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

Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I move, That the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

To begin this contribution I want to acknowledge Dame Margaret Sparrow and Terry Bellamak, and thank them for their years and years of advocacy and support for the right of women and people who are pregnant to access services. To you I extend my congratulations—we are almost there.

I want to reinforce the kaupapa of this piece of legislation. It seeks to ensure, firstly, the safety and wellbeing, and, secondly, the privacy and dignity of women accessing abortion facilities. For practitioners providing such abortion services, it wants to ensure that they are protected, including from information and opinions communicated in a way that will harm them, hurt them, and are not beneficial to them, and therein, I think, lies the fine balance that the Hon David Parker in his role as Attorney-General has helped the committee to find.

I do want to highlight the very, very good practice and process in terms of the section 7 report—the original one. Under Standing Order 269(5), when a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issue was alerted to the House and to the committee in February 2021, essentially the Attorney-General said that the use of word “communicate” was overly broad. Therein then ensued a discourse, a discussion, an engagement initiated by Dr Liz Craig as the chair of the Health Committee, and I want to commend Liz as the chair of the Health Committee for her focus and steadfast resolve that they as a group would find a solution to the section 7 issue that had been highlighted by the Attorney-General.

They were able, through making amendments to this legislation, to get to a point whereby on 10 November 2021, before the second reading of this legislation, the Attorney-General was able to write to the House and inform the House that because of those amendments to the bill, he was satisfied that while there would still be a limit of freedom of expression within a safe area, under section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, it would do so in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 5.

Section 14 obviously is a focus on freedom of expression and the rights of people who don’t believe in abortion and the rights of people who think they have a right to tell women or people who are pregnant about whether or not they should have an abortion. He said that there was a good balance now between that right in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and section 5, which is about justified limitations.

I guess my focus on him making that declaration was that it should satisfy this House that this legislation has now reached a very fine balance in upholding both those: the right to freedom of expression and the justifications on the limitation of that expression. From a medical perspective we have to ensure that people’s actions do not harm other people, and that they do not act in a way that will hurt someone and will not provide any benefit.

In addition to Dr Craig, can I also acknowledge Chris Bishop, Dr Elizabeth Kerekere, Dr Anae Neru Leavasa, Dr Tracey McLellan, Debbie Ngarewa-Packer, Sarah Pallett, Dr Gaurav Sharma, Penny Simmonds, Tangi Utikere, Brooke van Velden, and Simon Watts as members of the Health Committee. But I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Jan Logie. Jan has been an amazing advocate for abortion law reform, and in the previous Parliament she was on the Abortion Legislation Committee, chaired by the Hon Ruth Dyson. It also included the Hon Amy Adams, the Hon Tracey Martin, David Seymour, and I want to acknowledge my colleague Anahila Kanongata’a-Suisuiki.

This bill from my perspective also represents a commitment to freedom from discrimination for groups that have been historically discriminated against, such as women, and within this particular context, vulnerable groups such as pregnant women. The UN has determined under Sustainable Development Goal No. 5, the empowerment of women and girls: empowerment over our bodies, empowerment over the health services that we choose to use, without feeling unsafe and with the State providing those services in a way that meets our needs. So specific and safe abortion services, I believe, is about our value as equal citizens within our democracies.

I found a piece of—I’ll call it research. It was actually a survey from the New York Times before their last election, titled “Gender Equality, the Status of Women and the 2020 Elections”. The findings within the context of this abortion safe areas legislation are such that I really do want to highlight those who don’t support abortion and also those who don’t support safe areas. Anti-abortionists, from this survey, are hostile to gender equality, and this movement fundamentally is misogynistic. What is misogyny? It is a dislike, a contempt for, an ingrained prejudice against women. It also highlights that some women can be anti-abortionist too, because just like internalised homophobia, they can experience internalised sexism. On every question that was asked: do men make better political leaders than women, do you want there to be equal numbers of men and women in positions of powers, if you are anti-abortionists, half of you said yes, but if you were pro-choice, that is, you believe in the power of women to decide for yourself, 80 percent of you said yes.

So anti-abortionists don’t like the Me Too movement. They don’t think access to birth control impacts women’s equality. They don’t believe sexism is a problem, and they are hostile to women’s rights.

I also want to highlight the work of Dr Diana Foster, who is the director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California. So she is a professor, and she provided an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court case on abortion in November 2021. She talked about a study, the Turnaway Study, a thousand women over five years who were forced to have children when they were denied access to abortion. What does it lead to? Serious physical health consequences from continued pregnancy and childbirth, including death; greater, economic and other hardship; more likely to continue to be exposed to intimate partner violence; less likely to have futures where they have intended pregnancies; and an inability to achieve their educational and other aspirations. So accessing abortion services safely, based on the need identified by the pregnant woman, matters.

I would like to thank colleagues from across the House for supporting this legislative reform. Your vote with and for women is also a vote against sexism and misogyny. I commend this bill to the House.

I rise as the member of Parliament for North Shore to speak on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill at its third reading. I wish to first acknowledge Louisa Wall who has brought this member’s bill to this House. I was fortunate to be part of the Health Committee that participated in improving this bill, and I acknowledge Louisa’s engagement with that committee in a positive and proactive manner, and the mannerism in which she took to be both supportive to the challenges that we had with the bill, but also constructive in terms of the aspects that we did subsequently improve. And I think it is a reflection of the process that we go through in this House—that the value of the select committee process does contribute and bring value in terms of improving legislation.

As we’ve heard, the purpose of the bill is to protect and safeguard women accessing abortion facilities in a safe manner. The Health Committee got 890 submissions, of which we had 100 or so in person. I acknowledge the large number of women that came and provided their stories to that committee, many of which were very personal to what they had experienced, and had an impact on all members of the committee, no doubt. This aspect particularly impacts young women. It impacts about 55 percent of those women in the age range between 20 and 30, and for 65 percent of those women this was their first child. So it is acknowledged around the impact that this bill will have on those individuals, in protecting them from the emotional harm that is, and was, incurred as a result of not having these safe zones in place.

Louisa Wall acknowledged the key change in the amendment of this bill, which is to section 13A, in clause 5, which is around making it consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, so the limitations on a person’s right to freedom of expression were minimal. The process that the committee also looked at, was around looking at the way in which these safe zones would be applied. Initially, it was going to be on a blanket approach, but again we’ve decided that should be on a case-by-case basis, again to not conflict with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I’m pleased that the Health Committee invited the Attorney-General in to provide further review and further input in terms of those amendments that were made, and as a result he confirmed that the amendments and recommendations addressed his concerns. I wish to quote a statement that he provided, because I think it is quite relevant in this last reading of this bill: “I consider that the safe area restrictions would serve the important purpose of protecting people providing and accessing abortion services from intimidation and emotional harm, and that the proposal would not limit rights and freedoms more than is necessary to achieve that purpose. Freedom to protest in relation to abortion would be maintained in all places outside of safe areas.”

It is a pleasure to have been part of the process in order to bring this bill to its third reading. I acknowledge all of those that made submissions as we went through this process, both for and against. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. It’s an absolute pleasure to be here for the third and final reading of this bill. I’d just like to start by acknowledging my colleague Louisa Wall for bringing the bill to the House. This is a bill that the Health Committee spent a considerable amount of time on, because I think we felt that it was important to get it right, and I think it was because on the one hand, we wanted to make sure that the bill set out what it wanted to achieve, and that’s to protect the privacy and the dignity of woman accessing abortion services, but also the staff that are working in those facilities. But on the other hand, what it was important to do was to make sure that the bill was consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and making sure that those freedoms of speech and other freedoms were preserved in that bill. I think, as a committee, we managed to achieve this.

But what I wanted to do is just share with you some of the views and the stories of the submitters that we heard. We heard a whole range of different people talking about this bill, and I think as we started to listen to those submissions, it became quite clear that there was an issue that needed to be addressed. I want to start with just some of the submissions from the Abortion Providers Group Aotearoa New Zealand, and what they talked about was the fact that they’d sent out a questionnaire to clinics in June 2020 because there had been quite a bit of debate about whether this was an issue or not, and they asked them about their experiences of current protest action over the past three years, and they got 13 responses back. Of those, eight reported that they did see current protest action, and six of those said there was protest action every week, and it was usually on the days that abortions were provided. One had monthly protests and one had them annually. And apart from that larger annual protest, what they talked about was sometimes single, or up to 10 regular protesters, and one clinic reporting 15 to 20 people turning up regularly. Some qualitative comments within that survey, one said that “Now they’re not allowed in the main hospital, but sometimes on occasion people managed to bypass security and they know where our department is and they’ll question women attending appointments.” And another comment, “One person in question will give money to women as an incentive for not proceeding with their appointment.” So just really signalling that this is an ongoing issue for many providers.

But also the stories of individual submitters, and we had a few. Some just actually said “I support the bill”, and that was it, in their written submission, but some actually talked a little bit more. One said, “I’ve been a victim of verbal abuse in the past while attending a clinic for a routine scan, and there were protesters outside. I was pregnant at the time and I found out that I was having a miscarriage. It was a highly emotional time and to exit the building and have people protesting about abortion as murder was very upsetting.” I can’t imagine a young woman with no support trying to make the best decision for her and her baby hearing the same. So I think there was a real suggestion that this is an area where we did need to provide some protection.

But on the other hand, we also had a number of submitters coming in with quite opposing views, and a lot of them said, “Look, we’ve got really deeply held views about abortion, and we feel that this bill impacts negatively on our freedom of speech.” So I’ll just read you an example of a quote from one of those, that says, “I’m completely opposed to this bill. It effectively removes the right of freedom to peaceful assembly for us as citizens and the right to peacefully object to the practice of abortion. If those who are in favour of abortion want to have it as a right, we believe we deserve the right to dissent and object.”—and so, basically, those tensions.

But the other issue that was raised by the Attorney-General, as we’ve had spoken about in a number of the meetings, was that clause 5 of the bill he felt was not sufficiently narrow enough, so it was inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and that the term “communicating” in his view was overly broad and it may not be interpreted as just relating to issues around abortion or abortion related matters. He thought that might be a problem also about inadvertently capturing, say, discussions by family members that were accompanying people into the services. There were also other broader issues with clinicians who might be discussing bad news about a baby, and that might be inadvertently captured. So, basically, I think where we’ve ended up as a committee is the recommendations that we’ve made, I think, have achieved the right balance between protecting women’s privacy and dignity, but ensuring that we’ve gone sufficiently narrow in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

I think how we’ve managed to do that was, basically, by prescribing a certain range of things that it would be prohibited for people to do in the safe area, and those are things that could be safely seen and heard by somebody accessing abortion services. I think one of the issues that we were so concerned about was the concept of a protected person, because in the bill as introduced, it was around a protected person being impacted by the behaviour. But a protected person was somebody that was then attending those services for the purpose of accessing abortion services. So the concern we had was the ability for people to be able to testify, but in testifying they would also have to then declare the reason they were in the safe area. We felt that that would actually prevent a lot of people stepping up and saying, you know, “I’ve experienced this” and testifying in court.

So with the changes that we recommended and made, we removed that whole provision of having to have somebody that was a protected person and rather, instead, made it a range of behaviours that were quite clearly defined. So what that meant was that while you would still need evidence of the behaviour occurring, it didn’t have to be actually that person accessing services themselves that could bring that forward. So I think that added an extra layer for those who wanted to be protected so that things could still go ahead without them having to be the one to do it.

Then, just finally, the timeliness issue was something that was really important to the committee, because there was a real sense that we needed to get on and provide protections in a very timely manner. The question was that there was a range of options considered, but if we could put in place a blanket protection 150 metres from all abortion services—could you do that quickly—and I think that brought up a whole range of questions about, “OK, if you’re sitting in a safe area that is 150 metres from the service or from the building; is it the building itself or is it the land on which the service is located?”, because you’ve got a lot of services that may be delivered in a big hospital complex where the land area is rather large. Where do you put that boundary? Then there are other issues around private property, and could you include private property in a safe area? I think where we landed was going back to the original provisions where we’ve got a customised regulation-making power so that each facility has its own regulations developed around that so that we’ve got the ability to work out for each area how to potentially exclude private property, but also make sure we’ve got the maximum protection.

So I think this was a bill where submitters really suggested that something needed to be done. We had to work through the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provisions, but I think where we’ve ended up is a good balance between the two. So I think that I’m really happy with where this has landed and I’d just like to acknowledge all the work of those involved in the select committee, and again acknowledge Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House. I commend this bill to the House.

The question is that the motion be agreed to.

Kia ora, Madam Speaker. I’m rising to speak to this bill tonight, with gratitude. I was not a member of this House when the primary legislation was passed, making abortion a legal medical treatment that women and pregnant people were free to seek over their own bodies. Nor was I a member of the select committee. I have watched your work, my sister Louisa Wall, from afar, with gratitude and a very clear awareness of how difficult it is to operate in a space like this one, to take on board all of the very intense emotions that are generated by talk of pregnancy, of termination, and of the right of women to choose how they operate within their own bodies and their own spaces, and our control over our reproductive rights.

I am lucky in that I am someone who has never faced the choice between a pregnancy and a situation where I was not able to raise a baby. All of my four babies, I was able to welcome into a family that was capable of coping with them and loving them and joying in them. I was raised in a family, also, where babies were joyous and welcomed. But I was also raised by feminist parents and a mother who was a registered nurse in the 1960s, so I was raised with a very clear awareness that the choice to have a baby can be one that is intolerable for some women. I vividly remember the stories from my mother, of nursing a young mum, who, after three children and a very happy marriage, she and her husband simply could not afford a fourth child, and after much travail they chose a backstreet abortion, which was all that was available to them, and as a result that woman contracted a most terrible infection and died horribly in hospital. That is what you people have done: in making the abortion act legal, you have avoided any young women like that young woman, her young husband, and her three children going through that trauma.

To be pregnant is just such an intensely vulnerable time. So it is so important that we take this step of protecting women who are in the appalling situation of having to make a decision about their bodies from the pressure and harassment of those who have very strong, and sometimes ill-considered, ways of expressing their opposition to the personal choice of a woman or a pregnant person over her own body.

When we look at the Attorney-General’s report, we consider the advice that he gave to the select committee as to the scope of what should be prohibited or what it was lawful to prohibit under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He was alarmed by the word “communicating”. He felt that that was too wide a term and that that could not be used in the context of prohibiting free speech. Let us remind ourselves of the words of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, that our rights and freedoms are “subject only to such reasonable limits [as] prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Rights are never absolute. Finding the boundary between where one’s own rights of expression unjustifiably infringe upon the freedoms and liberties of another is a difficult job.

So I commend the select committee for the work that they did and the way in which they came down on a careful, considered, and, I think, eminently reasonable approach to this. So, rather than a person being prohibited from merely communicating, we now have the clear advice in new section 13A, inserted by clause 5, that it is prohibited to obstruct a person from trying to access abortion services; to visually record that person in a way that is likely to cause them distress; to try to interfere with their decision, without their consent; or to engage in protest. And that, as my friend Dr Craig has said, also is ameliorated by the fact that the 150-metre rule and exclusion zone is negotiable depending on the circumstances. This is a sensible, straightforward regime that is going to protect people at an incredibly vulnerable point in their lives.

I sometimes wonder whether those who protest, including outside my local hospital, quite realise the level of vulnerability, and, indeed, shame there still is around women and pregnant people accessing what is a perfectly legal service in control of their own destinies and their own lives. I sometimes wonder whether their efforts would, in fact, be better served—if indeed they have such aroha for women and for children—in perhaps going out and supporting our young mums who struggle to raise babies; maybe it would be better served by an effort to volunteer at your local after-school care programme or perhaps to donate food or offer practical support rather than to harass and bully—however well intentioned you may be—women at such a vulnerable point in their lives.

But I can understand why people feel that right to interfere with women at that point in their lives, because we are used to being allowed to interfere with women’s rights over our bodies. To be born into a typically female body is to be born knowing that society will never leave you in any doubt as to your choices over how to use that body, whether it is what you wear, who you associate with, or whether you have or have not children. To be born into an apparently female body is to be born into a society which assumes it can tell you exactly what it likes about that body. That is not OK. Our women need—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Jenny Salesa): Order! My apologies to the member. This debate is interrupted. We will resume after dinner at 7 p.m. Kia ora.

Sitting suspended from 6.01 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. For the reasons discussed prior to the dinner break, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much. Hey, I will be continuing to oppose this bill. It sits very firmly, as I mentioned in the first reading, within the scope of some of the most fundamental freedoms of a proper functioning liberal democracy, and that’s freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly. I think others have rightly noted, including the proponent of this bill, that rights always interact. Along with those rights, we have also the right in society to not be, if you will, molested, abused, harassed, and so forth. So, fundamentally, for me this bill doesn’t strike the right balance, and hence I’m opposing it. As people will know in this House, I’m more than happy to argue and debate abortion—I think, relatively confidently; you don’t have to agree with me but I’ll debate.

But that’s not really, ultimately, what this bill is about, because it’s situated for me in a growing number, if you will, of safe spaces. It doesn’t matter if it’s the spaces themselves, the ideas that need to be kept safe from people, right through to more and more legislation in this House. It’s been a growing concern of mine for many, many years—in fact, even from my early days in university, which was a long time ago now. We seem to have this increasing desire to isolate ourselves as a society from ideas and opinions which we don’t like, and some speakers tonight—and it’s been a respectful debate, so I want to keep it in that tone—have said we’ve just got to keep those opinions, those ideas we don’t like, away from us. They could be harmful, and there’s been a stress particularly on emotional harm. Of course there’s emotional harm, but we should never conflate that, I would suggest, with obviously higher levels of harm and violence such as physical harm, and so forth.

There has been, unfortunately even around this debate of safe spaces, quite a conflation out of the American situation, which is often quite heinous, actually, the behaviours of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists or whatever nomenclature you want to use. It can be very, very aggressive, but it’s conflated and drawn over as if that’s happening here in New Zealand. But by and large, and from my own understanding from reading the select committee report and others, more of it is just seen as offensive, problematic, that someone might be outside, in this case, an abortion clinic offering an alternative opinion. As I’ve noted before in a different topic and speech, a nun standing out with rosary beads is now deemed as harmful—emotional harm. I just think we’re treading an unfortunate path as a society and as a democracy if we’re beginning to limit actions like that simply because something is perceived to be harmful.

I want to stress again: a lot of the conversation tonight’s not been about physical violence. We all abhor that. The law rightly covers that already. We’re talking about ideas which are seen as harmful, opinions which we don’t like, and it doesn’t matter if it’s increasing safe spaces because, of course, as I put before, what’s the next safe space that is required to protect another group from ideas, again, or opinions that they don’t wish to hear? We’ve had laws passed through this House which, effectively, criminalise conversations. We’re still having discussions, or the Government certainly is and some of its activist friends, of introducing hate speech: certain words, ideas, have to be banned. Then we look in the wider society to, I’d suggest, the overflow—the harassment, for example, of the seven professors because they happen to have a view around issues like mātauranga Māori.

So it sits, this bill, within that purview, within that context of a tightening of the grip, particularly by the State, on ideas and opinions, and I don’t think that’s right. I think fundamentally too—and it’s probably why abortion in this one becomes quite important—this is a controversial topic. No matter what people think, it is controversial. There isn’t a singular view. It won’t, again, surprise the House and those listening in that I sit on the side that when things are more controversial, you need more leaning in to the rights and freedoms to have a different opinion. So that’s the first point.

The next point I think we have to touch on, and it has come up in some of the speeches tonight but it’s more manifest outside in society, particularly those who rightly say there shouldn’t be harassment, who are themselves often involved in a lot of harassment and abuse of people. You often see it in the likes of social media, and so forth. I want to stress: it’s not here in the Chamber. But absolute abuse of anyone who might, in this case, hold a pro-life—you might hold a different view. If they’re not part of the monological view on particularly ethical issues, they are to be derided, insulted, threatened, and so forth. Well, at times I’ve been one of them, but I’m not asking for a safe space to be put around me. People are welcome to have contrary opinions, and I’m sure those who deride people like myself who have a different view are more than happy, as they continue to be, to protest, to yell, to scream, to threaten, and so forth. So there’s a paradox, a hypocrisy, if you will.

But we’re also seeing more and more in society the labelling of people and denigrating them. There’s again been hints of that tonight: the suggestion that someone who might be pro-life is misogynist, and then that begins to be applied to women as well. It all gets, for me, wrapped up in pseudo-academics to try and explain how this is all internalised, and so forth. But it is ultimately a denigration, and I’d say, particularly to those academics, they are just activists. They’re just activists who masquerade, coming up with ever-latest terms, particularly in the panoply that is identity politics and intersectionality. I think it’s dehumanising, ultimately, because it doesn’t allow, again, this forefront of a proper functioning liberal democracy—which is all people are inherently good and trying to actually articulate views which are very deeply held by them.

I’ll begin to finish here. We are seeing a dangerous trend developing in particularly the Western world that who you are as an individual is becoming secondary to the group, and the more insidious element that’s coming through in recent years is that your identity within the group is now defined by the group. So if you’re a woman, you’d think you were in the woman group, but unless you hold to a set of views that, you know, a certain group have defined, as I say, you’re now a misogynist. So you’re a woman who’s a misogynist. It’s the same as we’ve seen in the anti-vax movement—or, rather, people at the moment running around saying everyone’s anti-vax who might have a different opinion. The fact that a whole lot of people are vaccinated but have a different view doesn’t make them anti-vax. It’s the same when we talk about cultural or race issues. Just because someone has a different view doesn’t make them a racist.

Got friends in America—God, you could bring it here to New Zealand—who are themselves Black Americans, or Māori here, but now they’re being called racists or white supremacists. It’s this bizarre, dehumanising labelling that’s going on, and I think it’s an unfortunate dynamic that’s even coming through as we discuss safe spaces tonight, that people who might have a contrary opinion are being, I would suggest, mislabelled. I think it would be useful for people to reflect on that, particularly if they are wanting to argue that they should have particularly opinions around abortions protected—they need a safe space. They are making life, if you will, unsafe for another group of people by deriding them. As I say, this groupthink, I think, is becoming a problem.

Again, to address what was a very particular charge or suggestion earlier, that any women—woman, sorry; I’d better get my wording and grammar right—who opposes this bill, and I know thousands of them, are all of a sudden not proper women or they’re misogynist is just wrong. It’s just this manifestation of a growing groupthink: you can be a woman so long as you follow a whole lot of prescriptions of particularly the academic left; you’ll be Māori so long as you fit a certain set of views. That’s why, amongst many, many reasons, I continue to oppose this bill.

Our liberal democracy functions best when, firstly, we’re not dehumanising people, we’re not labelling them, and we’re not trying to degenerate—or, rather, denigrate—their views. So freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association are so fundamentally important, and, as I said at the start too, so is the freedom to not be harassed, if we get into the negative freedoms at different levels. Those are important too, but the fundamental point is the more controversial a topic is, the more discussion there should and needs to be. So we’ll have to continue opposing this bill. I’m not going to go into all the details. That would have been dealt with in committee of the whole House and, obviously, within second reading.

I will acknowledge, to the sponsor of the bill, what we have here now is a huge step forward from where we started. Things are better defined. Still not enough for me. As I say, conceptually I don’t like the idea of safe spaces, and I asked a rhetorical question of the House: what’s the next safe space that we have to create? Safe spaces around parliamentary offices from Green Party activists? You know, of course I don’t want that, but why not if you want to follow that argument through. We shouldn’t be, if you will—and I’ve said it in a different context before: ideas and opinions are never safe. They always challenge us. I again just want to reiterate in this House tonight: I worry of this continuing trend to try and limit what people can say, think, or be. So with that, I’ll leave it there. Thanks, Mr Speaker.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to take a call on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. This is the first time I’ve had the opportunity to speak on this bill, and I’m pleased to do so, albeit from my home in Auckland.

I have a few comments, first of all, to make in relation to the last speaker, Simon O’Connor, who talked about concerns he had about this type of legislation in New Zealand and what was almost a concept of creep into certain areas where we would need safe zones, and—from his perspective, if I’m characterising it correctly—people wouldn’t be free to share their opinions. I want to really challenge that idea. I don’t think there is an equivalent medical procedure that occurs to me that is similar to abortion. It is such as important health issue that women need to be able to access, and it is such, such an important human right that they are able to do that.

What we are actually looking at with this bill is not a situation where people can’t oppose abortion. We know that people have different views on abortion. We know that it’s important that people are able to express those views. All we are trying to do—and what I imagine the member who’s brought this bill, Louisa Wall, is trying to do—is to allow women to access a key medical procedure free from harassment, free from intimidation, so that they can go about their lives and live them in the way that they choose. That is why I fundamentally support this bill, and disagree with the comments of the last member respectfully.

I was first made aware of the concept of abortion safe zones or buffer zones, as they’re sometimes called, in a borough that I used to live in, in West London, that introduced them in 2018. They were used, in that instance, to prevent the harassment of those seeking abortions, staff members, and members of the public. It was a first for the UK, and these safe zones proved to be effective, and so, in 2021, the safe zone was renewed.

I’m also proud of the recent work that New Zealand has done to allow those who wish to access abortion to do so safely and legally. The change last term to legalise abortion and to take it out of the Crimes Act was historic. I’m also proud of the work undertaken by my friend and colleague the Hon Dr Ayesha Verrall, to increase access to abortion through the use of telehealth services that she’s recently announced. This bill really builds on that progress. It will ensure that people seeking an abortion will be able to access this important health service free from harassment, free from intimidation. The right to access abortion safely is an important human right, and I would respectfully ask all those colleagues from across the House to consider this when they cast their vote on the final vote on today’s third reading.

I want to also congratulate my colleague Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House, and for being a champion for women’s rights. It’s not always easy and, as we’ve seen, not everyone always agrees. But when we came to this House, we did so to make a difference, and casting a conscience vote in favour of this bill will certainly do that for those wishing to access this important health service. I commend this bill to the House.

The committee spent a huge amount of time making sure that we got to that point and, to be honest, I was on the committee considering the abortion legislation back in 2019-20, and this was an area of that piece of legislation that I was uncomfortable with. I was totally willing to be voting and supporting it because it was a really tenuous dance, and I didn’t want to do anything to interfere with the progress of that legislation, because it was such a watershed moment for us as a country to secure the bodily integrity and protect women from forced pregnancy; a pretty important moment in our history.

I was OK with supporting the safe zone provisions as they were, but I had levels of discomfort. So I’m really pleased that we got to consider this in its specificity and go through the detail of it, and I think we’ve got a much better result now than what we had in the original legislation, because it is the balancing of rights, but also it recognises the fact that the provisions in our law at the moment that protect against harassment are fundamentally useless, because they rely on the person going for an abortion to be providing evidence in the court, to be able to take that case. That’s not really something anybody wants to do. You imagine: you’re going through this medical procedure, you are harassed, and then you have to deal with the police on top of that, and then at some date well out into the future, you have to then stand up in court and relive all of that in front of a public audience, and spill your guts. There’s a reason those pieces of law are not being used, because nobody is going to do that. So we have fixed that problem in this piece of legislation, and I think that will make it effective as well, and I think that’s really important.

I do want to address the perception that was given by a previous speaker that this is an attack on the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet clearly says it is not. It is consistent with those rights in our society. That same speaker said that he disagreed with harassment but he didn’t seem to believe that we had a problem with it, and I’ve seen some other people opposing this legislation who say that there is no problem because there are no court cases. Well, I’ve just explained why there are no court cases—because nobody’s going to go through that process. What we heard very clearly in select committee was evidence of patients being chased into clinics. We heard of pamphleting with anti-abortion and inaccurate images, and information that is just blatantly untrue; of loud hymn singing; of blockading of doors; of protesters approaching and speaking to patients, and calling individual staff by their names; photographing of staff and patients; people refusing to leave when being asked. We also heard of a situation, and we had somebody present to us in the committee who had previously been arrested for violent protests outside an abortion clinic, who was telling us that this is God’s work—to be protesting outside clinics—and we could not deprive them of that work.

We also heard the survey from providers who are doing this work, showing an increase in activities around clinics. One clinic who had previously not had any protest action was now reporting twice-weekly protests on the day that they provided services. An escalating protest was reported in another clinic, and, one clinic noted that after more than 20 years of experiencing protesters, they were tired of the ongoing rights that the anti-choice protesters had, but their patients’ right to privacy and safe access without harassment was continually being ignored.

hat right is not being protected in our current situation, because people areThis piece of legislation is recognising that they have rights—as staff and as patients—and our code of disability rights recognises this. It guarantees consumers the specific rights to privacy, respect, and the right to freedom from discrimination, coercion, harassment, and exploitation. Now, t—from so much of the evidence we heard—experiencing harassment and, even in the peaceful protests where people are just standing, praying with anti-abortion signs usually, that are often inaccurate, but even then they lose their right to privacy. We heard from submitters that sense of sometimes they’ve known people in that group, and they have wanted to go and access their right to abortion, but have felt intimidated or unable to because they have known that there would be people known to their family who would be observing them accessing that service. That is not consistent with our fundamentals of a safe and appropriate healthcare system.

This safe zone does not stop anybody protesting. I recognise that, where people are saying that people have the right to access, they have the right to oppose. When people were presenting to the committee and they would say that, and I would say, “So would that right still be in place if you were 150 metres away?” That right would still be in place. They can absolutely continue to oppose abortion—they can just do it 150 metres away so that they do not impinge on the rights of the patient accessing healthcare. That, to me, is an absolutely essential part of the work that we are doing, which is to protect that right and balance the right of freedom of expression, and protest, and assembly for others.

I think the other piece I wanted to touch on, because I, initially, wanted to have automatic safe zones, and that was what I came into this thinking—and we didn’t get to that at the end of the process, because we could not guarantee a process to set that up that would have a logic to it, now that abortions no longer just happen in a very limited number of places, where they could be provided through mobile clinics, or in doctors’ surgeries around the country. How would we coherently do that, to set them up automatically? Also, if we set them up automatically with set areas, without thinking through the logistics of the space, actually it could have some perverse and negative outcomes that wouldn’t achieve our desired goal. While it may not be what I initially wanted, I think this will work, and again, next week it will be two years since this country decriminalised abortion. We’ve seen in recent surveys an increase in the number of people in this country who believe women should have the right to choose what they do with their body. That represents progress; this represents progress. I look forward to a time when women and pregnant people are free of all stigma, to be able to care for their own health.

Members, before I take the next call—

💬 David Seymour: Mr Speaker—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ian McKelvie): Oh, well you’ve actually done what I want to ask for; before I take the next call, I wanted to say this debate is limited to 12 10-minute speeches, and because we’re taking calls all over the place, it’s very useful if I knew who wished to take the call. I now know who wishes to take a call in the House, but I’m going to go to Sarah Pallett, who’s been waiting remotely for a call for a while. So thank you, you two, David Seymour and Simon O’Connor. I take it no one else wants a call?

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s with great pleasure that I rise to speak for the third time on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I want to take a couple of seconds just to add my thanks to those of previous speakers to Louisa Wall, who brought this amendment bill to the House, but also to my colleagues on the Health Committee, chaired really ably by Dr Liz Craig, and to the clerks and officials. Because, actually, as you’ve probably heard, this piece of work was indeed a piece of work. Because we all wanted to create the very best piece of legislation that we could, we did need to do a decent amount of work on it. As other members have mentioned, we had issues with the first draft with New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliance, which we worked extremely hard to make sure that we had actually covered. So I’m really proud to be able to stand—in a seated position remotely—to support this bill and to bring it forward.

We had 890 submitters, as we’ve heard in previous speeches, and 97 of those submitted orally. But what we’re really doing here is this bill aims to protect, as we’ve heard, the safety and wellbeing and respect the privacy and dignity of women accessing abortion facilities, as well as for those practitioners providing and helping with abortion services. We’re not here to relitigate the provision of abortion as lawful healthcare. We’ve had and heard many, many speeches over an extremely long period of time before we passed the primary legislation. I really want to emphasise that we do often have differing views about the provision of abortion services. My position is obviously that it is lawful healthcare, and it’s one that’s vital and often lifesaving for the pregnant person or woman who is pregnant. Often, it’s necessary for complex medical reasons. But, again, we’re not here to relitigate. What I think is really important is that this is not about that. What this is about is about allowing people who are accessing lawful healthcare to do so without intimidation, threats, and harassment. And you can support that and not actually be personally in favour of abortion yourself. You may choose yourself to not support it, but you can still respect the rights of people and healthcare providers to access this healthcare without being threatened or harassed.

Now, one of the earlier speakers, Mr O’Connor, was describing this harassment as an isolation of views that we disagree with. I fundamentally disagree with this assertion. This is not an isolation of views that we disagree with; this is about people who are literally going about the business of accessing lawful healthcare. As Jan Logie said, just now, you can do that from a maximum of 150 metres away. The safe area provision is literally a maximum of 150 metres, and so those banners can be held, those chants can be chanted, and the very loud prayers can be prayed, but 150 metres maximum away. The safe area isn’t going to be applied automatically. The individual providers will need to apply for a safe area and there’ll have to be a good reason for it, although previous harm or threat will not be one of those contingencies. I think we need to ask ourselves, if you disagree with this and you feel that the rights—the need to bring those banners into the faces of people accessing healthcare, some of whom are going through extremely difficult and challenging times—if you feel the need to be allowed to have overt and often fact-bereft banners in people’s faces, I think you need to ask yourself why. Why do you need to do that in the faces of people that are providing healthcare? Why do you need to do something that you know, because you’ve been told, is threatening, is harassment, is challenging, and does cause trauma. It’s not about hurt feelings or feeling offended; it’s about actually, literally, causing trauma and pain to somebody who may already be in a great deal of it, although sometimes not.

So we’re not here to relitigate and we’re not here to stop peaceful protest. We’re not here to stop a nun standing with a rosary, Mr O’Connor, because that won’t be prohibited under this piece of legislation, and it’s a shame that you didn’t read it thoroughly enough to realise that peaceful prayer that doesn’t involve the carrying of banners is not something that’s going to be prohibited. It won’t fall into the legislation, because we don’t intend to do that. We really tried hard as a committee—and bearing in mind that the committee did hold differing views on the provision of abortion itself—to make sure that the rights of people to peacefully protest were upheld.

Peaceful protest is something I think you’ll find that we’re all strongly in favour of. But we’re all really aware that sometimes peaceful protest is not necessarily what all protesters intend. We’ve seen a really solid example of that recently outside our House, our place of work. We’ve seen people being threatened and harassed with violence. The nooses came out on day one for journalists and politicians, and they didn’t go away until the protesters went away. Those protesters did interfere with people going about their business. They stopped schools running. They made businesses closed. We’re really clear that there was a line that was crossed where all the namastes and yoga tents in the world are not going to persuade you that these were people who had peace in their hearts and minds, and so we need to move that elsewhere. And it’s 150 metres away, maximum. Your right to protest peacefully, I would say, is one that we upheld. It’s a bit like your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.

So what we’re doing here is prohibiting actions and behaviours that cause extreme distress, as described by some of the people who presented to us. It’s worth noting that all of the healthcare providers were supportive of this legislation. We have no intention of restricting people’s rights to protest peacefully or pray quietly, but we do want to protect people who are accessing lawful healthcare and their healthcare providers. And as one myself, I can say that I directly experience some of the threats coming to me. I was vocal in my support of the provision of abortion as lawful healthcare, and so I’ve experienced personally threats from somebody who was quite cheerily doing that in front of my children. It was not an enjoyable experience, as I would encourage people to look into their hearts and ask themselves what it is they would want to achieve. What’s their goal? What do they want by actually going into that 150-metre zone, and ask themselves if it’s something that they want to support or not. I would encourage those who’ve previously maybe voted against this bill to change their minds and realise that all we’re trying to do is to keep people safe just in a really small and restricted area and not interfere with their broader rights, as has been confirmed by the Attorney-General. And with that, I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to speak in favour of this Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I understand that all ACT MPs will be voting for it, although there’s a limited number of speeches.

The genesis of this bill I had a little bit to do with. The Abortion Legislation Bill would have included the original version of “safe areas” that were in this bill before we had amendments made to it through the Health Committee. And I want to take a bit of time to explain how it is possible for someone to be stridently pro-choice and in favour of a woman’s right to choose abortion without State interference, and yet have concerns about these safe areas, and then how ACT has watched this legislation change to a point where we believe it is consistent with the values of free speech and we can support it. Altogether, a very good story. The Abortion Legislation Bill is one that I supported stridently. I was one of 20 members of the House at the time who voted for option A, which would have made abortion a choice between a woman and her doctor at any stage of pregnancy, rather than after 20 or so weeks, which we actually ended up with.

And I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I am pro-choice on this issue, for a couple of reasons. One, it just seems right that if it’s your body, it should be your choice. But when you drill into what anti-abortion laws really mean, practically, they mean that somebody wants the apparatus of the State—the police, the courts, corrections—to actively go out and force women to take pregnancies to term against their will. And I seriously struggle with why people think that would be a useful thing for the State to do. I think anyone that believes in freedom would have to ask themselves how you can really talk about freedom once you have done that. So it’s very easy for me to be pro-choice. It’s the right thing to do, and I think our country is a much better place having passed the Abortion Legislation Bill two years ago, which, effectively, decriminalised abortion, and that is something we’re proud to have supported it.

But it’s also true that it was my amendment that took safe areas out of that bill, because there’s a tension: you can be in favour of a person’s right to choose, but also be concerned about free speech. The bill, as originally introduced in this case and as a subpart of that Abortion Legislation Bill, would have said that it is prohibited to communicate with a person on any terms within a safe area. And I think it’s true—I find myself agreeing with some of the earlier speakers, and even Simon O’Connor, which is rare; the Venn diagram of beliefs that intersect for us is a very tiny sliver, it has to be said. But, nevertheless, he’s right that we have a real problem in the Western World, that people find it harder to disagree without being disagreeable, to have honest conversations and work through our problems in a way that’s respectful. And we also have a terrible habit of commodifying people into identities, rather than focusing on our universal humanity in an objective reality that we can observe and work through together as equals because we’re human. That’s a big problem, and it’s a problem throughout the West. And if we look at the situation in Europe, I think it becomes more and more important that we understand, articulate, and stand up for those basic, classical liberal values.

So when we were confronted with legislation that said a Minister of Health can define an area—a part of New Zealand, a public place—and say it’s illegal to communicate in that area, well, here’s the thing: standing up for free speech seldom involves defending people that you’d want to have over for dinner. In fact, I don’t think I’ve done any defence of free speech on behalf of anyone who I actually like, yet—but you never know; the way that this Government’s going, they might widen the range of people who need defence of free speech. And so it’s easy to say that you really detest the odious ogres who stand outside and shout at scared, often young, women who are going to have a pretty traumatic medical procedure, and abuse them because of their own sense of justice or belief or spirituality. It’s pretty easy to be opposed to all of that, but still think it would be wrong to have the gradual creep of State power to ban communication within an area. And when this bill was introduced, the Attorney-General and Crown Law advice agreed with ACT about that. They said that the word “communicate” being included was actually a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, particularly the right to freedom of expression, and it was a breach that exceeded what was demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Now, here’s the good thing—sometimes it happens: people listened. And the select committee did its job, and often select committees can function very well on these cross-partisan issues, when people take down their political party affiliations and actually work on the issue. I just wish we could do that in Health Committee sometimes—I know Chris Bishop will agree with me on that.

💬 Chris Bishop: That’d be a fine thing.

Yeah, it sure would. But the select committee listened, and what they achieved—they said, “We’re going to listen to the Attorney-General. We’re going to take the word “communicate” out.” And so our big concern about a Government banning communication, even communication that I personally don’t like—that has been resolved by the select committee changing this bill.

And what the bill now says is that if there is an abortion clinic, a premises they call it, then the Minister has the ability to define an area—doesn’t have to be a 150-metre radius, but up to 150 metres around that premise—and say this is an abortion safe zone. And in that area, you must not “obstruct a person who’s approaching, entering, or leaving”. Well, that’s reasonable. I don’t think anyone in a free society should be physically obstructed. So we support that. It’s a big tick. “Make a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a manner that’s likely to cause emotional distress”—well, frankly, you know, I would defend a lot of freedoms, but the freedom to go and video people that are going to get an abortion—that’s not of the freedoms we need to defend. I don’t think it’s a priority. In fact, I think it’s pretty grotesque. So very happy with that. And it says, “do any of the following in a safe area in a manner that could easily be seen or heard by another person who may be accessing, providing, or assisting with abortion services: advise or persuade against it; inform them about matters relating to the abortion, other than if you are actually a clinical person or engaged in the procedure; or engage in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services.”

You can’t do those things, but you can still communicate. You can still do silent prayer. You can still do things, if you really want to, and you can still communicate. There’s not a ban on communication. And if you do do those things, a police officer can come along and ask you to stop. Here’s your opportunity: just stop doing it. And if you don’t, then the law gives them the right to arrest you without warrant, and you can be fined up to $1,000. So that is how this law works. And then, every five years, the Minister has to review and check if it’s still necessary, the safe areas that have been put in place. That’s how it actually works in what you can and can’t do in these safe areas, and how they are established, and how they’re reviewed, and how the police behave in them, if necessary. And I think that is a pretty reasonable place to land. The Attorney-General has revised his opinion in light of the changes made, and said, actually, this is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.

So I think this is a very good example of how this Parliament can work: people send their representatives here, everybody has a voice, people listen, there’s deliberation, the laws can actually change and be made better and more consistent with our values and principles—such as freedom of expression—that are so sacred in this place and up and down our country, and we can get to a place where we have better laws that protect those people who just don’t want to be harassed and also not impinge on those other values that we need. We’ve found that balance. And I’m very pleased to have stood on principle to make this possible, by ensuring that a safe area provision inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was taken out of the original Abortion Legislation Bill, which I stridently supported in every other aspect, so that it could come back and be properly and separately debated and improved by a select committee and made consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That’s a very good ending for a piece of legislation. I commend Louisa Wall for her indefatigable approach to lawmaking and making this possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Knowing that this bill was coming up for its third reading, I dug an article out of an old family storage box, and it was published on Sunday, 9 August 1973, in the Sun, which is a Sri Lankan paper. It was written by the then president of the Ceylon Medical Association and entitled “The CMA President asks for liberal laws to terminate early pregnancies”. The president at the time, Dr S. Rajanayagam, was my grandfather, an obstetrician and gynaecologist, and it’s this that I dwelt on over the weekend. While I tend to approach arguments in this space in the dialogue of rights balancing, the entirety of his argument, as a medical practitioner, for liberal laws was health-bound. It was a very practical and real argument for access to healthcare.

He, unfortunately, wasn’t successful in his advocacy. Sri Lanka continues to have one of the most Draconian laws in regards to abortion, which actually dates from 1883. But reflecting on my grandfather’s advocacy made me reflect on the advocates here in New Zealand over the years who have championed women’s health issues, often in the face of aggressive and what was in some cases very personally directed opposition: Dame Margaret Sparrow, Terry Bellamak, and there are many more, including women in this House, one of whom is Louisa Wall, whose bill we usher through the House today.

Ultimately, this bill reminds us that a right to a health service means nothing without the ability to access it safely, and I do want to address briefly the apparent rights arguments that I’ve heard sitting in some of the objection to this bill, with the first argument, of course, being that freedom of speech should not be interfered with. I spoke several weeks ago to the Conversion Therapy Prohibition Bill, providing some examples of how freedom of speech is frequently limited in places like consumer law, employment law, electoral regulation, copyright, and, actually, many other areas as well. I noted especially that rights aren’t things to be verbally wielded around one’s head, and I often cringe when giants of thought like Voltaire and Mill are selectively quoted without acknowledging the broader context of their theories, which often include recognising the limits that harm can and should place on freedoms.

Rights require precision in definition and analysis in imposing what are reasonable limitations. The analysis requires us to consider, first, the definition of the right itself, which in some cases actually might limit how we understand the right, and then, if the right is engaged, we need to consider whether it’s limited in a reasonably justifiable way.

So the consideration of justifiable limitations in a free and democratic society means walking through explicitly a number of steps. The first is to establish that there is a sufficiently important objective to curtail a right, which there is in this case, in terms of allowing individuals to safely access healthcare.

The second is that there must be a rational connection between the limitation proposed and the objective sought, which, again, there is in this case, as we know that women face obstruction and harassment as they attempt to engage healthcare of this nature.

Thirdly, the limitation must be no more than is reasonably necessary to sufficiently achieve the objective, and I’ll quote Terry Bellamak here, who said, “The right of anti-abortion activists to express themselves is not being curtailed, it is [simply] being moved down the road … 150 metres. What is being curtailed is their ability to target people who are there to attend a medical appointment”. We’ve heard how the Health Committee very carefully considered this aspect of what is the reasonable limitation, and, indeed, I’ll acknowledge that there were changes made at the select committee on that front.

Fourthly, the limitation must be in due proportion to the importance of the objective, and here I want to commend the select committee for their work, again. In my view, the limitation that the select committee landed on is, in this instance, a reasonable one. In this case, this health access proposal doesn’t remove a right to free speech. It proposes reasonable, stepped-through limitations. Women should be entitled to be able to walk up to a healthcare provider’s premises without worrying about being harassed or obstructed.

Some talk about the chilling effect on freedom of speech when we put in any limitation whatsoever on the right to freedom of speech, but—let’s be honest—the absence of law in this space has created a chill. Without this change, many women who need to access safe healthcare simply wouldn’t risk it.

So I’d like to end just by offering my sincere thanks to the many advocates for women’s healthcare, both women and men, who have done the mahi to get us across many hurdles over the last decades to a place where we can usher this bill through the House today. I commend this bill to the House.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, the third reading of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I’ve enjoyed the debate. As always in these matters, it’s helpful, I think, that we have such an opportunity, in this case for me, to make a second contribution, having spoken at the start of the legislative process—so to bookend it, so to speak, with some thoughts that I’d like to share with the House and, indeed, anyone who may be watching.

First, may I place on record what I would hope would be an obvious wish that harassment not be visited upon anyone, at any time, anywhere, for any reason, but that general desire and hope is not the stuff of legislation. We are concerned, of course, in this House, or should always be concerned in this House, with the specific application and implication of laws that we pass in this place. So within my time, I’d like to focus a little bit on some arguments around what this bill might add to the statute book relative to those provisions in other laws that are already on that; second, to give a bit of context in terms of the constitutional interplay that we had with the Attorney-General’s original vet and then discussion, effectively, with the House through the select committee on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications; obviously then to look at the specific provisions of the bill, including and especially the extent to which it may capture behaviour that may or may not be intended by the Parliament to be caught; and then, finally, a reflection on the unique nature of the services that have been—protesting about the nature of the services at stake in this particular bill, as opposed to protest more generally.

First of all then, relative to existing laws, I do note that the select committee report addressed the fact that our statute book has already various pieces of legislation that substantially do cover this area. So I’m just quoting from that in a way that would more usually take place at second reading, but, noting that I didn’t speak at the second reading, they note that the Summary Offences Act 1981, to which I’d add section 4 “Offensive behaviour or language”, has provisions that are very much in the space of preventing behaviour that is deemed to be offensive, or language included; the Harassment Act 1987, the Trespass Act 1980 under which notices can be issued, and so forth.

We’ve heard from a previous contributor to the debate, who was arguing in favour of the bill, that one of the issues with such legislation is it would require evidence to be given of such wrongdoing. When the State gives itself the power to forcibly remove a person and to limit their rights in such a way as this bill is seeking to do, the giving of evidence about the things that have taken place is a feature of our system, not a bug. We should tread very carefully when we contemplate giving the power—physical, coercive power—of the State over human beings in relation to matters in which evidence is not required for the exercise in application of such force.

The second point—but actually I’ll just pause on that note briefly. I think there is a legitimate argument around the privacy aspects. I think in this country—and this is a personal view; I’m taking the liberty of expressing it under the guise of a conscience vote—but I think our privacy laws in this country are seriously deficient in many different areas. And so I would have sympathy for the view that’s expressed in the House that that the privacy of people generally needs to be protected much more rigorously than it currently is.

On the point that I’ve appealingly described as a constitutional point, but bear with me, I do want to acknowledge the interaction which I regard as very positive in itself between the Attorney-General and the Parliament through the select committee. The member in charge of the bill is nodding and I’m pleased that she acknowledges that point, and other colleagues have spoken on that—I think approvingly in every case, notwithstanding that other views on the bill may differ. So I think it’s positive that the Attorney-General, having given a report on the inconsistency of the bill as introduced with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, then became subject of the dialogue between the select committee and the Attorney-General such that he suggested, I think, a couple of amendments. I think the suggestion came from him, and I think I’m receiving affirmation again from the member in charge of the bill. The select committee responded by making, essentially, the suggestions that are amended. So I would say on that basis that the bill is better than it was. But of course, in order to cast a vote in favour of a piece of legislation, to me, at least, the test is not whether merely that it is better but that it is good enough and specifically that its positives are not outweighed by its negatives.

So in terms of the issue that was raised by the Attorney-General, his view—with which I agree, for what that’s worth—was that the phrase “communicating with” was too broad in the bill as introduced at first reading. So we have now three sets of behaviour, if you like, that are prohibited under new section 13A, set out in clause 5. The first is that a person cannot be obstructed in a safe area. Well, that’s already covered by existing law. The second is to make a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a way that might cause emotional distress. I do actually have sympathy with that. As I’ve said, I’m happy to place on record I don’t believe that such behaviour is valid anywhere in New Zealand, including in this context. So, as I said, that fits in with a more general view I have about the need to protect New Zealanders’ privacy in any kind of intimate situation, notwithstanding that such recording may take place in a public space.

Then the third set of behaviour includes a provision in new section 13A(1)(i), which I still have difficulty with and I refer back to my comments in the first reading. So it would be an offence to do any of the following, including in the one particular I wish to highlight: to “advise or persuade [person] A”—the one who may be accessing, providing, or assisting with providing abortion services—“to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services (unless the advice or persuasion is by a person who is, with the consent of A, accompanying A)”. So they have covered the consent possibility but this doesn’t preclude the possibility, or doesn’t exempt from the application of the bill, that the other parent, if I can use that shorthand, might wish to seek to persuade their partner, so to speak, against accessing abortion services in relation to the unborn child.

To me, that remains objectionable and it is, of course, entirely possible that a person—it would more typically be a male partner; not necessarily, I suppose—would wish to say, and the other person might not agree, that the abortion procedure should not take place. And we are providing a pretty heavy hand of the State on that person and preventing them from doing so with a fine of up to $1,000, the commission of an offence, and the ability of that person to be taken into custody without a warrant. So I refer there to the following provision which is new section 13B “Power of constable to arrest without warrant”. It is pretty serious stuff and as a Parliament we should take very seriously the impinging of liberty in such areas, and I don’t believe that we should legislate as lightly as it seems we are about to act in this space, bearing in mind, you know, different rights and balances that need to be struck in those areas.

I do want to acknowledge the arguments that have been made, I think on both sides of the debate, but including by proponents of the bill, that this is not about abortion, it’s not about relitigating the legislation of 2020. And I agree with that. I agree strongly that we should be considering this through the framework of rights. But nevertheless, it is. It is about abortion and the clue’s in the title of the bill; the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act is the one that is being amended. So while it is true in a way to say, as a previous contributor has, that abortion is a key medical procedure, it is unique in its own terms and that was put forward as a reason to allow this as an exception to the general rule that we allow freedom of expression.

But, actually, it’s also unique in the sense that it’s on our statute book alone as an act to end a human life without the consent of that human—other than in self-defence. I’m conscious that some might say that’s just my view. It’s also the view of science, of course, that an independent, separate, human life is involved. As I say, that’s my view; others have different views. They’re entitled to these, and those who hold the same view as me are also entitled to theirs. So for that reason, and with the caveats and qualifications that I’ve put on it, I cannot support this bill at this, the third and final reading.

Members, I’ve got one 10-minute call left; I have two speakers wishing to speak. So I propose to offer Karen Chhour five minutes and Dr Gaurav Sharma five minutes, but go second. So I call Karen Chhour.

Point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the debate be extended by 10 minutes to allow both speakers to make a 10-minute call, if they so desire.

Is there any objection? There being none, I call Karen Chhour—10 minutes.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to take a call on this from the point of view of a parent. I have two daughters, and I would like to know that when they grow up, and if they have to make a difficult decision like this, they will feel safe and they will feel like they are not going to be intimidated, harassed, or made to feel shame for what can be a very difficult time in life.

Women do not make these decisions lightly, but these are decisions that can affect us for the rest of our life no matter which way we decide to go. If we decide to keep a child, that’s a lifetime decision. If we decide not to keep a child, that can also be a lifetime decision in our minds. We never forget; we just learn to live with the decision we’ve made.

I think we hear and we see people in the public that make assumptions about a decision we’re making, without the full facts of why that decision has been made. Putting your opinions on to others may be your right, but just remember: with your right comes responsibility—comes the responsibility of understanding the damage that could be done to the person that you are obstructing, intimidating, and forcing your opinion on. They also have a right to make a decision about their body, about their future, and about their lives and how it affects the people around them. So we need to find a middle ground where both parties can have their right to freedom, to make a choice, and to decide how they feel about something, without interfering and without stopping one or the other’s right.

I have seen the effects that this has had on some women. We have a huge mental health issue in this country. When you’re dealing with a decision like this, it can affect a woman’s mental health for a very long time. They can be down on themselves, they can be questioning the decision right up to the moment they walk through that door. Who are we to interfere with that? Who are we to tell this person, “You’re wrong.”? Who are we to ask somebody to justify their decision to a stranger—to a person that has nothing to do with them?

So I would just like to remind people: yes, you have the right to disagree with abortion. But you do not have the right to abuse my daughter, to abuse me, to abuse my future grandchildren because you don’t agree with them. They have a right to freedom of movement without obstruction and without being harassed, and that’s what this bill is about. It’s not about the abortion; it’s not about that discussion any more. It’s about freedom of movement and freedom from harassment. And with that, I would like to support this bill.

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I’ve been meaning to speak in the previous readings, but have not been able to due to other parliamentary commitments but also, because of the interest that other members have shown, it has been hard to get a successful call.

I, first of all, would like to thank Louisa Wall for taking up this important cause and addressing the current gap in legislation.

While I was hearing Mr David Seymour speak today, I had to look out my window and just see if the sun had risen from the east and was actually setting in the west, because it’s not often that I agree with the comments he makes, but it’s interesting to be on the same side of history and to be supporting this very important legislation.

I know many members today have spoken for and against this bill based on personal experiences. I want to add to this discussion, based on my own experiences as a medical professional. I know one of the speakers recently talked about pseudo-academics who were involved in this bill, so I wanted to give some real-life experiences from the ground.

I want to start, first of all, by saying that in my time as a GP I have never met a person who has not taken the decision to have an abortion seriously. Every single patient I have seen who has wanted to access an abortion has not only spent a lot of time considering the decision but has also had support both psychologically through the clinic and also after long discussions, often with their own families.

What this bill is about is providing a safe area that can be no more than 150 metres from any part of a protected facility. These safe areas are designated spaces around premises where abortions are provided, where it will now become unlawful to intimidate, obstruct, or interfere with people who are there to receive abortion care or provide it.

This isn’t just about providing protection for our wāhine but it’s also for our medical professionals. Many times on my own way to work in the hospital ward, and not in the abortion clinic but a medical or often a surgical ward, I had protestors harassing myself and other staff members as we just went about our normal day entering or leaving work. I want to again reiterate that these are staff members who are not working at the abortion clinic; they were just working in other parts of the hospital, and they still got harassed. Many got harassed not only at the hospital while they were coming in or going out but also online, similar to the women who are trying to access these services—getting harassed not only at the spot but again online.

It is important that the patients have the right to access healthcare with their privacy intact and without coercion. When the bill came to the Health Committee, one of the concerns was around the right to the freedom of expression, and a lot of members today have talked about it and raised it. As a member of the Health Committee, I can assure you that the committee worked really hard to make sure that the rights to freedom and the rights of patients were balanced. This is why clause 5 inserts new section 13A, which removed the definitions of “prohibited behaviour” and “protected person”, and specifically [Audio cut] the types of behaviour that would be prohibited in a safe area. In addition to this, there was a provision made that if the patient gave their consent, that a person could carry out any of these specific prohibited activities while the patient was there, it was OK.

We also heard from people who talked about praying for patients while they are accessing these abortion services. A lot of these people were actually very well meaning. I definitely agree with the power of prayer, but I say to these people that you don’t need to be 150 metres away from the hospital to pray for someone; you can sit at home and still pray for someone and their wellbeing.

Finally, I want to say to those who are worried about the right to freedom that the decision to make regulations creating a safe area would be made on the recommendation of the Ministry of Health in consultation with the Minister of Justice. The specific size and exact location of the area would be determined on a case by case basis as appropriate for that individual facility. So what this does, then, is that the bill has a provision to make sure that our medical professionals can go to work without having to be harassed; that our wāhine can actually access healthcare in a dignified manner while having their privacy protected, like any other medical procedure, all the while making sure that the right to freedom of expression is minimally, if at all, limited.

So, with that, I want to commend Louisa Wall for bringing this very important bill to the House and I would like to highly recommend it to the House.