Abortion Legislation Bill

Members, before I call the Hon Andrew Little, I want to indicate that for the third reading of this bill, I will follow the normal practice on conscience votes and give some preference in the allocation of calls to members who indicate to me that they would prefer a five-minute call, and thereby provide the opportunity for more members to participate.

I move, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a third time.

This bill will bring about the most significant changes to our abortion framework in 44 years. The main objective is to shift abortion out of the criminal legal framework that it sits in at the moment and make it a health issue for women who are now making this very difficult decision when they’re confronting the decision about whether to continue with a pregnancy or not. The bill confirms the right of a woman to choose whether she proceeds with a pregnancy, and respects her ability to do so.

I want to acknowledge that this is an issue that is tempered with very deeply held views, with great passions, and we’ve heard that in all the debates in this House, most recently during the committee stage. Members on all sides of the House, members who I consider very good friends, have taken very trenchant views. Some have been driven by their faith, others driven by other motivating factors, and I respect all of those. What I am thankful for is that the debate was largely conducted in a very respectful and, I think, very thoughtful manner, and I know that the third reading debate will be conducted in that way as well.

I know that many members of the public also share great passions about this particular issue. There are many people in New Zealand, just as there are many members of this House, who are opposed to the idea of abortions at all—I understand that—and that is driven by people’s various values and their faith and various other factors. But the reality is that we have had, since 1977, a legal framework by which the issue of abortions has been managed in a combination of our criminal law and our health system. But it is time to move that framework into the 21st century and to reflect modern values and the way most New Zealanders live their lives, which is that they do want, and women do want, to be able to make that decision, consult the health professional of their choice and not have to go through unnecessary barriers, and, most importantly, not have to, in a sense, lie about their mental health state in order to make this decision.

I know that there were many submissions to the Abortion Legislation Committee, and many members have commented on the number of submissions and the proportion that were opposed to the bill. But the reality is that most of those submissions—and there were form submissions amongst them as well—were opposed to the idea of abortion at all and did not deal with the idea about how we make sure we have a legal framework for abortions that reflects 21st century New Zealand values, reflects the status of women in our society today and the fact that they’re quite capable of making health decisions for themselves, and that it is an issue that no longer belongs in our Crimes Act.

I think we have to bear in mind, too, that of the roughly 13,000 abortions that are carried out in New Zealand each year now, a very, very small number are carried out at that post - 20 week time during the pregnancy. Abortions considered at that point in a pregnancy relate to wanted pregnancies, but where the woman’s health is severely compromised—and sometimes the fetus at the same time, or alternatively—that is the context in which those decisions are taken, and I think we have to respect the fact that when women are in a position to have to make that decision at that point in the pregnancy, it is a very distressing time indeed. What we need to make sure is that the support services are there for them, the treatment services, the best professional medical advice they can get, and that is an obligation I think we owe in this day and age.

So, as I said before, the current framework requires women seeking an abortion to maintain a fiction about their mental health. They have to consult multiple practitioners, multiple health professionals, and what that has done in New Zealand is caused women who get an abortion to get it much later in the pregnancy than would otherwise be desirable. That means it is less safe for women on average and it means that more women miss out on the opportunity to have an abortion by way of the safest means, which is the early medical abortion process done through oral medication. I think the more we have a framework that enables women making that decision to do so at a point in the pregnancy that is safer for them, then that is good for those women and it’s good for the community and for New Zealand as well. The changes in this bill will enable earlier access to services and will support the best health and wellbeing outcomes for women. The bill reflects the fact that women can and should be trusted to make an important health decision in consultation with their doctor.

I will now just go briefly through the main features of the bill, and these have been well traversed. I was very pleased with the work of the special committee that was set up by the House to examine the bill and the changes they came back with. I’m very pleased that they are, by and large, intact and one or two matters have been added on, and I think that has improved the bill. And, of course, the issue of safe zones has been disposed of; it wouldn’t have been my preference, but it is not there. That is a matter, if the need arises, that I’m sure this House can come back to at a later stage.

So the first thing the bill does is to shift the whole issue of abortions and the decision making around it, and really the status of the decision by a woman to have an abortion, from that criminal context now to a health context. Right now, a woman making that decision is, in the first instance, committing a criminal act about which she has a defence if she follows the requirements of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act. The bill repeals the grounds for lawfully aborting a pregnancy that are currently prescribed in the Crimes Act, and the offences relating to abortions provided by health practitioners. It does retain a provision in the Crimes Act for abortions, or the end of a pregnancy, caused as a result of a criminal act such as an assault or a violent act on a woman that results in the loss of the pregnancy. That remains a crime on our statute book. The bill also retains an important criminal offence that relates to an abortion being carried out or attempted by a person who is not a health professional. We do not want to go back to the days of backstreet abortions.

The bill also removes the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee—and to the extent that committee had a supervisory role and a data collection role, that will transfer to the Ministry of Health, who will be charged with setting up an appropriate office and means to do that.

I know that, for example, the member Simeon Brown was very concerned about ongoing data collection. That is provided for. There is an interim measure in the bill, but it is certainty my expectation that the Ministry of Health will continue, and, in fact, it is required to consult over the future of data collection, so that we can be well-informed about abortions and the status of abortions in New Zealand.

The bill changes the grounds for abortion and improves access to abortion services, so there is no longer the requirement for two certifying consultants. For women who are considering an abortion post - 20 weeks, there is an added legal test: a requirement that their health practitioner consult another relevant health practitioner to assist in that decision. But, in the end, it is acknowledging that it is a decision in accordance with the appropriate conditions for a woman to make. To ensure that women can access services without unnecessary delay, the bill allows a woman to self-refer directly to an abortion service provider, removing the need for a referral from a GP.

The bill also provides for situations where a health practitioner has a conscientious objection to providing advice on or administering an abortion, and it seeks to ensure timely access for a person seeking these services. A conscientious objector must tell the person seeking the abortion, sterilisation, or contraceptive services how to access the contact details of the closest provider who can assist with that service. The objector must assess who the closest person would be in these conditions around that, as well.

Finally, the bill includes provisions based on the Human Rights Act to balance that right of conscientious objection with the role of employers in providing health services. There are employment protections for those employed by services providing abortion services but who, as an employee, might have an objection too, and there’s a gradation of approaches for the employer in those sorts of circumstances.

Getting the bill to this stage has been a major undertaking, and I appreciate the input of all members of the House, the many members of the public who have submitted, and all of those who have expressed their view, both for and against, including out on the steps of Parliament in the last week. These are very difficult issues.

I’m thankful for the work of the Law Commission. I’m thankful for the work of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and, in particular, Dr Linda Holloway, who has led that group for some particular time. Their work will come to an end, but they’ve had a difficult job to do, and I’m very thankful for the work that they have done.

I’m very thankful for the chair and deputy chair of the special committee that considered the legislation, the Hon Ruth Dyson and the Hon Amy Adams. In the end, I’m thankful that this House has been able to get to this point in a respectful and thoughtful way. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am pleased to take a call in this third and final reading of the Abortion Legislation Bill.

The abortion debate has always boiled down to a fundamental difference as to whether the unborn child is human or something less. If it is human, it’s entitled, by definition, to all the protections and rights any human being has in New Zealand. If it isn’t human but merely not an unborn child—as the honourable Minister of Justice has stated in this House—then you are free to do with the “not a child” as you want.

This has enabled the Minister to clumsily sidestep the real and worrying legal issues raised around this proposed legislation and, in particular, clause 11, because the debate before us isn’t on the legality of abortion and whether it should be allowed. Despite the clever albeit deceitful casting of debate as one of pro- or anti-abortion, the real debate is about a radical liberalisation to the existing abortion legislation. Clause 11 of this bill, by every reading of it, states that it will allow for abortions up to the moment of birth, and no amount of the Minister blocking his ears and saying “No, it doesn’t.” changes this. It is a broad, ill-defined, vague section with no regard to the unborn child. There is far more definition and substance in the provision on conscientious objection in this bill than there is around clause 11.

Clause 11 is the crux of this bill. It provides no medical boundaries as to when a post 20 week child up to birth can or cannot be aborted. It merely allows for a clinically appropriate test to be applied, which itself is not defined.

Our first responsibility in this House as legislators is to pass good, robust laws and to recognise the humanity in our laws. Clause 11 is not good law. How can it be when it seeks to reject outright pre-born babies as developing human beings?

I and those who share my view have acknowledged the difficult position a mother must be in to have to consider aborting her child. It’s a tragic decision, one that will leave lingering psychological effects. The answer is to not make it easier to eradicate one, but we should be looking to find ways to support them both.

To the progressive mind, abortion is the linchpin to female fulfilment, and kicking the door open and wide must, therefore, be presented as a victory for all women. But to rationalise this, they must never speak of the act of abortion or speak of the baby inside the mother. Instead, what we hear is “My right to choose. My body, my rights. My reproductive choice. My health. My bodily autonomy.”—“My, my, my.”

Who are we and where are we heading as a society if we allow our laws to attack the most sacred instinct a mother has for an unborn child: the maternal instinct to care, to protect, and to nurture our babies from the moment we know that we are pregnant. That is an attack on our own humanity. It is not progressive; it is regressive.

For those mothers having to make the painful decision to abort a child for severe abnormalities, my heart cries out for them. What an awful position to be in, but it is clear that the current law supports women in those very rare and awful situations.

But abnormalities are not the only reason women have abortions post - 20 weeks. Overseas research shows that women do have them for other reasons. These women are likely to be young, unemployed, and may be suffering from substance abuse, depression, or intimate partner violence. These are facts, and despite the Hon Ruth Dyson claiming that all babies are wanted post - 20 weeks, the facts don’t support her claim. The Hon Ruth Dyson can be as offended as she likes, but, truth be told, they are not always wanted babies, and we need laws to protect them.

Perhaps the biggest deception touted by some proponents of this bill was that this would decriminalise women, knowing full well that no woman ever, in New Zealand, was criminalised. We hear that women will no longer face the stigma and will no longer have to lie about the reason for having an abortion, as if women will now proceed to have guilt-free abortions on demand as though they are merely having an appendectomy. No law can alleviate guilt. No law will stop women who have abortions from feeling the full weight of the decision they have made. This proposed law will not change that, and this is because we all have a moral conscience, regardless of what is written in the law.

For those who claim to be offended by harrowing images of what an abortion actually is: yes, you are right. The images are repulsive and sickening. I find it hard to look at those images, but I carry no ill feelings towards those who hold those images up to us. Those images show us the truth. They are real. If we harden our hearts to those images and deny the reality of what happens in an abortion, then we allow ourselves to be vulnerable to further atrocities against humanity.

I have found it disturbing that some members in this House have called for members like me to be open and honest about my lens view, and they want to know if I am religious or not. Why is that? Is it because underlying this call is the perverse idea that religious views can be automatically discounted, excluded—mocked, even—in relation to the debate on broadened abortion laws?

I hold strong to my Catholic values and my Samoan upbringing. Does this mean that a religious person who may be pro-life carries less weight than an atheist who may be pro-life? Does my being a Samoan New Zealander place my lens view higher than my being a Catholic New Zealander? You see the slippery slope that these calls for lens views to be declared can have. They are inconsistent with the liberal democracy values we have. They are bigoted and the cause for religious declarations must stop.

We have heard that we need to reform our abortion laws because the current law is archaic and out of date, or that it is onerous and bureaucratic. No, I say. Our current abortion laws seek to balance the rights of the mother and the unborn child. No. What is archaic is this abortion bill, which has been carefully shepherded in under the guise of health and decriminalisation. The reality is that we are voting on a bill that is about dehumanisation, where some humans are excluded from being considered part of us, part of the human family. They become excluded from our empathy, our compassion, and therefore easier to commit violence against them. This is what the bill is about. The unborn child is one of us. I urge my colleagues to vote No to this bill.

Order! Order! I think most members in the gallery are aware that they are not allowed to intervene. If they do it again, they will be expelled. The Hon Ruth Dyson—for five minutes.

Can I just begin by saying that this legislation is long overdue. I want to acknowledge the many campaigners who, for decades, have worked for law reform. I want to particularly acknowledge Dame Margaret Sparrow; Elspeth Preddy; Terry Bellamak and all at the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand; Helen Wilson; Steve Chadwick, former colleague in this House; and many, many others. The time has finally come. I want to thank the Hon Andrew Little for his leadership on this issue, for finally taking it out of the too-hard basket, and bringing it before Parliament.

I had the privilege of chairing the special select committee which was set up for the purpose of considering just this bill. All parties in Parliament were represented on that committee, and I think it was a very good model, not just in its structure but in the process that we followed. I want to thank all the members of the Abortion Legislation Committee for the work they did but also the way they did that work. I think we improved the bill and we also treated a sensitive and very contentious subject respectfully. That’s a good model for Parliament to follow.

During our considerations, we had exceptionally high-quality advice from both Justice and Health and also from Parliamentary Counsel. We had some rigorous debates, because our committee decided to break some new ground—and I’ll get back to that point later, but we were advised against it. We considered the advice and didn’t agree with it.

The three main changes we made—and one of them is on the point which we got advice against—was to strengthen the process and legal requirements for abortions that are carried out after 20 weeks. We heard the concern that was raised. We listened to the experts in this area. We understand how few abortions are done after 20 weeks and the gravity of the reasons for them and the harrowing position that puts parents in, who have to make that decision and go through that process.

I refute the point that was made by the previous speaker, Agnes Loheni. It was a consistent message that we got: abortions post - 20 weeks are not a convenience. They’re not something that anyone wants to go through, and we should respect that those terminations are done to a wanted baby. So we strengthened the process and the legal requirements for those, and I think it was a good move.

We expressed opposition to any abortion for the purpose of sex selection. That is not part of New Zealand culture, and we never want it to be. And we improved timely and equitable services to contraception, including emergency contraception, which avoids pregnancy—it stops a woman becoming pregnant when she clearly doesn’t want to be—and also sterilisation, abortion, and counselling services. We were quite dismayed by the inequity of services throughout the country, and we hope that this bill strengthens access to services.

I regret that during the process of this bill, the ability to determine safe zones has been dropped. I strongly believe that staff at clinics and women accessing services there should not be subject to harassment, to abuse, to intimidation, to humiliation, and to feeling anything other than going through a procedure that is legal and which they’re entitled to refer themselves to. I disagree with David Seymour, with respect. There are no provisions in our current law which will stop this behaviour happening, and that’s why safe zones are needed and should be progressed in the future. I supported the attempt to do that today, and I regret that it failed.

As I said at the beginning, this bill is long overdue. I am confident that we have reached the understanding in Parliament now that it is time to progress our legislative regime out of the Crimes Act and into health services alongside others. The accountability is there. The quality of provision is there. All it takes now is the political will of this Parliament to make this long-overdue step. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Paulo Garcia—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I begin my contribution to this abortion decriminalisation bill by reminding myself that New Zealand is a democracy; a democracy with a Parliament of 120 elected members, elected on the basis of securing a majority vote from the constituents in their own electorates. Election means a majority of people from the electorate believe that their member of Parliament well and truly represents their values and are mindful of their concerns, of what is important to them.

Having said this, the fact is that over 25,000 submissions have been received in Parliament, from all over New Zealand, with a great majority of them against the law change that this proposed bill wishes to effect. This large number of submissions was not even considered by the Abortion Legislation Committee, and positions have been taken in support of a bill that places New Zealand on a path that I believe many New Zealanders do not agree with. It is a path with unfettered access to abortion to 20 weeks, a path of abortion that is open to the full term, abortion that may be used to discriminate against the disabled, abortion that is open to the selection of Down syndrome babies, abortion that is open to sex selection, abortion that allows for minors to consent to an abortion without requiring that their parents be made aware, abortion that does not recognise the need for culture and values and family background of women seeking abortion to be considered, and abortion that completely disregards the involvement of the father in the decision.

This debate has seen a deliberate, determined effort to change and alter reality; an effort through words and invoking that time—that much time—has passed between now and the previous law. Words have changed, from “the unborn child” to “a fetus”, from “a baby” to “a fetus”, from the existence of life to a denial of it. But so supporting such a law change, in the face of the unprecedented public outcry against the change, does not indicate a representation of the people of New Zealand; it does not illustrate the democracy that we all believe in.

I would like to spend a little time on the inaccuracies of some of the debates that you would’ve heard. Of particular interest—glaringly inaccurate—was mentioned by a member in saying that the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 was the result of a bias in a male-dominated Parliament, pointing out that there were only four women members at that time. It is important for the public to know that the Act of 1977 was largely and substantially the result of recommendations of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion, which sat from June 1975 to March 1977. The royal commission was comprised of three men and three women. Time does not change their considerations then, and time does not make their considerations then any less than the considerations we have now in looking at this legislation.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m pleased to take a call in this—well, actually, I’m not pleased to be taking a call in this third reading. I’d prefer that we were not here.

When we’re discussing topics like this, we move between the subjective and the personal and then into the objective and the ethical. Having had to counsel a number of women over years who have had abortions, I do want to put on record right from the start that the individual choices—and mentioned it to a journalist a few months back, too, who shared of her own abortion—that those women have made never leads to condemnation of them. A person like myself will still talk of the objective, of being wrong, but I think it’s important to put on record that no matter what decisions women make, or any one of us here, in choices in life, it never takes away from the dignity, importance, and value of every person. But, objectively, though, my view on abortion remains steadfast—in many ways, for the reasons that were wonderfully and eloquently put by Agnes Loheni.

This is a Government bill. I think that needs to be very clearly understood by the public—so I say it again: this is a Government bill. This is a bill which the Prime Minister herself is behind. I say that once again for the public: this is a bill that the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, is behind.

Someone said “They are us and we are them.” It’s interesting that it referred to the Muslim community. I can’t speak for the Muslim community, but I bet if one of them was standing here today, they’d be very clear of what their Muslim values say—they are us and we are them. I’ve said many, many times before that human rights apply to all humans, and I find it sadly sad—I suppose things are sadly sad—for people to say “They are us and we are them.”, but when it comes to the unborn child, according to those who will support this bill, and certainly the Prime Minister, unborn children are certainly not us and we are not with them. I condemn that position.

This bill should not be supported. It is extreme and it is too radical. Fundamentally—fundamentally—it provides absolutely no rights, no recognition, and no dignity whatsoever to the human child that’s developing.

I noted in my first reading speech, which I was grateful to have, that the human child developing in the womb is us—it’s every one of us—just that little bit younger. There is no miracle through the birth canal where all of a sudden nothing becomes something—that is just not feasible.

We have a bill where abortion right up to birth is OK—whether it could happen, it happens once, 100 times, 500, is irrelevant; it’s what this bill enables. It’s far too radical. Abortion because a baby is disabled is OK. An abortion because the baby’s a girl is OK, which is really quite a challenge, I imagine, for modern feminists, including the fact that half the babies aborted are women. You know, “Go feminism! We’re going to knock out half the babies that are girls!” Well done there, ladies!—or modern feminists. Down syndrome children can be aborted. Again, whether or not it happens or not is irrelevant; the bill allows it.

The bill no longer has any ability to take in cultural considerations. Again, that should be a challenge to members who wax lyrical in this House about cultural values and the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet here, in a life and death issue, they’re choosing to ignore it. No notification for parents at all. I put forward a Supplementary Order Paper saying that I just want to make it absolutely, abundantly, black-and-white clear in this legislation that if and when—and it does happen—an abortion is botched, that the child will absolutely, definitively receive healthcare. It breaks my heart to think that this House voted it down. That’s horrendous—it’s absolutely horrendous.

And then the attack on conscience rights: awful, just awful. But believe it or not, on days like today, I’m actually not a pessimist. You know why? Because I can smell the fear in this House from the pro-abortion side—the absolute reeking, stinking fear. And you know why? It is because the pro-abortion side know their position is weak—fundamentally weak. I’m going to illustrate in the last few minutes why, because I want to bring a message of hope. They are weak and they are fearful because they’re anti-science. They always move against the science of the human child of conception. What is developing? They fear the science. They won’t talk about it at all—the baby that has a heartbeat at six weeks, its own DNA, that it can feel pain. The science is ignored—you can feel the fear.

Euphemisms—euphemisms abound in this debate. My God, we will never talk about a baby; we’ll talk about cells, we’ll talk about clumps, and we’ll talk about fetuses. In fact, we’ll try to use the English language to never, never use it. Euphemisms throughout history have been used in an Orwellian way—well, actually, that’s probably a contradiction since he wrote 1984, but it’s an Orwellian way to avoid reality. Euphemisms and those who use it show great weakness and fear, and I can smell it here today.

Safe spaces—great to see that defeated; a disgusting attempt of procedural override there. But why safe spaces? Woe betide someone that might stand outside of an abortion clinic! As I mentioned in my committee stage, “What’s more scary than a nun with a set of rosary beads standing outside an abortion clinic?” Again, it points to the fear and the weakness. The banning of conscience rights: “We don’t want people thinking. My God, we don’t want our doctors, nurses, and others thinking. We’re going to ban them from having an opinion.” Yes, that is awful, but I tell you now: that is an expression of fear and of weakness.

The talk of stigma and shame becoming the latest progressive tools; it’s a form of censorship. No one should ever feel a shame or stigma for anything, of course, unless it’s the progressives who want you and people like me—my God, I’m a Roman Catholic. That is one of the worst and the most intolerable things possible. I’m to feel ashamed. But you listen from the progressive side, they move very hard now: stigma and shame. A censorship of thought, again, for the pro-lifers—have hope. This shows great fear and weakness on the pro-abortion side.

They call us extremists—sort of the opposite of euphemisms. Now, maybe I’m an extremist. Colleagues are probably thinking that at the moment. I don’t really care. But they’re very, very clear. It’s ironic, of course, that those who yell at anyone who’s an extremist because they hold, you know, a pro-life, scientific view, are just the very people who attack populism. They won’t talk to the topic; they’ll just use names and labels. Take hope people—take hope.

Rushing this through, of course. I mean, is there something else happening in society at the moment? Yes, COVID-19. “Hey, but we’re going to spend hours more in this House debating abortion.”—unbelievable. And more than happy, of course—more than happy—to rush this through with everyone distracted.

I want to mention here at this moment the complicity, once again, of the media, who have not fully embraced or reported this topic. They are scared, and that includes the New Zealand media. I implore New Zealanders to look far more widely for truth than what they’ll find in mainstream media here in New Zealand. They are scared as well. They are scared of the truth, and they will do everything they can to shut people like me and you down.

Finally, you just wrap all that together. You wrap all of that together in this debate and, ultimately, it doesn’t matter if you’re for abortion or not, but that absolute fear, those dynamics: anti-science; euphemisms; “We must have safe spaces and exclude people; we’re going to ban conscience rights; we’ll make sure anyone who opposes us is seen as an extremist; we’ll call them a bigot, intolerant; we’ll stigmatise and shame anyone and remove it where we can.”—all of this points to great fear and weakness; great fear and weakness.

So today this bill will pass, undoubtedly, but I’ve seen a great awakening in the country, on top of many, many things that are happening. So, as I say, I’m actually not pessimistic. I’m full of hope, and I’m full of hope because I stand beside some amazing, amazing people. I don’t have enough time left to read through the whole thing or all the names—I’d be here for the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—but a day is coming where that, if you will, concern and fear will be reversed, when the truth continues to come out, for those who speak for life will be heard once again, loud and clear. History is replete with that. But I finish with a little indulgence to myself, and it’ll probably get me into trouble, but one thing I do want to say to the good people, and I won’t translate for here, but it’s “Mihi vindicta: ego retribuam, dicit Dominus”.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It doesn’t get any more serious than this. We’ve been in this House previously before. We’ve talked about euthanasia; now we’re talking about abortion. This is probably one of the most liberal forms of Government that we’ve seen in many, many years, that has decided to change the fabric of the values of this country. I hold before you what was sent to me: a 20-week replica of a child and also, too, the korowai that was given by Louise Kapene Green. Why? Because she wanted me to bring this into the House to remind us what we are fighting for in this place and in this House.

I remind the House of Representatives—

💬 SPEAKER: And the aid will now put below the desk.

—that in McGee it’s very clear what our purpose and our roles of responsibility are. Page 4 says this: “ ‘To represent government and the people’ The final function of the House … [identified here] reverts partly to the idea embodied in the title of the original New Zealand Constitution Act—the idea of the representation of the views of the populace.” The views of the people have been heard: 25,718 submissions, 91.6 percent oppose this bill. These are not just church people, these are medical practitioners, these are health professionals that are out there in the field, and these are everyday ordinary New Zealanders who’ve taken the time to write a submission. This is a democratic process. Can I remind the members of the House here that it’s part of our role of responsibility to hear the views of the community and of this nation that have spoken really strongly.

Just recently—in fact, just yesterday—a letter was sent from 20 of the largest churches’ congregations, representing almost 630,000 to 800,000 people, and here’s what they declare: “The profound and pervasive flaw of this Bill is that it erases all consideration for the human worth of the unborn child, and … makes no attempt to balance the needs of the mother and the child and to give at least some protection to the unborn [child].” The people have been speaking. They have been very clear.

Can I also remind that there was also a petition—one of many—1,300 from Downright Discrimination opposed this bill. Why? Because they’re clearly telling us the fact is that this bill is unsafe; this bill has discrimination to the people in which it matters most.

So here’s the message I want to leave to the members on the other side. You see, the nation is looking down to us. We are 120 MPs that have to make a decision. We represent the views and the values of this nation. The nation has been speaking—speaking very clearly. But can I remind you, here’s the point that we’re fighting for: both lives matter. I go to the point of the Attorney-General and his advice, and here’s what he says in paragraph 23 of his letter: “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.” This bill is not safe. This bill does not represent the two perspectives.

Can I read also, too, from the High Court, and here’s what they say: “Currently our abortion law seeks to balance these competing interests by requiring each prospective abortion to qualify under statutory criteria and by making unlawful abortions subject to criminal provisions.” But here’s the point which I think hits home from the High Court: “the legislature has recognised, through the abortion law, that the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community.”—the conscience of the community. So I say to the 120 members that are in this House and that are out there listening: do not abdicate your responsibility. It’s quite clear: judicially, our unborn child deserves the conscience of our community. So you’ve said in this House that we are to amend and make laws that would make things safe for our community. Is that the case, when clearly what we’ve seen is that is not the case?

Cultural considerations were in a Supplementary Order Paper that I put forward. I say to our Polynesian and other ethnic members in the House that there’s clear evidence that over 170 deaths of our children: Māori, 76,000; Pasifika, 39,957—that is the conscience of our community.

Before I finish in this House, can I remind us that our role of responsibility is this: to ensure that we hear the words of our community and of the nation—they’re speaking clearly. There will come a day when that voice will be heard on 19 September, where they will say, “Have you heard the conscience of the nation?” And if you haven’t, then the nation will decide. The majority have been here. They’ve made their voices heard through submissions and also through emails that you’ve had. I ask you this, when you go out to make the vote at the end of this reading of the third reading: is your conscience clear? Have you ensured that both lives matter—both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn child? If the answer is no, then vote against this bill in the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for an opportunity to have a call in this Abortion Legislation Bill. We received many, many pieces of feedback, information, and emails from members of the public, and I would like to thank the thousands of members that have written to us with very, very strong views, obviously, on abortion. Now, from what we’re receiving, it is very clear that it will require a fundamental shift in thinking to see abortion as a healthcare rather than a criminal matter. It is perhaps in a twist of irony that due to the overwhelming amount of emails, emails with regards to abortion are going straight into my folder under “health”.

In the previous debate, a member opposing this bill mentioned they were a bit passionate about the issue, and I think it’s probably fair to say that we are all very passionate about this issue, but I guess what the member was asking us is that he was being forgiven—him and others—for the use of very patronising language when speaking about women and the choices about their bodies, describing abortion as “someone’s inconvenience” or “whipping a person off to an abortion clinic”—these are degrading phrases—and talking about abortion as “lifestyle choices”, and I even heard it compared to having merely an appendectomy; all those are very condescending and demeaning.

We heard those opposing this bill tell stories about the hurt of a woman who was taken to an abortion clinic, forced into it to have an abortion, and later on regretted it. What we didn’t hear from that person was the hurt of thousands of women who have suffered in silence from years of stigma and shame. Yes, those words are important. I know they were being made fun of by one of the members before, because he obviously is not an expert when it comes to abortion. Those people have feared judgment from family, from friends, from colleagues, from their communities, and have kept quiet for that reason about having had an abortion—they kept it a secret. That is why the overwhelming amount of feedback you will see on conscience issues like this is about the people that don’t feel they have to share something they feel is a shameful secret.

So the stats are skewed, but let me tell you about those women, because the amount of women that have contacted me after my first reading speech was overwhelming, when I spoke about the fact that I was given the dignity and freedom to choose for myself whether to continue my unplanned and unwanted pregnancy or get an abortion.

There have been many, many women who wrote to me or even came up to me at events and meetings and told me about their story, and they still do. Many speak of the years and sometimes even a lifetime of carrying a burden of secrecy and shame. Many have approached me expressing a sense of relief and feeling empowered to share their own experience for the very first time, and I’ve found it extremely humbling and sometimes quite overwhelming. It is not a good reason to stick with offensive, archaic, anti-choice legislation just because there are people out there with a loud voice saying, “Oh, well no women ever got convicted.” Well, actually, they may not have been convicted of a crime, but they have carried their abortion as a crime—they felt it was a life sentence for them. So it makes it all the more clear that the choice should be for women.

I had the privilege to sit on some of the Abortion Legislation Committee hearings, and I would like to commend the Hon Ruth Dyson and the Hon Amy Adams for the amazing leadership they have shown in that particular piece of work. They carried on the work, as Ruth Dyson mentioned, of many of the advocates that have fought so hard for decades to get women choice. I would also like to commend Andrew Little for, as Ruth Dyson mentioned, taking it out of the “too hard box” and getting women choices.

We need to get away from the terrible situations where women had to go through with pregnancies that they didn’t want and those situations where unplanned pregnancies resulted in lost jobs, exclusion from work and from education, being trapped in abusive relationships, and judgment. Those sacrifices—to carry a pregnancy to term, to take on more duties as a parent—fall primarily on the woman, and that’s why it should be her choice. Now, you can’t put broken hopes and dreams in a box with a korowai on it, but that is very much a reality for so many women out there. We need law reform that gives women a choice, because anything less is not freedom for a human being. So don’t stand in the way of choice for women. The decision is never taken lightly, but sometimes it is not always a difficult decision to make.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe that as MPs, we have a responsibility to assess the proposals in this bill, not just against our personal preferences and beliefs but whether, in fact, this is a good piece of legislation for all New Zealanders. Sometimes, in making that decision, that does not accord with our own personal views, and that can be a difficult decision. That requires a degree of tolerance in a debate and argument, and I think that tolerance is an issue that we should cherish and need to cherish in discussing this issue. My view is the debate on this bill has not always being conducted in a manner that reflects a tolerance of thought and a flexibility as to an approach of how to deal with this difficult issue. And possibly that reflects that this bill follows so closely the euthanasia bill, and I think that was a pity.

However, today I wish to clarify my own position, and I want to make it clear that my start point is that I agree that a woman should have the right to have an abortion, and I also believe that a woman has a right to choose. I do not accept, under any circumstances, that there should be criminalisation of a woman who chooses to have an abortion. There are times when it is appropriate. Earlier this week, I met with a small group who said to me that the issue of criminalisation is a theoretical issue—no one has ever been convicted. I do not think that’s an acceptable argument. I think our statute should be clear: there should be no prospect of criminalisation for having an abortion. For that reason, I have, up to now, voted for the bill. I’ve been keen to see what happened with the process, and particularly to see what happened to the amendments or Supplementary Order Papers, as we call them, as they progress through the committee of the whole House.

I wanted to keep an open mind. Personally, I voted for a number of the amendments. Unfortunately, none of them succeeded. The only one of note to succeed is the one that we’ve just voted on, from a procedural issue, around the issue of safe zones. I have a strong view that we have an obligation to protect women when they’re in this most traumatic process of having an abortion, and I do not support any form of close proximity for people who want to express an issue that is against what a woman has chosen.

However, I’ve got to say I will not be voting for this bill, and that is after careful consideration. I have three principal concerns. The first one: I’m concerned about young women, and I mean women who could possibly be minors, having an abortion that is, in this case, allowed without the knowledge of their parents or guardians. I don’t think that’s right. There are already measures in place in legislation to protect those young girls if there is an issue of security; we already have those protections. But this bill cuts across that.

The second issue I have concern with is around the permissive nature of post - 20 week abortions. I accept the argument, in most cases, that those types of abortions are very few and far between. But I think we have a duty to make sure that they are conducted in an adequate and proper manner.

And the third issue is around the issue of the monitoring of people who conduct these procedures, and the nature of abortions. Now, none of those issues were accepted, and on that basis, I cannot accept the bill.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to speak in favour of honest law and honest debate. At the outset of this contribution, I wish to make clear that the debate on this piece of legislation is not a debate about whether we have abortion in New Zealand or not. And I make this point because much of the public debate around this piece of legislation has misconstructed that point, and this has been echoed by many of the contributions in this Chamber by those who are opposed to this legislation.

I believe that many of the contributions opposed to this bill come from people of good conscience who genuinely oppose, on philosophical or moral or religious grounds, the practice of abortion. I respect that belief and I respect the right of those members to express that view, but it is not correct. And I believe at times it is mischievous to pretend that the debate that is going on in this House about this legislation is about the fundamental question of whether abortion occurs in New Zealand or not. That issue can be answered very simply by answering this question: what happens if this legislation does not proceed in the House today? We will revert to the existing legislation, under which approximately 13,500 abortions occur each year.

This debate is about, in my view, whether we have an honest piece of law that governs abortion in New Zealand, or the existing 1970s compromised hotchpotch of a law, which puts abortion in the Crimes Act, but then, effectively, sets up a convoluted workaround for women to access that procedure and facilitates around about 13,000 people per year to do so.

In my view, our role as lawmakers in this House is to make good law and to make honest law, and I challenge any member who is voting against this piece of legislation to say that the existing piece of legislation that they defend is good law or is honest law. This point has been made on both sides of the debate for many years. The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child and the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand and Right to Life have all gone through the courts to say that the current legislation is not fit for purpose, and that is why we are addressing this issue in the House today.

My plea is for honest debate on this issue. If we have honest debate on this issue, then I would challenge those members who genuinely hold the view that abortion should not be occurring to deal with the really tough issues which come with that view. Should young women who have been raped by family members have access to abortion or not? Should women who have children in utero with serious congenital conditions, that will die awful deaths after short lives, have access to abortion or not? It is my view that they should, and this legislation honestly allows for that.

If we have an honest and constructive debate around this issue we might also search for some common ground. I have wrestled with this issue myself, on the basis of the principles and the faith that I hold to as well. I believe that probably most people in this House, and most people in this debate, would wish to see fewer unwanted pregnancies in New Zealand and would wish to see fewer abortions in New Zealand. I believe that if we had an honest debate, we could actually begin to seriously tackle that issue.

The international evidence is actually very clear—that the level of restriction in the law around access to abortion has little impact on the number of abortions that occur. The part of the world with the highest rate of abortions is Latin America, which, until recently, has had the most restrictive controls around abortion. Canada, which has no controls whatsoever, has a lower rate of abortion than New Zealand. The evidence is also very clear that the factors which lead to a lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and abortion are things like access to high-quality, comprehensive sex education, and high-quality, accessible, and affordable contraception—particularly long-term contraception. That is why our abortion rate in New Zealand has been declining for a number of years.

So that is my final plea in this debate, that the remainder of the debate in the House today, and that in the time we go forward, we don’t turn this issue into a culture war for political advantage—I do not want to see us go down the track that other countries have in that regard—but that we have an honest debate, we try and find some common ground and we respect women and their capacity to make choices within an honest, legal framework. It is on those grounds that I have approached this debate. In the committee stage of this bill, I haven’t just voted with the herd; I have voted against safe zones because I believe that while there is a real problem there, they were not the right solution. I have voted for stronger protections around conscientious objection, because I do believe that that is important in our system. But I have, and I will continue, to vote for honest law, and that is why I support this legislation and commend it to other members.

Before I call the next member, the result of the vote on the question of the recommittal of the Abortion Legislation Bill was incorrectly announced as Ayes 43, Noes 77. The correct result is Ayes 43, Noes 76.

I think this will, no doubt, be the most difficult speech that I’ve made in my time in this House. In the first reading of this bill, I outlined why I supported this bill, and nothing has changed in that respect. I completely trust a woman’s judgment in these matters. I believe they have the right—as I do, in fact—to make decisions about their body, their lives, and their family’s lives. The issue I have is that I don’t believe the State has ever provided enough support to women and young families, to women in violent relationships, to rape victims, and to unwanted children. Frankly, the State doesn’t provide enough support there now, and hasn’t been able to resolve any of those issues in my lifetime, and I think that’s one of the tragedies of our society.

I want to congratulate the Hon Andrew Little on the manner in which he’s brought this bill to the House. I think it’s been outstanding. He’s explained at every step his reasons—and the Government’s reasons, in fact—for bringing this bill to the House. He’s gone out of his way to answer questions and explain much of the bill. I most certainly support this matter being taken out of the Crimes Act and being treated as a health issue.

However, there were two issues I raised in my first reading speech, which I was not happy with and I hoped would be shored up during the select committee process. They are, primarily, the support for women as they go through this process. I don’t think there are adequate safeguards or support for women as they go through this process. And I don’t think there is any long-term follow-up to ensure that woman who are forced—not “forced”; that’s a bad word—who enter the abortion process to receive adequate support and counselling later in life. And I don’t like the word “counselling” either, because really it’s support they need.

I’m hugely concerned about those young people who are not able to talk with their parents before going into this process and, in fact, for whatever reason, they end up with a stranger supporting them. I look at my two oldest grandchildren who are in those young teenage years and I wonder what on earth would happen if they ended up in this process without strong support from either family members or other people they knew well. I’d think it would be the most terrifying thing that could ever happen to you, and I don’t think this bill puts enough support around those young people. I think that anyone going into an abortion process no doubt gives huge consideration to it and is hugely concerned about it. So I think that the support mechanism around this bill for me is not strong enough.

The second issue I raised in my first reading speech was the fact that I don’t believe there’s adequate protection for those woman entering the abortion process post - 20 weeks. Also, I don’t believe there’s adequate protection—and I suppose I’m not so much talking about protection or safety mechanisms, advice, and support for those people who find themselves at 20 weeks carrying a child with serious disability. I can’t imagine what I would do in those circumstances. The other thing I don’t think there’s enough protection around is when it comes to the sex of the fetus. I don’t know whether that will make any difference at all, but I think it’s a risk we’re taking as a Parliament to go into this process without enough support and without enough knowledge, in fact, of what might happen as a result of that. At present I think there were some 56 abortions post - 20 weeks in 2018, so it’s not a significant issue from that perspective. But I do think we’re taking some risk with it and I feel uncomfortable about it.

So I find it really difficult to, I guess—having gone through this process, supported the process to this point, I’d have to say I haven’t had a comfortable two or three days wondering where I was going to get to with this. But, actually, I find that my conscience won’t let me support the bill as it goes through its third reading today, not because I don’t think that the bill basically is a good bill; I just think there’s some pieces in that bill that are far too risky for me to enable me to support it as it goes forward. So that’s my contribution, and I won’t be able to support the bill.

I have been heavily lobbied by leaders of the faith community, including my friends, colleagues, and members of the Pacific community. They are people I respect and work with. I have heard their voices loud and clear. They are passionate in their opposition to abortion. They value the life of the unborn child. I share this belief. I, too, am opposed to abortion. I, too, value the life of the unborn child. My earliest memory of the value of motherhood and the unborn child was witnessing how in Samoa the mother had a special position in village family life. She was protected from doing hard work. She was protected from the hot sun. People would serve her all the time. Food was more generous to the mother. She was surrounded with love, care, and support by the extended family. She was the centre of everything. Why? Because mothers carry an unborn member of the family. Protect the mother, you protect the unborn child.

Fast forward to today, young Pacific people are seeing a different culture. They are seeing how some of our Samoan, Tongan, or Pacific men mistreat the women in their families, including pregnant mothers. We don’t talk about it because it is a thing of shame, a stain on the family’s mana. Women tell me keeping these issues in the shadows increases their effort for self-harm. Recently, I saw a report of a man beating a woman beside a road in Tonga and cars passed by. A young Tongan woman from New Zealand stopped and videoed the incident. By videoing the incident from a distance, the man stopped his violence. I suspect that that young woman, the good Samaritan, prevented further violence and harm.

The constant flow of emails I have received from people have expressed strongly a total and complete opposition to abortion. They feel so strongly about this persuasion that they want everyone in New Zealand to abide by this belief. They feel so strongly that they’ve even threatened me: if I support this legislation, they will not support me. This is not an easy decision for myself or any MP under that context, nor it is easy for our Pacific communities. Let me share with them my own thoughts as I attempt to grapple with the moral and legal issues on this matter.

The preamble of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child states: “the child, by reason of his [or her] physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”. Yet the reality is that we have examples of Samoan or Pacific babies being left dead or abandoned.

Here are a few examples. In 2017, a dead newborn child was left under a tree in the park in Māngere. In 2007, a dead newborn baby was thrown outside a window into a Dunedin garden. In 2009, a Samoan mother gave birth, and left the dead baby in a toilet of the plane she was on; she was convicted under our laws and discharged—everyone was quick to condemn her. Why didn’t any of these women seek support from their families or church leaders? Why didn’t they seek counselling and health advice? I suspect some of our cultural practices are unloving and uncaring. These women will harm themselves and their unborn child out of fear and shame. Why did we not condemn the man that contributed to the pregnancy? Instead, we condemned the woman, we ostracised her, and called her all sorts of names. Where was love and compassion in all of this?—our values. Where was forgiveness in this?—our beliefs. All of us are imperfect humans; if you say to me that you’re perfect, I’m going to call you a liar.

Abortions, infanticide, incest, sexual violence, and rape are issues happening right now in front of us in our homes and in our communities. It isn’t just confined to Samoa, Tonga, or to the Pacific communities in Aotearoa. It isn’t just confined to the nations of Pacific regions; it is an international issue.

In 2013, the committee on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recommended that all States ensure access to safe abortion and post-abortion care services. The convention on the elimination of discrimination against women, in 1999, clarified that access to healthcare, including reproductive health, is a basic right under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

So what’s my message to my family? What’s my message to the Samoan, Pacific, and faith communities on abortion? First, teach our people the value of life. Teach them early and teach them often. Teach them in the home to value the life of the unborn child. We cannot bend the tree when the trunk is thick and sturdy; it will resist. My legal message is that I support the moving of abortion away from the criminal legal framework and transferring it under the health legal framework—

Order! Order! The member’s time has expired.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the ACT Party, and speak for the electorate of Epsom, in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill—a piece of legislation that is overdue. Why? Well, because it removes abortion from the Crimes Act and it ends the criminalisation of abortion. When we think about a policy, we should ask ourselves three questions: what’s the point of the policy, is it effective at achieving its goals, and what are the side effects.

The criminalisation of abortion is supposed to reduce the rate of abortion. But we know, from the excellent speech given by Michael Wood earlier, that abortion rates and criminalisation are unconnected. Canada has no abortion law, and lower rates than New Zealand. Latin American countries have had some of the most stringent prohibitions on abortion, and much higher rates than New Zealand. So abortion criminalisation does not achieve even what its supporters think it should.

Then we ask the third question about a policy: what about the unintended consequences? The criminalisation of abortion in New Zealand for the last 43 years has had legion unintended consequences. One of them is subterfuge: the idea that women in New Zealand have to—as Amy Adams said, in an excellent second reading speech—invent a fiction that they are mentally unwell in order to access healthcare. That is a disgrace. We like to be able to tell the truth and be accepted for who we are, not engage in subterfuge to satisfy other people’s impositions.

The second unintended consequence is inequity. As I said in my speech on the second reading of this bill, women in rural areas face much greater practical hurdles under the bureaucracy and rigmarole created by criminalisation than women in large metropolitan centres who still face considerable challenge.

The final unintended consequence is stigmatisation. It is a none-too-subtle, misogynistic message that women are kind of like community assets who must be used to carry children to term whether they like it or not. Again, a disgrace; not the kind of humanitarian message that I would hope New Zealand stands for in 2020.

For all of those reasons, I commend this bill and hope that it will pass tonight. Prohibition or criminalisation of abortion does not achieve its goal and does far more damage besides.

Some people who agree with everything that I’ve just said I know were surprised that I and other members of this House opposed the notion of safe areas. Now, let me be clear: I have very little time for the people who protest outside abortion clinics, and a great deal of sympathy for women who are intimidated, shouted at, or made to feel bad for being in a situation that they often didn’t choose. I oppose that intimidation; I support a woman’s right to choose. However, you cannot grow freedom by taking one step forward and one step backward. It would have been a mistake to decriminalise abortion while criminalising speech. It would have been a terrible constitutional precedent for this House to make a law where a Minister, a politician, can strike out, with a pen, freedom of expression—a right guaranteed to New Zealanders in the bill of rights.

What should we do instead? Well, the people who have got in contact with me about this issue over the past week have almost uniformly cited things that are illegal under section 4 and section 21 of the Summary Offences Act: intimidation, insulting, and obstruction. I implore the New Zealand Police to uphold those laws. I say to my parliamentary colleagues that if the police can’t uphold the laws we have now, there would have been no point in making new ones. That is why—and I wanted to put on record—I have opposed safe areas.

I want to close by commending the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, and all those in this House who have finally, long overdue, taken abortion out of the Crimes Act and affirmed a woman’s right to choose and to control her own body. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I’m very grateful for the opportunity to speak on this bill—the first time I have been able to throughout its passage through the House. I’m a pretty private person. I don’t really like to talk about things in my own personal circumstance. But throughout the process of considering this particular bill at the third reading, I’ve reflected on a couple of matters, which I wish to share with the House today.

One of which is my Catholic faith. I don’t talk about my faith, because I was raised that your faith is your faith and no one else’s—you can practise your faith and have your view, with the expectation that no one else would judge you for it as long as you never pushed your views on other people. I was raised to believe that abortion is wrong. I was raised to believe that there is a fundamental issue with abortion; that it was a sin. I was raised to believe that life begins at conception. I’ve found my faith to be a great guiding light throughout my life, particularly at hard times when I’ve needed to reflect and when I’ve needed to consider issues that confront me in my life. I’m certainly not suggesting that I am the best Catholic. I’m certainly not suggesting that I am even a devout Catholic; I have visited the confessional more than most. But it remains an important part of my life.

I’m also adopted, and that is not something that I have actually spoken about very often, for one reason: that I often have to be reminded of the fact. I am very lucky to have been raised in a loving family by parents who love me and I love them back very dearly. I am truly very grateful, and I also know that if I were conceived today, statistically, I would probably be aborted. That is a fact that has confronted me throughout my consideration of this particular bill.

I suppose it’s fair to say that, due to my religious beliefs and due to my personal circumstances, I should oppose this bill. But who am I to push my views and my personal circumstances on the choice of a woman? Who am I, as a bloke, who will never have to make this decision for himself, to vote to prevent a woman making a choice for herself? I go back to the point I said earlier: I was raised that my religious views are mine only. So I will not use my vote today to impose any particular view that I may have to prevent the choice of a woman to make on her own body.

Of course, that is the position that one could take if this were indeed a debate on the morality of abortion. It is not. And it is a shame—and I echo the sentiments of my friend and colleague Michael Wood—that this is where this debate has gone at so many points. We as parliamentarians are tasked with making a decision, particularly in a conscience debate, on the bill that is in front of us. And the bill that is in front of us poses the question: should abortion be a crime? I say it should not. There is no reason why the 13,500 cases of abortion last year should be treated in the Crimes Act and not as a health issue. This is a very clear decision for me, for the reasons I have outlined but also for what this bill proposes.

I want to quickly acknowledge those that have confronted this debate respectfully and have met with me and have put forward their views and have asked me not to vote for this. I appreciate the time they have given me, because they themselves, whilst they do not agree, respect the decision that I have made. I think it is regrettable that some people have chosen to approach this almost with petulance and treat this as a trivial matter. This is a serious matter and a matter, I believe, about choice. I have faith in women to make a choice that is right for them, and if they are making that choice within a system that is a farce, where they have to pretend that there is a threat to their mental stability in order to get an abortion, I believe that is wrong. I have absolutely no hesitation in supporting this bill. The question was posed by an earlier speaker “Is your conscience clear?” My answer to that today is a resounding yes.

Chris Penk—five minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Much has been said in this House about the Abortion Legislation Bill purportedly being to prevent the criminalisation of women for seeking abortion under the current regime. That is wrong. It is neither a theoretical nor legal possibility under the current legal framework, and for colleagues who suggest that it is, I would respectfully urge them to read and become familiar with the current law in the next 15 minutes’ worth of parliamentary debate. It is doctors and those performing abortion services currently who are subject to the Crimes Act.

It has been suggested that it is required currently for women to describe themselves as mentally unbalanced to seek abortion services currently. That too is wrong. The emotive language is intended to manipulate and does not reflect the actual legal test in the current legal framework, which is that, if the life or the physical or mental health of a woman would be placed in danger, essentially by her not having an abortion, then she is entitled to do so. Similarly, it has been said by those proposing this bill that the unborn child has no legal status because of the “born alive” rule. That is wrong. In various places in our law, including in a provision of the Crimes Act, which shall remain, it will be an offence to kill an unborn child.

It has been said by others who promote this bill that there is no need to protect the disabled unborn by way of specific legislative provisions. A Supplementary Order Paper in the name of my colleague and friend Melissa Lee made that clear: that we should have such a thing. Those who say that we do not need protection—to them I say: that is wrong.

To those who say that we need no legal protection in our law for those unborn children who are of the opposite sex than that desired by their parents—that is wrong. I refer to the Supplementary Order Paper—the proposed amendment in the name of Dr Parmjeet Parmar—that sought to provide such protection in our law that was sadly voted down by a majority of the members of the committee of this whole House.

Others promoting the bill have said that medical practitioners have a right to freedom of conscience that is reducible in certain ways as proposed by this bill. That is wrong. I believe that freedom of conscience is irreducible and should be regarded as such. I placed a Supplementary Order Paper before the committee accordingly. There are some who argue that the rights of an unborn child should depend on whether she is wanted That is wrong. There are some who say that it makes sense to differentiate between an unborn child whose life is ended in accordance with a provision of the Crimes Act that will remain with the passage of this law, on the one hand, and those who are subjected to abortion services under the new regime, on the other. That is wrong.

There are some who have cited the unbelievably difficult situations of incest or severe fetal abnormality and other genuinely incredibly tough situations as reasons for the need for the passage of this legislation, as though those things were not already provided for in our law. That is wrong. There are some who say that we did not need to clarify the fate of a child who had been subject to an abortion but despite that had been born—I refer to the Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Simon O’Connor—international experience shows that is wrong. There are some who say that ending a young life is no different from performing any other health procedure. That is wrong. There are some who have argued that safe areas are needed, despite existing provisions of our law that already protect against harassment, nuisance, offensive publication, the intentional infliction of emotional distress, and so forth, duly balanced against the right to freedom of expression. That is wrong.

In summary, much of the debate from those who have put forward this legislation as supposedly needed by this nation at this time has been founded on the argument that the unborn child deserves no protection whatsoever in our law. That is wrong.

Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. In 1977, when the abortion law reform debate was happening in this House, MP number 11, Whetu Tirikatene-Sullivan supported fewer restrictions for women seeking an abortion. And, in particular, the two doctors who were required for a woman to access abortion, she said—and I quote—“were demanding, time-consuming obstacles for women.” This bill tonight, in the name of the Hon Andrew Little, will rectify that situation.

If we look at the abortions that are happening in New Zealand, about 13,000 per year, of those it represents, actually, 40 percent of pregnancies in New Zealand being unplanned, 37 percent of those pregnancies are because contraception has failed, and it also represents 18 percent of the abortions that happen in New Zealand. So we are here today to rectify a situation that actually, on average, has stopped 200 women from accessing abortion. I have particularly looked at the Māori component to this debate, and I want to acknowledge Dr Alison Green, who works for Te Whāriki Takapou—it is a kaupapa Māori primary health organisation who specialise in sexual and reproductive health. They participated in this process by saying that, from a Māori perspective, abortion happens. Abortion, from a Māori perspective, is called “kuka”, or “materoto”, or “whakatahe”. So through our language, we know that as Māori we did have, and practised, abortions.

I also want to highlight Te Atiawa kaumātua Sam Jackson, who named the regional abortion services based here at Wellington Hospital. That service is called Te Māhoe. The māhoe tree drops seeds that release a chemical inhibitor. The inhibitor has the effect of only allowing the strongest māhoe seed to flourish. So in Dr Green’s submissions, she said this frames abortion from a Māori perspective, that removing a pregnancy that has begun under suboptimal conditions in order to make way for another pregnancy to flourish in the future is a kaupapa Māori process.

In contributing to this kōrero, I want to talk about why women actually choose to have an abortion. Women choose to have an abortion for many reasons, some of them being that they are in unstable relationships or they may not be in a relationship or they actually can’t afford to have a child because of school, work, or other responsibilities, so they are not financially secure to be able to bring a child into the world.

Some of the conversation that we’ve had today has been about abortions post - 20 weeks. I just want to reiterate that we’re talking about 56 abortions of the over 13,000 abortions, from 2018 data. Why were those fetuses aborted? Actually, for 47 of them, it was because they were lethal fetal abnormalities and because of women’s health. So women would have died because of ruptured membranes; infections due to pre-eclampsia; placental abruptions, which is blood loss; stroke; or septic shock. For nine of them, actually, it was because the young woman—22 abortions for those under 15, 62 abortions for 15-year-olds, because for 25 percent of those young people in that situation, their father was the father of their baby. In 74 percent of those occasions, the parents were involved in whether or not that child should have the abortion. So that’s what we’re talking about in terms of the post - 20 weeks.

It’s been incredibly sad to hear the scaremongering about people aborting children with Down’s. We don’t want to see children with Down syndrome aborted; nobody does. It’s a parent’s choice. So we have to get real about the testing regime and why parents choose it.

But what I want to spend my last few seconds on is actually a plea to our church leaders. We need you to help reduce the need for abortions. Men do not own women. Women do not exist for men, to satisfy their sexual needs. We need to stop rape. We need to stop sexual violation. We need education on sexual and reproductive health rights, and we need access to family planning and contraception. I commend this bill to the House.

Along with others, I’d like to dedicate my contribution tonight to all those fiercely determined women like Dame Margaret Sparrow, who have lobbied for these reforms for decades. I really hope that at the end of this debate, all of us will be a little freer tonight.

I want to acknowledge and congratulate the Minister for bringing this to the House—44 years before anybody has been able to summon up the political will to do this. That should be acknowledged, because this is so long overdue. I want to also acknowledge how ably it has been shepherded through.

Today is, I believe, an important day for women in this country. It’s been a really long time coming. Today, I hope we will come out of the sexual and reproductive health time warp that we have been stuck in for over 40 years. It’s our chance to decriminalise and ensure that our abortion care in this country catches up with Catholic Ireland and most other countries around the world. I’ll just repeat that: this is our chance for Aotearoa—considered by many around the world as the feminist political Mecca of the world—to catch up with Ireland, a country who in the 1970s, when we passed the legislation we’re updating, I hope, tonight, made married women get a letter from their priest before they could access the pill. That is how far we have fallen behind, that they have managed to get further ahead, in terms of recognising women’s bodily autonomy and sexual and reproductive health rights, than us.

I really hope that at the end of this debate that the one in four or more women in this country who have already had an abortion, because it was the right thing for them and their family, will see this as a clear message from this Parliament that we recognise their right to make that decision, and that we are withdrawing our judgment, because our existing law imposes judgment and was founded on patriarchal judgment of women. And who are we to judge?

I really want to say that while I absolutely respect all of the different views in this House and in our society and those who oppose this legislation and abortion services for themselves, it really is appalling to me that we have accepted the enforcement of medical practice that is at odds with best care for so long, and that we have created inequality and increased harm through a lack of service provision; that we’ve accepted that women in low-income or rural communities have been required to see up to seven health professionals to be able to access abortion care services, while some women in other suburbs—wealthier suburbs, I might say—have been able to go to one place and have their care sorted in one place very quickly and easily.

We have had that inequality because this House has—up to now; I hope it will change tonight—failed to update our law. It’s appalling to me, to be honest, that we’ve made women continue unwanted pregnancies for more than three weeks—on average, 25 days—because we’ve been unwilling to update our laws and remove those hoops that they have needlessly had to jump through.

It’s appalling to me that women have ended up having medical miscarriages while travelling home from the distant cities they were sent to to access abortion care because we had failed to update our law. It’s appalling to me that we’ve known for years that women have been forced to lie as they jump through the hoops of our 1970s legislation. I do just want to point out some of the misinformation that we’ve heard from the Opposition, and that was previously said, that, really, it was life, physical health, and mental health that were the grounds for abortion in our legislation.

Actually, pre - 20 weeks, the grounds for abortion are: serious danger to life; serious danger to physical health; serious danger to mental health; incest; mental subnormality—so everyone supporting this legislation supports the continuation of the use of that language—and fetal abnormality. So people who are raising concerns around the disablist potential consequences, of which there is no evidence of being realised internationally, are supporting the entrenchment of disablism within the existing legislation.

I really want people to understand and actually recognise that, and that 98 to 99 percent of pre - 20 week abortions in this country are on the grounds of serious danger to mental health, where women and other pregnant people have had to prove that there was serious danger to their mental health. That’s just not real. The Abortion Supervisory Committee has been telling us that, doctors have been telling us that, and those few women that overcame the stigma and the shame associated with abortion have been telling us that. It is time for us to enable them to tell the truth.

I know a lot of this opposition to this legislation is focused on the change in the post 20 week threshold and arguments that this will result in abortion on demand and terrible horrors that I will not repeat again—because I don’t think it helps anyone. But I will state again that there is no verified evidence to support those concerns. As Michael Wood pointed out previously—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the member. It is time for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Thank you. As I was saying, many of the concerns we’re hearing from those opposing the legislation, when we look to other countries, we find that there is no evidence to support those concerns.

In the changes relating to post - 20 weeks, the practitioners I’ve spoken to about what this will mean—the change in the legislation and what that will mean for their practice—what they’ve told me is that it will make no practical difference whatsoever, except that they will not be required to be certifying consultants. We will, as a country, not have to pay them $150 on top of their doctors’ fees to do their role as a certifying consultant. It’s not going to change practice at all. The evidence shows us from other countries that there will not be an increase in the number of terminations that happen after 20 weeks.

I really do want to caution people in this House and outside of the House who are characterising and making assumptions about the reasons that people have terminations after 20 weeks, and let them know that I’ve spoken to some families who have been listening to this debate, who have been through that situation in times where they were trying to save their own life or were in an unenviable situation around their pregnancy. The question they asked was: “Why do they hate us? Why do they hate us for doing what we needed to do?” I want people to know that those comments are experienced as shaming, whether that is what you intend or not, those members.

I really want people to know that the primary effect of this piece of legislation is that abortions that would happen anyway will happen earlier, and they will be able to match best medical care. That is what this piece of legislation does. It does nothing else. I really want to say that one of the demonstrations of it, it will finally allow women to access abortion care services closer to home. Organisations like Family Planning, with over 80 years’ experience as women’s health providers, will now be allowed to offer abortion care services through their network, closer to home so that woman who miscarried on the way from being sent to Invercargill from Queenstown to have an abortion will hopefully be able to access care within her own community. Women will not need to lie anymore. Women will not have to have miscarriages in their cars. They will not need to visit up to seven different health practitioners. They will not need to wait weeks to be able to get an abortion. They will not need to lie. They will hear that this House and that this country trusts them, believes them, and supports their right to sexual and reproductive health.

Order! Order! Before I call the next member, I’m aware that there are three members who during the afternoon session had been repeatedly seeking the call, who have all indicated to me that they would like five-minute slots. If we could, by leave, extend the debate by five minutes all of those members, and one other member who’s made a big contribution to the debate, would be able to speak. So I seek leave for the debate to be extended by five minutes. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Democracy’s hard, and this is the hard yards. So often we come to the House and we’ll be speaking on bills but the result is pretty much known, the numbers have been done, but that’s not the case. This is one that’s a conscience bill. This is one where we’re required to stand up here and take a position. Now, in doing so, I envy those that come to this House with strongly formed positions that they arrive at from whatever way they arrive at—I envy them. I’m not one of those people, and you’ve heard some of the speakers here today that aren’t either. We stand and we start speaking and often as we go through our presentation, go through our speech, we bring up the points that have got us to the point where we are today. We will use life’s experience. We’ll use different things that’ll get us to that position. But, often, you’ll have heard in the speeches today, we didn’t know where people were going to vote until the end.

I remember a judge, Judge Jeffries, who I often heard speak. He said, “You never actually finish a piece of work, you abandon it.” And it’s a little bit like that with this. As we thought about things as 20-year-olds, 30-year-olds, 40-year-olds in life, we were certain; as we got older, perhaps some of those certainties, some of those things, were challenged. I’m certainly in that position.

I come here today to speak on this bill from very personal experience I’ve had. My first real experience of abortion was as a police officer talking to a police woman who used to work undercover finding abortionists. Their job was to go out there and set themselves up as a pregnant woman and, as they did so, find out who was actually the local abortionist—and they were criminals. For those who are seeking to refight the abortion battle, I say to you, forget it. That’s not what we’re here to do. I would never be part of anything that sent women back into the backstreets of Masterton, of Whangarei, or of Invercargill, because that’s what happens if you make this illegal. So it’s not that.

I think those who have been organising opposition to this bill haven’t done themselves a big favour, because we’d concentrated on where this bill should be and where I’d like to bring it to. Where I had a Supplementary Order Paper was around what happens post - 20 weeks. I would say, while we use the word “20 weeks”, “post-viability” is what I like to think of. I’m talking about what happens to a fetus, a baby, again, the terminology depends—often, you will know someone’s belief by the terminology they will use. I don’t think there’s anything we’re very settled on, certainly post-viability.

As I said, I’m the father of a disabled son who’s very much part of my life. So when I look at this bill, when I look at the safeguards that would be in place, because he would be one of those who would be eligible, because of his condition, because of the syndrome he had in the womb, he would have been eligible. So, you know, that does govern me—as a child who would’ve been post-viability, he does have some rights. I’ll be voting tonight against this bill. I’m not against abortion; I’ll be voting purely because I do not think that new section 11, inserted by clause 7, the post - 20 weeks, is strong enough. I don’t think it’s strong enough for the doctors who’ll be making the decision. I don’t think it’s strong enough for those women who’ll be seeking abortions. I don’t think it’s strong enough for the child, post - the viable child, who’ll be in the womb. I just don’t think it’s strong enough. I think we, as legislators, owe it to have more and more stringent, or certainly if not—stringent is not a good word—more defined criteria around that, which is why I’ll be voting against this legislation.

I go back to the Hon Ruth Dyson, her contribution, and she talked about how much time the Abortion Legislation Committee had spent on this. She assured the House that the committee had been reassured. Well, I’m sorry, I didn’t hear anything that did reassure me. While they may have been reassured by some of those who visited the select committee it did not, in my view, reflect in the new section 11 amendment which came through.

So I will vote against this. It’s probably a bit of a cop-out, because I know it will go through. I suppose those of us who do stand and speak, the challenge would be if we knew we were to be the number 60 vote, maybe. But what I will say is I’m going to vote against this purely on the new section 11, post - 20 week viability, argument. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a privilege to rise this evening and take a call, because it’s been an extremely long road getting to where we are this evening. I just want to begin by thanking all those who have fought for decades for abortion law reform, and I want to specifically name those who have engaged with me in the last few years on this issue. I want to name the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, New Zealand Family Planning, and Dame Margaret Sparrow for their work.

I also want to thank people from our diverse ethnic communities who have come to me and spoken in support of this bill, and I want to dispel the notion in this House that our diverse communities are a homogenous group that are conservative and would vote completely against this bill, because that’s not true. There are people who have various different views from our different communities, and there are many who are in support of this bill as well, and I thank them for speaking up to me.

Can I also thank the Minister, the Hon Andrew Little, for his leadership on this issue, which is not an easy one to lead on and not an easy piece of legislation to shepherd through the House. Also, thanks to Ruth Dyson for her chairing of the Abortion Legislation Committee that I subbed on a few times, and to all officials who worked on this bill.

Now, I just want to underscore the point that we’re not here to debate the morality of abortion per se. We’re not here to debate whether abortions should be allowed or not. Even if we were to pass in this House a bill with the strictest regulations to criminalise or to further outlaw abortions, we wouldn’t see a reduction in abortions. The evidence overwhelmingly tells us that if you want to see lower rates of abortion, and fewer unwanted pregnancies, you should actually look to countries that have worked to legalise abortions, and vote for this bill.

This bill, when it’s passed, will decriminalise abortion. It will remove the need to lie to get an abortion that many women have felt over the years. It will also remove the delays that many women have faced in trying to access an abortion. Those who oppose this bill do so on grounds largely that are philosophical, that are religious views—and they’re entitled to them. However, what we’re trying to do here is make good legislation.

We’ve also heard members who oppose this bill, who have said that it will allow for abortion on demand, that it will allow for abortion up to birth, and this is actually untrue. Now, the select committee has made an amendment to this bill and has brought in a post - 20 week legal process.

I also just want to quickly touch on the issue of sex selection, because it’s been brought up in the House tonight. There is in the bill a requirement for the Director-General of Health to monitor birth rates, to report on them, and, if there’s any evidence of sex-selective abortions, to recommend action that will prevent them. I also want to point out that the select committee has found that there’s actually no evidence that it’s happening or that it’s potentially an issue here in New Zealand. So those of us who support this bill, as well, let me just make it clear: we don’t support sex-selective abortions, and that’s very clear in this bill.

I just want to use the time remaining to speak about safe access zones, because I’m very disappointed that that’s been taken out of this bill. It’s a provision that I supported, and I disagree with the member David Seymour, who said it’s about criminalising speech, because it’s not. Safe access zones prevent anti-abortion activists from targeting patients, women, staff, and those who support people, for example, who might be within a specific radius of abortion clinics. What they do is they protect the privacy, safety, and dignity of women accessing abortion services.

There is a view that it doesn’t happen here in New Zealand—that there isn’t intimidation that happens outside of abortion clinics. That’s untrue. Some years back, before the Invercargill clinic opened, women in Invercargill had to travel to Dunedin or Christchurch to access abortions. When the clinic opened, they were forced to do so in secrecy in order to protect the safety of their staff. That is unacceptable. The Auckland Medical Aid Centre—I’ve met with the general manager, Lesley Wood, who has been in this field for decades and who told me that she’s been threatened, she’s been followed, and she’s been assaulted. That is not OK. Existing legislation doesn’t cover the threat that people face from those who are standing outside the abortion clinic specifically to intimidate and stop a woman from choosing her own medical care. That’s what safe zones stand against. Freedom of speech is not an absolute right. We already have the Harmful Digital Communications Act that outlaws causing serious emotional distress.

This is a good bill. If you want to see fewer abortions in New Zealand, one should vote for it. Thank you.

I’ve sat in this House and listened to this debate as the bill has progressed to the third reading, and I must admit that I’ve been just disheartened by the lack of understanding, perhaps wilful, that some members have shown towards the perspectives of the other. I’ve been particularly disheartened, by the way in which some who are in favour of this bill have been dismissive of the perspective of those against by waving away their rational arguments as being motivated purely by a member’s personal religion or faith. I’m opposed to this bill, not because of the tenets of any religion, but because of scientific, philosophical, and ethical premises which I hold to as clear and logical. I accept that those in favour of the bill do so because they approach the bill with very different premises, which I can understand, though I do not agree with them.

First, I hold to the scientific premise that the unborn child is a human being, a fact so incontrovertible that I simply assert it. The second premise follows on from that; that, as a living human being, the unborn child is indeed a human person. This is a philosophical premise which I believe is logical and indeed the only safe and humane ethical position. The child has its own DNA, a heartbeat, and can feel pain. My third premise is an ethical one; that as a human person the unborn baby is entitled to be treated with dignity and respect and as a player in the ethical question of abortion in the same way that the mother of the child is.

There is no doubt that the above beliefs have been influenced by my experiences in life from being raised in a large family of five children to seeing my own daughter kick and wriggle, through ultrasound imaging, in my wife’s womb, to my fundamental belief in the inherent worth and dignity of every human being, regardless of age, sex, ability, and, yes, even political belief. One year ago today, my daughter was not born; tomorrow she was. But she would have no rights for one year ago today.

The reality is that we’re all, every last one of us, shaped by our culture, our experiences, and our own most fundamental beliefs. These form the core of our being. A wise person can understand and identify how these beliefs and experiences shape them, and perhaps there are none so blind as those who can see the biases and influences of others but are blind to the ideologies that shape their own.

I would plead with members of this House not to allow themselves to hide behind the excuse that those who disagree only do so because they are influenced by ideology or religion or something else. To do so only shows blindness and the fact that we are all influenced. No, we should be brave enough to pause, listen to the arguments, try for a moment to understand them from the perspective of the one delivering them, and then refute them reasonably, rather than simply label them or put a sticker on them, because that’s what’s happened in our past.

From this position I ask members to consider: is it ethical that New Zealand law should allow for the abortion of an unborn child at 24 weeks for any reason whatsoever, when the child would be viable outside the womb? Is it ethical that this bill makes it legal and allows for abortion purely on the basis that there’s a possibility that the child may have a disability? Is it ethical that under this law an abortion would be permitted to be sought purely on the basis of a preference for a particular sex?

The bill before this House would allow abortion in each and every one of these circumstances, a fact which I and many other New Zealanders find shocking. It is shocking that our law denies the personhood of a baby that can survive outside the womb. Only wilful, moral, philosophical, and scientific blindness could fathom this. It is shocking that this law allows for discrimination against unborn baby girls purely on the basis of their sex under the guise of a woman’s right to choose. Who will defend the rights of these unborn girls? It is shocking that persons with Down syndrome, dwarfism, and spina bifida can be legally targeted purely on the basis of their disability, as though their disability gave them less of a right to life. All lives matter: old or young, male or female, black or white, born or unborn. This bill is unethical, and I urge MPs to reject it.

I am very honoured to take the last call in the passage of this legislation through the House, and I feel extremely proud, actually, to have played some small part in its passage to its point.

Abortion legislation is, of course, deeply personal, and we’ve heard through the debate over the last few days and weeks very personal stories from all sides of the debate about how it affects not only members of this House but the people they know and love, and it’s no different for me. I have sat with and held the hand, over my life, of women that I know and love who have had to make an incredibly difficult decision to have an abortion. I have seen them face the delays, the difficulties, the struggles, the judgment, and the abuse, frankly, and feel marginalised and criminalised because of our law, and that is not OK. I am very proud that in my last few months in this House, I get to be a part of—hopefully—putting that right for women today.

I’ve heard throughout this debate a number of people in the House—particularly of those who are supporting the bill—be at pains to say that they respect the rights and the views of everyone in this House and that their views in the debate are all valid. Interestingly enough, I haven’t heard those views expressed much by the voice of those opposing this legislation, and I find it somewhat staggering that those who preach freedom of expression and religious tolerance the most are the least tolerant of those who are supporting this legislation.

If religious leaders in our community want to do something about unwanted pregnancies, then perhaps they could stop teaching that contraception is a sin. That would go a long way towards advancing the views and the rights of women.

I want to acknowledge and thank the Minister of Justice for bringing in this legislation. It is not an easy topic to tackle, but after 44 years, it is well past time for this bill to pass. It is time that our law was changed so that it isn’t outdated and incredibly paternalistic.

We’ve heard in this debate before—and I’m borrowing comments that others have made—that when this law was passed, there were only four women members. In fact, there were more men called William in this House than there were women MPs. The fact that it has taken us until now to relook at this isn’t acceptable, but at least we are here today.

The current law is incredibly flawed, and I have found it difficult to listen to those who have stood in this House and claimed that there’s no problem with the framework as there is. I would respectfully suggest to those people that they should get out and talk to and hear from some of the women that we heard from in the Abortion Legislation Committee, and not just the women but their families, their doctors, and their counsellors, who told us time and time again about how difficult and traumatic and needlessly heartless this process was.

So to those who are voting against the bill, if you’re true to your word and this isn’t just an opposition to abortion, full stop, then recognise and hear from the women who are telling you that the current law is not serving New Zealand women well. We are now behind so many countries in the world. A country that prides itself on being a world leader in women’s rights and equality and fairness and justice, and we have now let ourselves fall behind. So when speakers ask if my conscience will be clear tonight, my conscience will be absolutely clear, and, in fact, I will feel proud to have done my bit to stand up for the women in New Zealand.

I’ve said in this House before in my contributions that I have an absolutely innate view that Parliament needs to stay out of the medical and personal decisions of women’s lives. Women have an absolute, inalienable right to control their bodies and their reproductive systems. It would be utterly unconscionable for any woman to be forced to have a child she doesn’t want—it would be unconscionable, and it would not be the right thing for that child.

I’m very happy to brand myself a feminist. I’m very happy to stand up for the rights of women and to respect the autonomy of women, and I will continue to do that. I trust women—I trust women. I trust them not to make the sorts of irresponsible decisions we’ve heard thrown around this House as examples of what might happen. Women do not wake up late in their pregnancy and have just changed their minds for no reason. Women do not callously throw away a much-wanted pregnancy because of a difficult diagnosis.

Any number of women will come and tell you—and did come and tell the select committee—exactly that, and I also understand the role of doctors in this. Doctors are not mindless automatons who’d go along with anything. Doctors have to satisfy their own conscience, their ethics, their professional obligations, and their Hippocratic oath. They make these decisions very carefully, and only when they’re appropriate clinically and ethically. This House doesn’t belong in those decisions. We don’t do it for any other medical decision. We shouldn’t do it to express control over women’s reproductive rights.

I want to touch for a minute on the issue of safe zones, because I am disappointed that this House, late one night last week, took them out of this bill. It’s not the biggest part of this bill, but I do not accept that this is policing speech. What I’ve seen happen personally and have heard stories of actually amounts to psychological abuse and torture, and I don’t think any woman seeking the help that she needs in making such a difficult decision needs to be abused, intimidated, and threatened. I’ve even heard stories of members of this House being threatened in a number of ways, which I won’t detail because of their own privacy, because of their views in this House. If that is the mechanism by which the anti-abortion protesters operate, then they don’t deserve the right that we would normally expect in terms of protest. I would support safe zones, and if I have the chance to support them in another forum, I will again.

Listening to the debate tonight, I feel saddened that a number of the people who have decided not to support the legislation didn’t take the time to come and sit in on some of the select committee’s work. For those listening at home, every member of Parliament can sit in on a select committee and be part of it. There are the members that are appointed, but every member is welcome in all select committee processes.

I’ve listened to the debate tonight, and I’ve heard members who I respect, and who I know have thought about this, express concerns about things like the support available to women, and express concerns about how, for example, younger women could reach out and get the support they need. I’ve heard concerns expressed around the way decisions would be made and the information that would be portrayed, and I’d just say to those members that if you had sat through the committee and seen the way we worked through that carefully—we agonised over it, and we heard a range of evidence on it—I don’t know that you would have reached the views that you have reached.

I do think that we need to trust women, as I’ve said, and yet we’ve heard people in this House say, “Yes, we need to trust women.”, but then say they’re going to be voting to take those decisions off women. It isn’t right. It is time for this House to understand that women have the right to control their bodies, and this House and our lawmaking does not have the right to intervene in that.

I think those who are voting against this legislation—their views are their own, but I think they are out of step with New Zealand. I think this House is in grave danger of becoming far more socially conservative than New Zealand, and we do a disservice to New Zealand when we get out of step with the views of New Zealand. Like many of you—and I’ve heard others say it—on conscience issues, I take a lot of time talking to my community in my constituency. I represent a constituency that wouldn’t be regarded as urban liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and I can tell you that the very strongly held majority view—not exclusively, absolutely. But the very strongly expressed and held majority view is why wouldn’t we pass this legislation? It seems a no-brainer to so many, and yet we run the risk of allowing a very vocal minority, largely, in my view, directed by the religious leaders across New Zealand—although I accept that may not be true for all. We run the risk of allowing them to derail important legislative reform.

In my last few minutes, I want to—as others have done—pay tribute to Dame Margaret Sparrow and others who have advocated tirelessly for this reform. It is time, I hope, as a majority across this House, to get this work done, and I want to vote for this legislation in the belief that it will mean for women, finally, that they won’t have to face the shame, the delays, and the lack of equity of access to receive a service that every woman in New Zealand is entitled to have, without this House making that decision for her.