Little AndrewABORTION LEGISLATION BILLSecond ReadingHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a second time.This bill was introduced on 5 August last year and was referred to the Abortion Legislation Committee a special committee set up specifically for consideration of this bill. The committee was established by the House precisely for that purpose. I want to thank members of the committee in particular the chair the Hon Ruth Dyson and the deputy chair the Hon Amy Adams for the work they did. They received more than 25000 submissions. They heard from more than 130 people during 30 hours of oral evidence.This bill and this topic are a very sensitive topic. It's a very difficult topic for many citizens and many many members of this House to discuss and debate but debate it we must because this legislation that we're now considering—the changes to which we are considering—are more than 40 years old and it is timely and appropriate to consider it.I want to thank members of the committee for conducting their work in a thoughtful and respectful way and I want to thank the many members of the public too whose submissions were thoughtful; those who have written to myself and I know many other Ministers and MPs who've done so in a respectful way. That is the way we should conduct a debate on matters such as this.Many members of the public who wrote to the committee and made submissions to the committee made some very important points and I think it is reflected in the changes that the committee has agreed to in the bill. Those who submitted to the committee also included those with expertise in the area with daily practice in the area. That includes the Abortion Supervisory Committee regulatory bodies such as the Medical Council of New Zealand abortion providers and many women who shared their personal experiences. For many of them that was a difficult thing to do.I have previously spoken about the reasons why I believe the law governing abortion needs to be changed not the least of which is that the legislation is so old but also the fact that the framework for abortion in New Zealand right now is set out in both the Crimes Act 1961 and the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 and a woman seeking an abortion should not have her actions stigmatised as if she were committing a criminal act—she is not; she is making a decision about herself and her body.The law as it is at the moment is complex and bureaucratic and is difficult for women seeking an abortion. A pregnant woman has to go through multiple steps to obtain an abortion and that delay—and we have to remember too that for New Zealand compared to the rest of the world the time or duration within the pregnancy by which a New Zealand woman gets an abortion is one of the longest in the world and that adds to their stress. It's not good for them. It's not good for health practitioners. It's not good for New Zealand. The proposals in the 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.Following the select committee process the Abortion Legislation Committee has recommended changes to improve access to abortion services which it considers are in the best interests of women. I want to now just go through some of the changes that the committee has recommended because I think they are good changes and reflect the sentiment on average that has been expressed by the many New Zealanders who contacted the committee during that phase.In relation to abortion after 20 weeks in response to submissions received the revised bill changes the test that a qualified health practitioner must follow if providing abortion services to a woman who is more than 20 weeks pregnant. The test in the bill as introduced required a qualified health practitioner to determine whether the abortion is appropriate in the circumstances with regard to the woman's physical and mental health and wellbeing. The revised test expands some of the wording from the original bill. In fact the requirements now include a requirement that the health practitioner regards the abortion as clinically appropriate the health practitioner has to consult another health practitioner—so it's not just one but two—and of course that reflects current practice anyway. We have to remember that for women seeking an abortion at 20 weeks generally speaking that is a wanted pregnancy but there is something seriously wrong either with the fetus or with the woman's health. This is a very difficult point at which to make this decision and I hope that people embarking on this debate will recognise that. That is now reflected in the changes that the committee has proposed.They add in a requirement that the medical professional has to have regard to his or her relevant legal professional and ethical standards to which they are subject and also consider the woman's physical health mental health and overall wellbeing and of course the gestational age of the fetus. I go back to the point that I just made: women at 20 weeks into the pregnancy do not make a decision on a whim. In the end this is about having a legal framework within which women can make these decisions and are and should be trusted to make these decisions as you would expect any human being who is confronted with a situation to do so. I note that the committee intended to reflect in legislation the process that already occurs when women are considering abortion at this stage of the pregnancy.I want to turn briefly to sex selection because this was an issue that the committee considered and it was raised in submissions. The committee was concerned about submissions made that some might consider an abortion on the grounds of gender biased sex selection and they point to evidence overseas. The committee concluded that there was no evidence of this happening in New Zealand but they wanted a statement in the bill that reflected the generally New Zealand view on this which is that we don't tolerate sex selection as a reason for an abortion.I turn briefly to safe areas because I know this is an area to test those who are vigilant about and are champions of freedom of speech in this country and that's very important and we need those voices—they're absolutely vital. The truth is that there are women who are seeking abortions and going to facilities where they are prevailed upon in an unseemly and entirely inappropriate way and they should not be subject to that sort of behaviour. Now the changes that the committee have recommended in this regard are to shift the offence from a reckless sort of standard to an objective test; it's now expressed as an ordinary reasonable person test. That is it's an offence to intimidate interfere or obstruct a person in a safe area in a manner that the ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person. Protected person is defined as either a medical practitioner going to a facility from which an abortion might be carried out or a person who is seeking an abortion. The committee has also inserted a requirement that each safe area is reviewed within five years of the area's establishment. There is a process to go through to establish a safe area it's done by the Minister of Health in consultation with the Minister of Justice there has to be good reasons for it it has to be done by Order in Council and it is reviewed on a periodic basis.Let me turn to conscientious objection because this is another sensitive area too particularly for health practitioners who do not support the idea of an abortion. For contraception and sterilisation services the person with an objection to dispensing advice to a patient had to tell the patient how to access the contact details of another provider of the services; for abortion services the person objecting would have to tell the patient how to access a list of service providers. The committee has simplified this process for someone with a conscientious objection to ensure timely access for the person seeking services. The revised process is that the conscientious objector must tell the person seeking an abortion or sterilisation or contraception services how to access the contact details of another person who is a provider of the service requested.The committee also picked up on an existing provision in the current Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act related to conscientious objection that had not been amended in the bill as it was introduced. This section regards supply of contraception to victims of sexual violation. The committee has aligned the requirements for practitioners with conscientious objections in these instances to the process set out in the bill.There are also revised provisions in relation to conscientious objection and employment. The aim is that for bigger services where staff who have a conscientious objection can be redeployed they are deployed. Where that is not possible because of the size of the business then that is a matter which the business has to ensure that they can continue to provide their service and that may bear upon the employment of a person with a conscientious objection. There is a provision in the bill that requires the Director-General of Health to ensure that abortion services are provided equitably across the country.We need a law where a pregnant woman can and should be trusted to make the decision for themselves about an abortion in consultation with their health practitioner. This bill does that and on that basis I commend this bill to the House.