece of legislation.

But I’d like to propose that this bill actually be renamed the “Abortion (Liberalisation post - 20 weeks) Legislation Bill”, because that is the key issue that we in Parliament are actually voting on. There are arguments around what the Minister’s put forward around the parameters pre - 20 weeks—and I know many members of Parliament don’t see a problem with changing the parameters there—but the key issue that this bill is making a change to is what is happening for abortion post - 20 weeks. I’ve stood alongside members of Parliament like Greg O’Connor and Agnes Loheni and said, “OK, why don’t we change this bill so that the same provisions apply to abortions post - 20 weeks as they currently stand?” That would be a much more honest way in terms of how this legislation should be put forward. That would make it an “Abortion Legislation Bill”, because that would simply be, and in many ways, keeping the criteria the same, particularly for post - 20 week abortions.

We’ve seen a lot of concern in the community—whether that’s around sex-selective abortion, abortion on the grounds of disability, and, essentially, what this legislation does is introduce, under clause 7, new section 11, criteria which is vague, undefined, unclear, and does not provide the protections which the current legislation does around post - 20 week abortions. I want to just acknowledge Greg O’Connor for bringing his Supplementary Order Paper. It was voted down, but that would have been a Supplementary Order Paper which would have made it very clear that the grounds for post - 20 week abortions would stay exactly the same as they are now.

There has not been a convincing argument put forward by Andrew Little, put forward by the Minister in the chair, as to why the law post - 20 weeks needs to change. There has not been a convincing argument. He’s simply used language where he’s tried to say, “Well, we need to”—

💬 Darroch Ball: Get back to clause 1.

Pardon?

💬 Darroch Ball: Get back to clause 1.

I’m talking about clause 1.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Thank you, thank you. I’m quite capable—

💬 Darroch Ball: You’re talking about the bill, very generally.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Excuse me. Darroch Ball, do not ignore me. This is a pattern of behaviour. I’m well capable and I’ve already signalled to the member. Thank you.

And I’m talking about the title, and the argument that I’m making here is that the title is not reflective of what the bill actually holds in it. So my tabled amendment, which I’ll be tabling after I have finished speaking, is to replace the title “Abortion Legislation Bill 2019” with “Abortion (Liberalisation post - 20 weeks) Legislation Bill”, because the criteria—and that’s why talking about Greg O’Connor’s Supplementary Order Paper and talking about clause 11 is so important—have been loosened, the language has been weakened, and, as we have talked about in this House, that will lead to the criteria being more liberal.

I ask the Minister in the chair to please give an assurance to this committee, because I don’t think he can. Can he give an assurance to this committee that we aren’t going to see an increase in the number of abortions post - 20 weeks? Because there’s no data collection in this bill; the data collection only goes for another 18 months. So there is a need—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Come back to clauses 1 and 2 please.

Yes, so there is a need. All of these reasons are why the bill title is not reflective of what actually is happening in this legislation, so I will be tabling this amendment. This bill does liberalise abortion post - 20 weeks. It does change the criteria. It does put in language which is incredibly vague, like “In considering whether the abortion is clinically appropriate”—language which is not defined. If the Parliament didn’t want to liberalise abortion post - 20 weeks, the Parliament should have voted for language which is defined, which is clear, such as what was put forward in the Supplementary Order Papers earlier in the committee.

So I ask the Minister in the chair to please take a call and explain how this is not liberalising abortion post - 20 weeks, because I don’t think he’ll be able to answer that question. He’ll come up with a whole lot of reasons as to what he thinks will or won’t happen, but, at the end of the day, he won’t be able to provide an assurance to the House that it won’t happen. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I take this call to talk on the title. There have been many debates where, in legislation, people have then reframed the title. I do this with respect. So I look at the title, and it’s the Abortion Legislation Bill. But as we’ve progressed through the House—first reading, second reading as it’s come out of select committee, and also committee stages—I have a concern. Out of that concern, I want to sort of quote so that I substantiate, when I talk about this, why I think it should be reframed.

I first of all want to point to the evidence that was given by the Attorney-General. And I want to quote from paragraph 22 of the evidence as the Attorney-General which he submitted to the Abortion Legislation Committee. I read this in paragraph 22: “In considering limits on abortion access, I conclude there are two equally important interests at play: personal bodily autonomy, on the one hand; and a broad societal interest in the preservation of human life, on the other.” I then want to, further down in that, read the whole paragraph because I don’t want to misquote it.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well, I would like you to—

This is to do with the title, Madam Chair. So this is to add to the title that I’m going to pronounce to give evidence to the reasons for that title. Should I pronounce what that title is now?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think so, and then that sort of links it in.

Would that be helpful? So in order to keep it in the focus, I propose that the new title should be “Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill”. And the reasons for that I then quote from the Attorney-General “I conclude there are two equally important interests at play: personal bodily autonomy on the one hand and a broad societal interest in the preservation of human life on the other. I do not consider that the fetal viability alone is determinative reason to limit pregnant women’s human rights. But states must none the less find some way to balance the two broader interests I have described. The broad societal interest in preserving human life is therefore a sufficiently important objective to justify a limitation on human rights, and limiting access to abortion is a rational way of achieving that objective.

Throughout this debate, and through this legislation, there haven’t been the two interests at heart; there has only been the one interest. I want to put on the record here that being pro-life is not being anti-choice. Being pro-life is being pro-choice, both at the same time. I disagree when people try to draw a line and say you’re either pro-life or pro-choice. I believe, and many who are pro-life believe, in the choices of both the mother—the woman—and the child. That’s what we’re clearly saying. So we’re saying this: where is the balance of the perspective of the voice and the understanding of the child in regards to this? Hence the reason why the title that I’ve submitted here is “Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill”.

That title is also supported by advice that has been given from the High Court. When I read from this, here is what it says, which I believe supports the changing of the title: “Currently our abortion law seeks to balance these competing interests by requiring each prospective abortion to qualify under statutory criteria and by making unlawful abortion subject to criminal provisions. In the words of the High Court, ‘the legislature has recognised, through the abortion law, that the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community.’ ”—has a claim on the conscience of the community—“ ‘the legislature has recognised, through the abortion law, that the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community.’ We therefore consider it both unprincipled and inconsistent with aspects of our current law to entirely disregard the interests of an unborn child, as [proposed in this bill].”

So the changes that I propose are consistent with both legislature and the judiciary, with the advice from the Attorney-General that we have not taken into account the interests of the unborn child. We have not taken into account that there are two interests here. Again, as I say, we are both pro-life and pro-choice—the choice of the woman, absolutely; it’s their democratic right. But what about the rights of the child? So, therefore, again, my title that I would like to submit to the House—in order to reflect the truth of this legislation and the truth of this bill, it should be titled the “Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill”, because we are no longer hearing the voice or the concerns of the child in this legislation, and in this nation, many people are now starting to hear this concern and have voiced them. As I said, there were over 21,000 submissions—91.6 percent of medical practitioners and otherwise have said that this bill is unsafe for our community and for our nation.

Look, I thought I’d be generous at the start of today, so my gift to this Parliament on this—well, I was going to say on this new parliamentary day; it’s a continuation of yesterday, but this will be my last call.

💬 Hon Stuart Nash: Thank God!

Yeah, I know! You can thank God. Whether God thanks you is a whole different question. It probably comes down to how we vote here today.

Look, two things I want to—my inner theologian is kicking in all of a sudden. I want to just address New Zealand First very briefly to finish, I suppose, the challenges, regardless of us giving you a good picking on yesterday, I think, on referendum. It is probably the encouragement for the future, because I have no doubt that New Zealand First will continue to put referenda forward as a mechanism to sidestep the debate. It is an encouragement to be part of the wider debate, to take calls in the House, because, actually, at the end of the day, the bills that this Parliament shapes through first and second readings, committees and committee of the whole House, actually shape what ultimately goes to the public. As, I think, a couple of people noted yesterday, apart from talking to this referendum, New Zealand First hasn’t participated any further. So any chance to have shaped an important piece of legislation is lost.

I will just then turn to the whole issue of titles. I’ve been flirting with a few ideas. I better put that out really clearly—ideas, OK, just before my wife starts calling me. I think the title lacks depth, unfortunately. I would certainly like to support the recently tabled amendment of Simeon Brown that this bill be known as the “Abortion (Liberalisation post - 20 Weeks) Legislation Bill”. I think that’s actually fairly important. A lot of the coverage—not so much in this House, but, again, through the media—has completely ignored the post - 20 weeks part of it. I want to make that clear. That’s actually not so much the Minister in the chair, the Hon Andrew Little. I think he’s been quite clear of what this bill does. But when you look at recent coverage and weeks, there’s almost been a singular focus on the pre - 20 week element, and, yep, there are changes there. But probably the most substantial is around the post - 20 week. So Simeon Brown’s amendment is excellent.

Some other ideas that have been put to me includes “Abortion (the Child Has No Rights) Legislation Bill”. I’ve banged the drum a lot on this—that, actually, a human child, no matter what age, has rights, and it continues in my mind to be a little bit rich that those who talk about human rights are completely willing to remove every and all rights of the child. So an idea is, yeah, “Abortion (the Child Has No Rights) Legislation Bill”.

As of last night, another idea has come to mind: the “Abortion (Disability and Gender are OK as Criteria) Legislation Bill”. I think it’s an absolute shocker that those with disabilities, or, obviously, if you’re a man or a woman—a person now can choose to abort the child because of their gender or because of their disability; a huge missed opportunity. I think, too, another opportunity is “Abortion (the Demise of Conscience Rights) Legislation Bill”. We’ve had a constant attack on the conscience rights, and, as I pointed out last night, it’s funny that those who are pro-choice are not pro-choice for the doctors or nurses to make their decision.

In light of the whole safe zones debacle, which continues, I thought the “Abortion (Dirty Deals) Legislation Bill” could be a title, and I’m looking forward, of a sort—tongue-in-cheek—to more attempts at dirty deals today to bring the safe zones—

💬 Darroch Ball: I raise a point of order, Madam Chair. I’d just like to bring your attention to Speaker’s ruling 114/6: “[any] amendment to the title … must be a serious or objective description of the bill rather than an attempt to criticise its contents.”, which that member is doing.

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I have it in front of me, but I think the definition of the word “amendment”—I do not have an amendment in front of me that would fit that bill, but I am listening.

Only got a minute—Darroch, you’ll be right.

So, as I say, dirty deals. But, look, the one I think is the best—the one that I think is the best, and it won’t get voted on—is particularly to the hundreds of thousands of my friends in the pro-life movement out there, and this title is the one that we need to stick to. It’s the “Abortion (the Fight Back Starts Today) Legislation Bill”. So, yes, I’d better say that again; I didn’t get that out clearly. So it’s the “Abortion (the Fight Back Starts Today) Legislation Bill”. Encouragement and aroha to all of you guys. You’re awesome.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to talk on two areas: the referendum, or the referenda—I do not like referendums. I don’t like them at all. I think that, as MPs, we were voted into this House to make decisions, to develop legislation, and putting this question—

💬 Darroch Ball: Aren’t you a list MP?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Actually, I’m not—I’m not.

Putting this question into the voting paper is, as my colleagues have said, a dereliction of duty of New Zealand First, to put this on to the voting paper.

So many people have contacted me around all of this, this Abortion Legislation Bill. For us as MPs to be derelict in our duty, to actually take it into a referendum, is really a—how would you put it? I don’t want to say a curse, but I’d say you should stay at home and start thinking about, really, your role here in Parliament, if that’s what you want to do.

At the end of the day, what this particular Supplementary Order Paper states is that if the majority of electors voting at a referendum do not agree that the bill should come into force, this bill is repealed. I would like to see any amendment to that immediately. It doesn’t state a time frame. It is assumed that it will be immediately, but I would like that time frame to be, basically, put in if this referendum question goes through. I think this is typical, typical behaviour from New Zealand First. They did it in the End of Life Choice Bill and they’re doing it in this particular piece of legislation as well.

There seems to be a pattern running here, that anything to do with death and dying, New Zealand First want to have a referendum question about it, any piece of legislation, and that tells me that they just don’t have the guts to actually come up and just give the—

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Order! Order! Just be careful.

My second piece of discussion around this is around the title. I think that the content of the abortion legislation itself is about the liberalisation of abortion. I have spoken about this in previous speeches. I have spoken about the fact that the unborn child has no rights—it has no rights; it will be aborted or not. I think that there is too much liberalisation post - 20 weeks. There should not be any of those things happening; there should be doctors and psychologists or counsellors there as part and parcel of the whole abortion process.

I looked at the many titles that have actually been put on the Table here today. The title that I think best describes this bill is Simeon Brown’s title of the “Abortion (Liberalisation post- 20 weeks) Legislation Bill”, because that’s what this particular bill is all about. Let’s not cover it up. Let’s not say that it’s something it’s not; it is about liberalising abortion for all ages. My Supplementary Order Paper 463 around children in the Care of Children Act spoke mainly about the repeal of section 38. What this bill will do is actually offer abortion to all ages of women without any regard to any caregiver, or any other person, being involved to actually support that person or for that person to discuss their issues with. That’s why I think that the title should be “Abortion Liberalisation Legislation Bill”, as my colleague Simeon Brown so eloquently put it today.

It does hurt me to be standing here arguing over this when it should be a simple vote put in this Chamber by ourselves who we regard as legislators. But a referendum actually takes that away and it is sad, I believe, for this House and for this country that we as members of Parliament cannot get up into this decision-making process that we were voted in to do. That’s about all I have to my contribution to this title and commencement piece of the legislation. I would like for the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, to actually stand and respond to the questions Simeon Brown asked the Minister. I don’t support the bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

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.

—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.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I was very torn about whether or not I’d take a call on this bill, the Abortion Legislation Bill. I haven’t taken a call up until now, but I have been in the House and I’ve listened very carefully to the debate. I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair, Andrew Little, who has stood on many occasions and addressed the Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs) and issues that were raised; that is how our parliamentary process should work in a strong democracy like ours. I took a lot of time studying each SOP and often talking to the author of each SOP. It’s a polarising issue. I know that my closest colleague and friend in this House, the Hon Alfred Ngaro, and I have been on different ends of the spectrum, but I want to acknowledge him and the respect that he’s shown me. I hope that he’s felt that I’ve shown and accorded him the same respect.

The way that I treat conscience votes is that I go back to my electorate and I allow my electorate to have their say, and whatever the majority is through surveys, public meetings, and a public poll that I run, that’s how I’ll come to this House and that’s how I’ll vote. So it’s fairly well in line with the ideology around a referendum; it’s allowing the country to actually decide on these important conscience votes.

The only thing that I will do is I will always let my electorate know, where I know, so that they know where I stand personally on the issue. And where I stand personally on this issue—and I could be accused of taking a very simplistic approach—is quite simply driven through my own personal experience. And that is, I spent a better part of 10 years in regions like the Middle East and Africa, and I saw rape used against women as a tool that created enormous damage—damage that is still going on today while we sit in this House and debate this bill here in New Zealand.

I saw enormous mental health issues created through it. And I felt that when we had a chance as a country to be able to remove abortion from our Crimes Act and not to have to put a woman in a position where she had to fake a mental health issue—and I think there’s no greater perverse outcome in a country where we’re struggling to get on top of mental health issues, where we’re struggling as a nation to get on top of suicide rates than to put our women in a position where they have to fake a mental health issue. It’s perverse for me personally.

That’s why, for me, it was quite simplistic in the sense that I wanted to support a bill, and I do support a bill, that is going to remove it from the Crimes Act, that it’s no longer going to be in the Crimes Act, and that we’re no longer going to require women to fake a mental health issue to get access to something that she obviously feels strongly that she needs. I am not going to judge any woman in terms of what their decision is. Because it’s a tough one, and it’s a hard one, and it’s harrowing.

I just want to talk about post - 20 weeks. That is a very tough issue, and I want to acknowledge all my colleagues that have put Supplementary Order Papers in and stood up and talked with passion to that, because it’s something that we all struggle with. My own experience was as a young police officer, 20 years old, travelling down Mount Eden Road with a very close colleague of mine—he’s now a police area commander. We got flagged down by a very distraught husband whose wife had gone into labour at 24 weeks.

As a 20 year old, and having just graduated from Police College, I have to admit that I hadn’t watched the video that closely on how to assist childbirth. I wish that I had at that moment, because that’s exactly the sort of support that we had to provide. I was junior man, so Rod took the radio and he disappeared and started giving sitreps, and I was left to support the mother and assist with the birth. It was a premature birth, but I’ve never forgotten, to this day, holding that little baby boy in my hand. He literally fitted in my hand.

Parents that lose children post - 20 weeks—it has an enormous psychological and emotional impact on them. It’s not something that’s taken lightly. I spoke with a mother and father two weeks ago that went through this. They tried hard for years for her to get pregnant. They finally achieved it. They finally got to their goal, and they celebrated the pregnancy. During the pregnancy it became obvious that, actually, her life was in grave danger. In fact, it’s probably highly unlikely that she would have survived carrying that baby to term. And they had to make the most excruciating, worst decision that they could possibly make. [Bell rung] Madam Chair?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Oh, the Hon Mark Mitchell. You can finish.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I’ll wrap up. I’ll wrap up now.

We shouldn’t ever—we should never, ever discount the stress and the torment that, in this case, the parents or a woman go through in terms of coming to that decision and making that decision. I completely respect the other side of the debate. I’ve received numerous emails and correspondence on it. I can assure everyone that I’ve read it. I just wanted to stand up and put on record where I stand and how I feel about the issue. I’m not judging either side of the debate.

I will continue to go back to my electorate, and I’ll continue to take guidance from them on these conscience issues. I have to be honest with you that, most of the time, they get it right. In fact, I feel they’ve got it right on every occasion that I’ve gone back, and there’s been four of them. So, Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to stand and take a call on this, the Abortion Legislation Bill. Thank you.

I move, That the question be now put.

Motion agreed to.

The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Simeon Brown to clause 1 be agreed to:

replace “Abortion Legislation Bill 2019” with “Abortion (Liberalisation post-20 weeks) Legislation Bill 2019”.

I seek leave to correct the vote on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 292, in the name of Darroch Ball’s amendment to clause 2, and to correct—there was a proxy vote for Maggie Barry in favour of that SOP.

So leave is sought; is there any objection?

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: Was it cast the wrong way, or not cast?

CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Not cast. No objection? There is objection. OK, I’m sorry, there is objection.

The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 455 in the name of Jan Logie be agreed to.

Amendments not agreed to.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Report adopted.