Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill

Before we begin the debate, I’ll advise members that in accordance with a decision of the Business Committee, there will be a split party vote at the end of the debate. When the House was last debating this bill, it gave leave for this to be a two-hour debate with speeches of not more than 10 minutes, so that if there’s time left from the shorter speeches, it can be used by other members.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Several years ago, I had the privilege of serving on the international board of Amnesty International at a time when we began a journey of truly fighting for women’s rights. This included violence against women, women’s education, but also, critically, women’s right to health. Over the course of that role but also many others, I’ve heard some very personal stories from women about the barriers to accessing healthcare they’ve faced both overseas and in New Zealand. Many faced harassment, obstruction, or intimidation, and there have also been stories of women who didn’t have an experience of harassment or obstruction but who spoke about being terrified that they would, that they’d have their photo shared on social media. They were terrified of being identified or harassed while trying to access a health service. There were some who chose simply not to present to access that health service at a healthcare facility.

Terry Bellamak wrote last year of the problems we faced, and she wrote “The actions of harassers sometimes take a turn for the dramatic. Shouts of ‘murderer’ or ‘have mercy on your baby’. Or pelting people with baby doll parts … Sometimes they say things like ‘you don’t have to do this’ … But people being harassed can recognise when they are being condemned whether the weapon is abuse or condescension.”

So what about the argument that this is about freedom of speech? Well, as we know, rights and freedoms in New Zealand are subject to a balancing act. Freedom of speech considerations have to be balanced by the ability to access healthcare, and what we must determine is whether the provisions are a justifiable limitation of the right. In this case, this health access proposal doesn’t remove a right to free speech; it proposes a reasonable limitation, allowing individuals to protest outside of the protected access area. Women should be just able to walk up and access healthcare providers without being harassed, without being obstructed.

I’d also note that for many women—in fact, some of our most vulnerable women—without this bill, the effect of the Abortion Legislation Act 2020, which decriminalised abortion, will be meaningless. They’ll simply be too scared to access the services that they’re entitled to. For some, this’ll mean engaging in unsafe practices or putting their own health at risk. Having a right to health includes the ability to have access to that right safely. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to make a short call on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill, and, of course, the focus there is on the safe areas. As the previous speaker has just said, laws have already been passed to decriminalise abortion, but they did not provide for this safe area, and it’s so important that when women have made a decision to seek medical help and to seek an abortion, they can do so in some peace.

I reside in beautiful Dunedin. We often have protesters outside of the hospital, and I’d like to credit a friend of mine, Sam Sharpe, who often stands out there with them in trying to support the women who are coming in to have an abortion. So I’m sure he’s got better things to do with his time and will be able to not do that in terms of when this legislation is passed and that safe area is provided for those women, who have always made a very tough decision—to decide to have an abortion. It’s not an easy thing to do. It has a huge impact on your body, of course, and it’s so important that once they’ve made that decision, they can go ahead with it in a safe way.

So for the reasons that previous speakers have spoken to as well, I commend this bill to the House.

It’s my pleasure to stand and take a call on this the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the member in charge of the bill, Louisa Wall. She seems to have the luck of the Irish in having her bills come to the House. But the thing that I always like about the way that Louisa approaches her members’ bills is that she does a lot of cross-party consultation. She came and spoke to me about this bill when it was first drawn, and absolutely I support it.

I think that it doesn’t remove the right for people to protest, but what it does is it puts a safe area in place for women and their families when they’re going through what is an extremely stressful—you know, they’re going through something that’s extremely stressful to them anyway, and when you look around the world, it’s very sad to see that often at these abortion clinics you’ll see doctors attacked, verbally abused, you’ll see women attacked, and verbally abused. I think it’s only right that they’re allowed to go there and they’re allowed to have access to medical support without actually having to be subjected to that type of sometimes physical but definitely verbal abuse—and even having their photos taken, with the risk of their going up on social media.

So it’s a good bill and I’m very happy to stand in the House and take a call and support it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I too rise to take a very short call on this bill, a bill that I’m incredibly supportive of. I’ve spent most of my work life prior to Parliament in the women’s rights space, supporting women’s rights. I’ve met, over the years that I’ve been in Parliament, with Terry Bellamak from the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, I’ve gone out and visited abortion clinics as well, and I couldn’t be more supportive of this bill that aims to reduce the intimidation and harassment that many women face as they enter or walk towards abortion clinics, but, equally, the intimidation and harassment that staff at these clinics face daily with people protesting very close to the doors in ways that can be quite scary.

I just want to quote something that Terry mentioned—it has been mentioned in the House by other speakers as well and I feel very strongly about it because this is often pitted as a freedom of expression debate, and it’s not—she says, and I quote, “Freedom of expression does not include the right to target a captive audience and force them to listen to your message. People tell me they find the harassment outside the abortion services intimidating and upsetting.” As other speakers have noted today in their contributions, having an abortion is in itself is an incredibly scary time for many women and having people with explicit messaging and often photographs right in your face as you’re walking to those clinics—and for the staff, day in day out—is intimidation.

This bill doesn’t remove the rights to protest, it’s a right that all of us, I think, in this House hold strongly, but it doesn’t allow them to be quite so in your face and intimidate women going in. So, for those reasons, I support this bill and commend it to the House.

We’re in a similar situation to last night, where it doesn’t appear that many people, particularly those who wish to oppose this, wish to stand up and have a yarn. Therefore, I’ll take the opportunity to talk about this bill.

I’m very much in favour of this bill, and I hope that it does continue to enjoy the support we’ve seen in the first reading. This, I think, is just about safety and a very simple proposition: does this House think it’s OK for people who are seeking a legal medical procedure to be harassed and intimidated? That’s the question that we have to consider today. I say, no it’s not OK—very simple. This is a legal activity, regardless of what people may think of it, regardless of what their views are on the moral question of abortion. That debate has been had. That debate has been won, and people that don’t like it—that’s fine, but they’ve got to accept it, and they don’t, I believe, have the right to impose on those who are seeking what is a legal medical procedure.

I get the arguments against abortion. I don’t agree with them, but I get it, because I was raised as, and still am, a Catholic. But I come back to the point that was raised a number of times when this House was discussing the question of whether abortion should sit within the Crimes Act. People can have their own views, but what right do they have to impose those views on the choice of others. People can believe, through religious or other reasons, that abortion is wrong. That’s their right and good on them if that’s what they think. Again, I don’t agree—I wholeheartedly don’t agree—but if that’s what they think, fine. How dare they impose that view on others.

If someone chooses, for their own reasons, to seek this medical procedure, they should be able to do so as if they were seeking any other medical procedure. They should be able to arrive, access it, and leave without anybody imposing their views on them, without anybody impeding them, harassing them or abusing them. Some may say, “We don’t want to do that. That’s abhorrent. We just want to talk to them.” Nah, sorry—you want to talk to them on the basis of telling them that their decision is wrong. I don’t think you have that right. By all means go and protest if you want but do it somewhere it doesn’t impinge on somebody else’s legal right to seek a medical procedure.

I think we have to take a step back and fight for rights of people to freedom of speech and freedom of protest, but we have seen, very recently, how protests can cross the line. We will fight in Parliament at every opportunity for people’s right to protest, but when that protest then stops other people going about their rightful, legal lives, that, I believe, is crossing the line. What this bill will achieve, when it passes, is ensure that people that are pursuing a legal right to a medical procedure can do so safely. I commend Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House. I say to members in the House: if you’re going to vote against it, fine—get up and tell us why.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I too would like to acknowledge and thank Louisa Wall for this bill and for shepherding it through the House so adeptly. I also want to acknowledge the committee, which I have the privilege of sitting on, and the chair, Liz Craig, for what I felt was a really thoughtful and constructive interrogation of the issues. We worked really hard on the committee to make sure that we would provide protection for pregnant people who needed to access information about abortion or abortions themselves, while protecting the rights of people through our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. According to the Attorney-General, we achieved that balance, I’m really pleased to say.

In the Green Party, and as a member of the Green Party, we believe that all people have the right to access healthcare in safety, with their privacy protected. It’s pretty foundational. This right is protected for most people through our code of health and disability rights, which guarantees all consumers the specific rights of privacy, respect, and the right to freedom from discrimination, coercion, harassment, and exploitation. But, sadly, there’s a whole lot of people who do care that some pregnant people have abortions, and we heard from many of these people through the select committee process. We read hundreds of submissions from people who believe it’s their right and actually their duty to intervene in a way to try and prevent people having abortions.

Despite so many testimonies of peacefulness, the committee was presented with a recent survey of abortion service providers that found over half of them are currently dealing with protests. That protest action is increasing, not decreasing. We heard evidence of patients being chased into clinics. We heard of pamphleting, loud hymn singing, blockading of doors, protesters approaching and speaking to patients and calling individual staff by name to intimidate, photographing of staff and patients, and refusing to leave when asked. This is why some who previously had indicated they didn’t support safe zones have indicated that they now do, because they are seeing an escalation, an escalation that the Green Party have felt in a physical way, where our co-leader James Shaw was assaulted by somebody who said a reason for that assault was our position on abortion rights.

Providers reported that protests make patients tearful, distressed, angry, or defensive. They have also known women who are attending services to also become abusive to protesters because of the sense of escalation and fight. One woman spoke of trying to access an abortion during the so-called 40 Days for Life and there being a counter-protest at the time. She commented that she had no issues about getting an abortion, but having to walk through that gauntlet of pros and antis was incredibly anxiety-inducing, and it’s not conducive or appropriate in the context of accessing healthcare. She believes safe zones will stop any escalation. There won’t be a voice for or against in these areas. I’ve been on those protests, I’ve got to say. I’ve been part of that environment she was describing, and I happily give up my right to protest out there in support of people’s right to access abortions to ensure that that is a zone with absolute privacy and respect and none of that stress.

We also heard from women concerned that people, especially young women, accessing other services from Family Planning, as an example, also lose their right to privacy when these protests happen. This is of real concern for clinics like Family Planning, where many women in particular go for added specialisation but also privacy away from people that they know, and we do not want to create a situation where people are deterred from getting good healthcare. So I will continue to, admittedly begrudgingly, defend the right of those who oppose abortion to express their views, to campaign, and to organise for law change. I will say what I think about that, and it will be a free contest of ideas. But I do not believe they have the right or that any interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives them a right, let alone a duty that many feel, to do whatever they can to stop pregnant people from having abortions. That is an interference in the right of people to privacy, dignity, and impedes their right to access healthcare.

This bill is not about whether abortion is OK or not. This bill has very little to do with the freedom of expression. Say what you like, just not within 150 metres of a service. This bill is about ensuring all people have the right to access healthcare in safety, with their privacy protected. Those opposing the legislation will say many of these behaviours are already covered by existing legislation and it’s completely unnecessary. What they’re actually saying is the status quo of abuse that I’ve described earlier in this speech is acceptable, because we know that’s happening under the current legal framework. I don’t agree with that. That is why I am supporting this bill.

It is true that many but absolutely not all of the behaviours described and affected are covered by the Summary Offences Act, the Trespass Act, and the Harassment Act, but what we heard from providers and women who were accessing services was that these laws aren’t stopping abortion harassment, largely because they rely on that person going for an abortion or abortion advice to provide evidence, to be the complainant for a case to succeed, and that is the last thing that they want to be dealing with when they are going for an abortion. That is a further breach of their right to privacy—to try and get in and have your healthcare and then stand up in front of court and potentially have somebody report on it is not a practical solution for their safety and protection of right to healthcare.

So that’s why the committee made some amendments to the bill as well. The bill as introduced would have required the prosecution to demonstrate that the person subjected to the prohibited behaviour was a protected person, and that would have relied probably on them being required to give evidence. So we removed that so complaints could be laid by people other than those accessing or providing abortion services. We also removed the requirement to prove specific intent or knowledge. While now this could be considered a strict liability offence, we were advised this aligns with similar offences—so it’s not out of the ordinary at all—while noting the accused would still avoid liability if they could show the existence of a defence or absence of fault. We did not manage to get to the same place for visually recording another person, but we believe this is probably a good first run of it, and if it proves to be a problem, we’ll be able to fix it later. I understand that visual recordings, if shared, would not require the person accessing the service to give evidence.

Many submitters in support of the legislation wanted automatic safe areas, and I shared that desire. That was my starting point too, just like “Let’s make this really simple and just do it.” What we were given evidence of in the committee process was that, actually, in terms of balancing rights and ensuring that the safe zone did not go too far, you need to design it specific to each site. Now that abortions are not just happening in hospitals or the very few Family Planning clinics that they were able to be in before—some of them are in mobile situations, some of them are in community areas—actually, they need to be named to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and good legislative guidelines. So we just couldn’t work out a way to make it automatic, but we did put a provision in there to encourage the Minister to streamline this process. It will probably take three or four months, and if anybody could come up with a solution to that before the committee stage, I’m sure we’d be interested. But we did really look into this in great detail, and it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and it will protect people’s right to healthcare.

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Thank you for this opportunity to take a call on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill, and can I please start my contribution by acknowledging the member Louisa Wall, who has brought this bill to the House. I supported the abortion legislation previously, and I’m pleased to see that this issue that arose during that debate actually has come before the House and we are able to debate it and, hopefully, address this issue this morning.

I myself haven’t personally seen or observed this behaviour. I wasn’t on the select committee, but I have heard in the speeches this morning and I have heard from colleagues who have seen it firsthand for themselves how awful this must be for those who are trying to access services, something that is their right and that is, ultimately, their decision. As we have heard in the speeches this morning, what we are trying to do here is balance one set of rights versus another set of rights. The right that is often used to oppose what is being proposed in this legislation is that right of freedom of expression—freedom of speech—and what had to be weighed up here was the other rights that people have to access medical services, to their privacy, and to go about their own business. It was a challenge, as I can see, for the Health Committee to weigh up those. I see that they gave it real consideration as to how that could be balanced in trying to achieve the objectives of this piece of legislation.

What the bill does is it actually defines the type of behaviour that is prohibited, so I think when anybody is hearing about this or considering it, they should actually read what is in the bill and what is being prohibited, and it’s defined as “intimidating, interfering with, or obstructing a protected person—[either] with the intention of frustrating the purpose for which the protected person is in the safe area; or … in a manner that an ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person:”. I think when you read that, you read the type of behaviour that’s proposed to be prohibited by this bill, you would see that it is not an unreasonable restriction on somebody’s freedom of expression. Their freedom of expression is going much further than I think is acceptable to us, and that’s what we are legislating for today.

It’s also “communicating with, or visually recording, a person in a manner that an ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person.” So it provides a safe area and it provides that it cannot be more than 150 metres from the perimeter of the premises. We heard an excellent explanation from the member Jan Logie about why it’s not just a blanket thing but it needs to be applied to each site, and I also heard your point about how possibly that could be more streamlined. But it was something that, obviously, the Health Committee grappled with and tried to figure out if there was a blanket way in which it could be done, but what was ultimately landed on was that it would be site-specific, and there’s a process within the legislation for that.

The recommended changes from the Health Committee: I think the one I wanted to focus on mainly was around the Attorney-General’s report on the bill to the House, in which it concluded that clause 5 of the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression as affirmed in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and the Attorney-General was concerned that the bill would criminalise communicating in a way that could be distressing. The way in which the Health Committee dealt with this and undertook that balancing act and tried to provide clarification for that was to recommend amending clause 5 by replacing new section 13A and removing the definitions of “prohibited behaviour” and “protected person” and by specifically defining the types of behaviour that would be prohibited in a safe area.

That’s why I encourage anybody who is thinking about this piece of legislation to actually read what it says in the bill. I saw this last night with the conversion practices prohibition. People were just making a statement and making assumptions, but they haven’t necessarily read the legislation, which is outlining for clarity what it does include and does prohibit and what it doesn’t.

So the proposed new section 13A(1)(b) would prohibit a person from visually recording another person in a safe area in a certain manner, and they could not do so in a way that was likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing, providing, or assisting with providing abortion services. I just want everybody in the House to just take a little moment to consider that: somebody going to access these services in what could be a really difficult situation for them, and you have somebody with a mobile recording device recording you doing that. I’m really proud that we are putting this in legislation to prohibit that type of behaviour.

The new section 13A(1)(c) would also prohibit a person from undertaking certain activities in a safe area, and these activities would be ones that “could easily be seen or heard by another person (A) who may be accessing, providing, or assisting with providing, abortion services:”. The prohibited activities would be advising or persuading A to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services; informing A about matters relating to the provision of abortion services, unless it was when the services were being provided; and engaging in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services.

To be clear, though, a person could carry out these activities while accompanying person A with consent. So this would be to avoid it being an offence for a private conversation in a safe area where A was being dissuaded by a person accompanying them from accessing or providing abortion services, and I think that’s an important point for people to know. Somebody who, with the consent of the person going in for the services, may be having that private conversation would not be captured by this bill. However, somebody who is not there with the consent of person A and who is trying to do that is what is being captured by this bill.

So, on that basis, the Attorney-General provided feedback on those proposed changes and concluded that they considered that “while the revised draft of the Bill would still limit freedom of expression within a safe area under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act, it would do so in a way that was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 5.” So I really want to commend the Health Committee for the work that they did and the recommendations and changes that they made in order to try and achieve that balancing act. I commend the committee on what they arrived at, and, therefore, I feel honoured and privileged to be able to stand up in this House this morning to make this contribution and to support this legislation. Ki a koe Louisa, tēnei te mihi nui ki a koe e te wahine toa. Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare.

[To you, Louisa, a courageous woman, this is a great acknowledgment. Greetings to the Speaker of the House.]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Look, I also rise to speak in favour of this legislation, which I think is very important particularly given some of the stories we’ve heard in the House of the kind of harassment that has accelerated in some of the areas around clinics providing medical services for people who are needing an abortion.

This piece of legislation is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion and who should be able to access it—previous speakers have made that point well. It is about whether or not people should be able to be stopping people, encroaching upon people’s freedoms, within 150 metres of a site that is providing medical care in respect of abortions. I think from the outset it’s always important to remind ourselves that no one at all is ever seeking an abortion because of a situation they deliberately sought out. People do not find themselves needing an abortion because of something they wanted—it’s not a position anybody wants to find themselves in, putting it plainly. People who are seeking an abortion are often in a position of some distress. It can be a stressful situation for the individuals involved, and, as a consequence, it’s important to remember that people in the position of needing an abortion can be vulnerable, you know, whether that is because of rape or incest or any other number of horrific realities that, unfortunately, can sometimes be inflicted upon some of those who will need abortion services, or for other medical reasons.

So I think finding the balance is what this bill seeks to do, between freedom of speech and those who wish to protest against some aspects of abortion—finding the balance between that and protecting the rights of individuals to access medical services without harassment. I do feel that this bill has sought and found a balance, and previous speakers have referred to the work of the Attorney-General and his comments—the changes made in select committee to try to ensure the right balance is struck; shifting away from certain language, moving towards other language, which describes the kinds of behaviours that are prohibited: “ obstruct[ing] a person in a safe area who is approaching, [leaving, or entering] any building in which abortion services are provided; … mak[ing] a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a manner that is likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing, providing, or assisting with providing, abortion services”, or a number of other behaviours that might indeed be perceived by the person accessing the services as intimidation or harassment.

I think, again, if we come back to that position where we know that those who find themselves in the position of needing an abortion will not have sought to be in that position, I think it’s a call upon our humanity to make sure that those people are able to access the services in what can be a very distressing situation, particularly where there is harassment, which is documented. Look, I mean, in my electorate there is a hospital and there are people actively protesting outside where people are going to seek medical support, and, I have to say, it makes me distinctly uncomfortable to see that practice. I feel that this bill is striking the right balance. It’s preserving the right for people to protest further away, to make their point, and people need to be free to express their concerns and to protest the way that laws are, but there are appropriate ways to protest and to get a message across and to support change if that’s what you firmly believe should happen, and there are ways which are more akin to intimidation, and those must never be allowed to prevail because that’s not the society that any of us in this House want to live in.

I think, also, one aspect that I’ve seen less comment on in the time I’ve been following the debate in the House is the requirement for review of this legislation, and I think it’s something that is more and more best practice, but I actually think it’s a good thing to make sure things are fit for purpose. I just this morning presented on the Data and Statistics Bill that is before select committee, and one of the aspects that’s happening in that bill, similar to here, is a requirement that when we conduct censuses, we review each time and learn the lessons and make amendments to laws and so on if they need updating. The way in which our society is moving and changing means it’s very hard to project forward in 10 years’ time whether this will be appropriate, whether people accessing services will arrive by different means, whether they’ll be provided in set premises or in other circumstances as medical science improves or changes. It could be that these kinds of protections we’re passing today are not relevant in 50 years’ time or 30 years’ time or whatever. The stats bill, it’s nearly 50 years since it was last updated and it talks about statistics. It doesn’t even talk about data. Here we’re talking about a medical practice as it’s currently carried out and the behaviours that we’re observing that cause distress to those who are seeking medical attention. So I think that that’s something, although not covered in the debate, I think is a very good thing to see in the legislation.

I do thank those who have given it consideration in select committee, who have ensured that we have those regulation-making powers there—no later than five years, they must be reviewed and “ at subsequent intervals of not more than 5 years, the Director-General … with the Secretary for Justice, must—(a) review the regulations (if they are still in force) to determine whether that prescribed safe area is still—(i) desirable for the purposes specified in subsection (2)(a); and (ii) demonstrably justified as specified in subsection (2)(b);” and report to the Minister of Health and the Minister Justice to facilitate amendments if they’re required, or revoke the Act. So I think these are really healthy and good things to see in the legislation—that is good practice. We do need to revisit these things as practices change, and, indeed, the member Louisa Wall, who’s brought this bill, has looked to current practice and said, “Look, what we’ve got here does need to be updated and changed.”, and I commend that and I commend her for bringing this bill to the House.

So I also want to just acknowledge the respectful debate that’s being held in the House, and I think that that is incredibly important for a healthy democracy. We do need to be able to debate the rights and freedoms that are being developed here today and the balance that’s been struck in the legislative change—that is incredibly important to our democracy. I do want to also acknowledge the way in which that’s been done in a respectful way in what is a very difficult and sensitive topic, particularly for those who have endured trauma and had to engage with the peculiarities of the medical system, the particular institutional arrangements that often characterise it, which may not always be culturally familiar to those who are accessing services in our country.

So, in concluding, I do want to say thank you again to the member who’s brought the bill. Thank you to members around the House who are debating, actually, important issues of freedom of speech, because curtailing it should only be done in a way that is really clear about what we’re prohibiting and that is those things that that could be well characterised as intimidation, and also balancing that out with the privacy and the rights of people to access, without harassment, medical services. I do commend these changes to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m going to take a call this morning on behalf of the ACT Party on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I’m doing so on behalf of ACT in acknowledgment that we have all adopted a position in support of the second reading, but also doing so for my own self. I have always been a staunch believer in a woman’s right to choose. I’m very thankful that my colleagues are also in favour of a woman’s right to choose. In fact, David Seymour, when he was the only member of ACT in this Chamber in the last term, voted in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill, but actually wished for the more progressive side of that abortion legislation to occur. That didn’t happen. The House agreed on a more restrictive form for that Act.

But I acknowledge that there are a range of views that occurred in the Health Committee, which I was privileged to sit on and listen to some of the submissions. I want to acknowledge the hours of work that the Clerk’s Office and the officials did in reading through all of those submissions—a huge number that were very emotive. I have a lot of respect for the Clerk’s Office and the officials who do such diligent work for us. A lot of the submissions, though, weren’t actually about safe areas. A lot of them were to do with whether or not we should, in fact, allow abortions to occur at all in New Zealand. But that’s not really the debate that we were to have, because we settled that in the last term with the abortion legislation. But if there is any cause for doubt, we are firmly in favour of a woman’s right to choose.

This bill, in particular, aims to protect the safety and wellbeing, the respect and privacy and dignity of women accessing abortion facilities, and practitioners providing and helping with abortion services. That’s a very well intentioned aim. I think we all know women who have had abortions, many who would never have actually told us. But, thankfully, with how society is progressing, more and more people are feeling it’s OK to actually talk about these things with their friends and their family. And I know, personally, many people who have had abortions and they should be respected for their choices and not feel like they’re going to be threatened or obstructed from entering an abortion service when they’re already in a very vulnerable situation.

I do also want to acknowledge the role that ACT had to play in bringing this bill to Parliament. When we had the debate on the Abortion Legislation Bill, the ACT Party removed the provision for the safe areas. That was because we wanted to make sure that the correct balance was struck between protecting women from harm when they’re going to enter an abortion facility, and also the principle of the right to freedom of expression and free speech. We believe that both of these are very important principles and aims, but we didn’t believe that, at the time, the correct balance was struck in that piece of legislation, and we are very happy that it was in fact removed. I have to admire the tenacity of Louisa Wall for putting forward a member’s bill to put safe areas back into legislation.

Now, we didn’t believe the right balance was struck then, and we also didn’t believe that the right balance was struck between protecting people and their rights and also protecting freedom of speech at the first reading. That’s because we looked at the word “communicate”, and that was the same reason for why we removed that provision in the abortion legislation—it’s because we believe that it was far too broad and actually went against people’s rights in an undemocratic and unjustifiable manner. It was far too broad to simply say that communicating in an area close to an abortion facility should be prohibited. We believed it would have a chilling effect on free speech. And I note that our fears were actually also the same fears of the Attorney-General, because I read some parts of the Attorney-General’s section 7 report where he believed it was also inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and he said clause 5 of the bill, as introduced, would be defining a behaviour that would be prohibited in safe areas that would include intimidation, interfering with or obstructing a protected person. Those are, you know, well-intentioned aims, but also said that it was “overly broad and not a justifiable limit on s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act.” He considered that the term “communicating” had a broad scope because it “appears to cover any speech or behaviour with a communicative element, rather than focusing on the forms of communication common to anti-abortion activism”, but also believed it was “likely to have a chilling effect on all forms of communication within a safe area.”

Now, we had a lot of discussions in the select committee about how to strike that correct balance, and we wanted to see the word “communicate” struck from the bill and the scope narrowed, and I’m glad that we were able—in good faith—to come to a compromise that struck a better balance between the right for people to access health services in a manner that they feel respected, but also to uphold the rights of freedom of speech in a democratic country with justifiable limitations. We were also glad to see the removal of safe areas being automatic, and I think one aspect that became quite apparent was listening to one submitter that said, “Well, if my home is within the safe zone, does that mean that I can’t talk about my own personal beliefs within my home?” And the advice that we had was, yes, that would actually be a prohibited behaviour. So I’m very glad to see that the safe zones and the requirements around the regulations have been much, much more narrow.

We have struck a much better balance and we are happy to now support the bill because of the good faith that has happened in the select committee to make sure that we have that correct balance between freedom of speech and the right for people to access a health service. We believe that it’s really important that people do have access to health services. It is their right under our New Zealand laws. I actually believe it is the right thing to allow people to have that choice. But we also must ensure that we’re upholding freedom of expression and freedom of speech, and it’s not unnecessarily impinged on. I’m glad to see that the Attorney-General, after the changes made at select committee, does believe that the limitations on freedom of speech are democratically justified.

At first reading, we did say that we would support the bill if the word “communicate” was removed. That has happened, and I’m very proud to stand here on behalf of a party that makes sure that we are always making sure that we’re getting good public policy right and that we’re taking the time to do due diligence and making sure that we are not unnecessarily impinging on people’s rights and freedoms, and that we are creating the correct balance between everybody’s rights in society. I do note that there is the provision for a review in five years, and if anything happens that is impinging too far on freedom of speech, we can come back and review it at that time. But, on balance, ACT as happy to support this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Look, I wasn’t going to take a call on this bill, but I did want to point out and lay out for the record the excellent process that has been gone through on the bill. I am one member who struggled with the proposal as it was first put forward by my colleague and friend Louisa Wall at first reading, primarily because of the reasons that have been ventilated by others around freedom of expression. And in the last Parliament, I was a member who essentially supported the removal of the safe areas from the abortion legislation as it was going through the Parliament, because I’m a very strong supporter of free speech and freedom of expression, and I believe strongly, in some ways, that it’s the paramount right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Many other rights in our constitution and in our political framework flow from the intrinsic ability to express oneself not just in this Parliament but around the country. It is, in some ways, the paramount right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

So I was very concerned about—well, I was concerned about the proposal as it was initially drafted. I voted for this bill at first reading to send it to a committee so we could try and fix some of those issues, and see whether or not we could find a balance between protecting the rights of people who wish to protest and express their views around abortion, which is a highly charged emotive issue—fortunately, we don’t have the same litigious culture and the same venomous culture around the debate around abortion in New Zealand that they have in the United States, for example. But there are people in New Zealand with strongly held moral, religious, political, social views around abortion, and their rights have to be respected.

Equally, people who wish to procure an abortion—women who want to access abortion services and health services— have a right to do so unimpeded from emotional harm and distress. So the question before the Parliament has been: what is the appropriate balance to protect, in so far as it’s possible to do so, the rights of both groups of people? The bill as it was initially drafted, I think everyone will acknowledge, needed some work, and so I voted for the bill at first reading to send it to the Health Committee—which I sat on briefly; I won’t admit to the House that I was super-involved in the committee’s deliberations, because there had been a few other things on. I enjoyed sitting on the Health Committee for some time while we considered the bill. I have to say, it was an extremely good process, because what we did as a committee was we took the report of the Attorney-General under section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and we said to the officials, “You’ve got to fix the bill. We’ve got to bring this bill into line so that the Attorney-General doesn’t have a problem with it.”

And I’ll tell you what’s really interesting: section 7 reports are probably too often ignored by Parliament. Members will know that the Attorney-General is required to make a report if he thinks a bill before the Parliament, including members’ bills, are unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. And quite often, committees say, “Oh well, you know, that just the view of the Attorney-General; that’s all very interesting, thanks very much for that, but we’ll just charge on anyway.” And Governments too, to be fair—it’s not just an issue to do with committees; it’s Governments. And the Health Committee did the opposite. The Health Committee took the report seriously, and I believe it will go down in the record books as a paradigmatic example of how to take rights seriously, and, also, how to balance rights seriously—excellent work done by the committee.

So we went through that long process, we heard all the submissions, and what we’ve done is made some changes that other members have ventilated to the House around the bill. And then what we did was quite interesting: in order to give members comfort that what they were doing was now voting for a bill that was New Zealand Bill of Rights Act - consistent—so a bill that was no longer inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act—we wrote to the Attorney-General and we said, “It would be really good if you wrote back to the House”—essentially—“and said that you no longer have any concerns with the bill.”

And, again, this is something—I don’t believe this has happened before, right? I actually think I’m right in saying—I meant to check with the Parliamentary Library before I came down. But I’m pretty sure I’m right in saying, and I’ll correct the record if I’m not, that this is the first time where a negative section 7 report has been presented that says the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the committee has fixed the bill and then the Attorney-General has written to the Parliament to say, “I’m now happy with the bill.” I think I’m right in saying that. And so, no doubt, there’ll be New Zealand Law Journal articles and Law Review articles by learned scholars written about this. I’m sure Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s watching, extremely excited that his baby, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, has had its jurisprudence further advanced, and I look forward to his correspondence on the matter, but I think I’m right in saying that it’s the first time, and that’s a good thing, because what’s happened here is that the Attorney-General is now advising the Parliament that he is happy with the bill as it’s been amended by the committee.

I know there are members in the Parliament who are voting, and I’m one of them, but there are other members including me who are voting for the bill now because they are happy and comfortable with the bill because it is now consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and they’ve got the judgment of the chief legal officer of the Crown, and the Government, who says so and has written to Parliament to say so. Now, reasonable people can disagree; there may well be colleagues who disagree on the conclusion that the Attorney-General has drawn, and that’s completely fine, and I respect that—reasonable people can have different views about limitations on rights—but it is significant that the Attorney-General has written to the Parliament and said, “I am now comfortable with this, and therefore, in my considered opinion, it is no longer inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.” I for one am much more comfortable voting for the bill because the Attorney-General has done that. So I want to commend the committee, which I am no longer a member of, for its prescience, or far-sightedness, in writing to the Attorney-General, and I want to commend the Attorney General, the Hon David Parker for taking the step that he has done.

Just very briefly, the particular substantive amendments that have been made, according to the Attorney-General, “There [is now] little prospect that communication from support persons or service providers would be criminalised … and have [their] appropriate exemptions built in.”—that’s new section 13A(1)(c)(i) and (ii). And the most critical thing for me is engaging in protest in new section 13A is narrower than the previous phrase. So the previous phrase was “communicating with”; it’s now “engage in protests”, which means that activities that are not regarded as protest, such as people engaging in silent prayer, will not risk being criminalised. Now, again, reasonable people can disagree as to whether or not that’s an appropriate thing to do—I respect everyone’s views on that—but I think there would be broad consensus that we don’t want that behaviour banned.

So the Attorney-General says that while the bill will still limit freedom of expression in a safe area, it would do so in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. And that’s what the New Zealand Bill of Rights is all about. People often say, well, everything breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Almost anything Governments do is an intrusion on some right; the question is whether or not it’s a justified limit and whether or not it’s a proportionate limit, and whether or not you can actually do it in the least rights-intrusive way possible.

So I just wanted to take—it was intended to be a brief call but it hasn’t been a brief call. But I did just want to take a call to lay out what I think is a very important process, and I hope that in the future, when it comes to dealing with contentious issues of freedom of speech and, actually, significant intrusions on rights generally, other committees will do what the Health Committee has done alongside the Attorney-General and engage in a very robust dialogue back and forth to try and make sure that bills are as least rights-intrusive as possible. And with that, I commend the bill to the House. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. Look, what an interesting debate this has been, given the passage of this bill and also the changes that have been recommended from select committee. The purpose of the bill is really a regulation-making power to set up those safe areas around specific abortion facilities on a case by case basis. It’s a very interesting discussion, as we’ve just heard from the previous speaker, Chris Bishop, around the balancing of rights. And look, given the debate in the House last night regarding conversion practices and also the discussions going on regarding the current protest at Parliament, the balancing of rights is a fascinating and important discussion that we have as a democracy. The question sort of goes to, when do your rights impinge on those of others and how do we get that balance right? This bill is a really good example of Parliament working just the way it should—the select committee has taken on board advice and the view of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in order to make appropriate amendments to this bill so it does not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It’s heartening to hear that both parties—ACT and National—which are very quick to defend freedom of speech, are supporting these amendments on the basis that it appears that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will not be contravened if these amendments go forward.

It draws me back to think of my time in university learning political theory. I think of those political theorists that have gone before, such as John Stuart Mill, who was an English politician and member of Parliament, but also a political theorist. The very concept of utilitarianism, which is about—in a nutshell—the greatest good to the greatest number, and the actions are right in proportion if they tend to promote happiness, but wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. So right back in 1870, democracy and classical liberalism has been debating these very questions: when does someone’s rights impinge on others and how do we weigh that up?

Of course, these change in the context of the society that we’re living in and the values that we have. It’s important that we re-debate these issues time and time again in order to make sure that we get it right. So this is a good example in this bill where we didn’t get it quite right—that balance wasn’t quite in place. And that’s debateable. People will have their views on that, but it’s good to hear that there seems to be unanimous agreement within the House that the way this bill will proceed will protect those rights of women who want to receive an abortion—a medical treatment that is legal—and they should have the right to do that without being filmed, without being yelled at, and without being abused. But at the same point, people have a right to protest and people have a right to make their views known that they do not support it.

I will note that in the submissions on this bill, as well as my own member’s bill in the previous Parliament around bereavement leave, it’s interesting how we always get a significant amount of submissions that are just against abortion. To be honest, I do get frustrated with that because it would be really good to have engagement more on what the issue in front of is. It’s right that people can have those views, but I’d just like to note that we do hear those same arguments again that are just outright in opposition to abortion without trying to think about the issue at stake of balancing rights.

The Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill was supported by the majority of members at the first reading. In fact, it was 100 votes in favour, 15 votes opposed, and two abstained. I always find it interesting to see who votes for these bills and who doesn’t. So now that it has been examined, the amendment bill has been recommended by the majority to be passed with the following amendments. Just to go over the process in terms of how the Attorney-General has worked and how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is working in a healthy way, in February, the Attorney-General presented a report on the bill to the House, which I have here, in which he concluded that clause 5 of the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression as affirmed in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He was concerned that the bill would in fact potentially criminalise communicating in a way that could be chilling or stopping freedom of speech. So members from the committee took on board that advice and had, I understand, a robust debate at select committee level and amended clause 5 by replacing the proposed new section 13A, removing the definitions of prohibited behaviour and protected person, and by specifically defining the types of behaviour that would be prohibited in that particular safe area—so giving it further clarity and drilling it down to make sure it was quite clear what the prohibited behaviour would be.

So the proposed new section 13A(1)(b) would prohibit a person from visually recording another person in a safe area in a certain manner, and they could not do so in a way “that is likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing, providing, or assisting with providing, abortion services”. So the proposed new section 13A(1)(c) would also prohibit a person from undertaking certain activities in that said safe area. The activities were clarified to be ones “that could easily be seen or heard by another person … who may be accessing, providing, or assisting with providing, abortion services:”. The prohibited actions are specifically carved out, and I think it’s important that that level of detail is gone into, in order to make it very clear.

So subparagraph (i) says that a person must not “advise or persuade A to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services”; secondly, (ii) inform A about matters related to the provision of abortion services” unless it was when the services were being provided, and, finally, “(iii) engage in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services”. So it’s important to note here that a person could carry out these activities while accompanying with consent. This would avoid it being an offence to have a private conversation in a safe area where the person receiving the abortion was being dissuaded by a person accompanying them from accessing or providing abortion services.

I’d like to note that this is a highly contentious area. This is a view where people have very well-refined views and sharp views, and it is a point where we have debate and we have discussion about how to get that balance of rights. I would just like to point out that there is no harm at all in having a very robust debate about these issues. There’s no shame, there’s no point in reverting back to being offended or even caught name-calling in these issues. It’s so good to be able to have a good debate across the House about where those lines should lie within New Zealand, where someone’s rights to receive a service and where someone’s rights to protest, sit.

The fact that we have an Attorney-General that’s able to provide feedback on the changes is fantastic, and to see the conclusion where the Attorney-General has stated, “I consider that, while the revised draft of the Bill would limit freedom of expression within a safe area under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act, it would do so in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 5.”

So look, I would like to commend Louisa Wall for championing this bill and taking it forward after we’ve already taken abortion out of the Crimes Act. To have this further measure in place is good for women’s rights, is good to access services that women need to, and women have the right to do so in a way that they feel their personal privacy is respected, and it’s important to make sure these services remain accessible to all New Zealanders should they wish to. I would like to acknowledge those members opposite who are voting in support of the bill, and I think it’s a good day for women’s rights in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise to speak on what’s colloquially known as the safe zones bill. I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall for bringing this before the House on a difficult, challenging issue. I have to say this has been personally a difficult and challenging issue. At the first reading I came into the House and I sat and listened to the speeches. I carefully read the proposed piece of legislation. I carefully read through the Attorney-General’s report, and there were key issues there that I found incredibly difficult to consider and find a position on.

One is that if a woman has decided to make that incredibly difficult decision to go to an abortion clinic, it is probably the hardest decision that they’ve ever made and probably will ever make. They deserve to not be impeded and to not have their emotional distress added to when going to that place. On the other hand, I am a deep believer in freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is critical for freedom of thought, which is critical for the foundation of our liberal democracy. There needs to be real protections in place for that, and it’s incredibly difficult with an issue like this to balance those needs.

At the first reading, I was not confident, having looked at it, that this balance would be able to be struck in the final legislation and I voted against it. I will be changing my vote today and voting in support of it, and I want to outline why. There have been some amendments to clause 4 of the legislation, and premises in relation to abortion services have been defined now, in subclause (2), as “(a) the building in which the abortion services are provided; and (b) the land on which that building is sited”. Under section 13C, “Regulations: safe areas”, in clause 5, “(1) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council made on the recommendation of the Minister of Health after consultation with the Minister of Justice, make regulations for the purposes of section 13A prescribing as a safe area—(a) any specified premises at which abortion services are provided;”—i.e., the building and the property on which it is sited—“and (b) an area around those premises that is an area having a boundary of not more than 150 metres from the perimeter of the premises.”

There is concern that needs to be addressed about whether someone in their own home, within that 150 metres, could then be prohibited. However, that is dealt with under section 13A(1)(c), in clause 4, which says that a person must not engage in certain behaviour in prohibited areas “in a manner that could be easily seen by another person … who may be accessing, … abortion services:”. So if someone is in their own home, expressing their opinion or discussing in a safe area, they obviously can’t be easily seen or heard by another person out on the street. So that addresses that concern for me and preserves freedom of speech in a balanced way, in my view, in a free and democratic society.

I also note that there is two-stage process to this, in that in section 13B, in clause 4, a constable will not arrest someone in a safe zone without firstly requiring the person to stop engaging in the prohibited behaviour. So a warning will first be given. If the person continues to engage in that prohibited behaviour, the person may then be arrested and be liable upon conviction to a fine for that behaviour. In my view, this has struck the right balance now between, like I say, the women—who have to make probably one of the hardest decisions of their lives, in an incredibly emotionally fragile state in many cases, when they are going to those clinics—and the need for people who have very strong views that they are entitled to express, entitled to hold, and entitled to the right to protest, but not in an area around these zones. I think it has been done in a very sensible and balanced way, and I want to congratulate Louisa Wall and members of the Health Committee who have done that, and also the contribution from the Attorney-General in helping guide this conversation. Certainly, it has been of great assistance to me, and I’m happy now to commend this bill to the House.