Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair and I'll try and keep this as a brief contribution. But I did want to address the issue of parental notification and the requirement for that because somebody raised it with me over the dinner break. I really understand from a parent's perspective and when you've got a great relationship with your kid and you love your kid the thought about your child being in distress and going to access healthcare and potentially having an abortion without telling you is a really distressing concept. But I want to reassure those members that that is part of the reason why—to protect that relationship and the wellbeing of a kid is one of the reasons we should not change the law to require parental notification. The research overseas tells us really clearly that most young people do tell a parent. Of those who are 14 or 15 it's between 74 and 90 percent of them who tell at least one parent and for most of those who don't it's because there is a risk. The research also backs up what has been my experience of working in youth health. There are a lot of young women who would come in to the centre—and it was a confidential centre—and discuss and get a pregnancy test on the basis that they knew it was confidential. They would not have come through the door if it was not. They didn't know how to have the conversation with their parents who they really respected. They didn't want their parents' view of them to be changed. It was only through the consultation with the doctor that they had learnt how they could have that conversation to be able to tell their parents. Unless we protect their confidentiality those young women—history tells us research tells us experience tells us—are not going to tell their parents and they're going to take it into their own hands and lives will be lost. So this parental notification it feels counterintuitive but it's the best way to actually find out if your kid needs that help at that time and to protect your relationship.I'd also just like to speak to some of the other points that have been raised around disability and also echo the points that were made by the Hon Ruth Dyson as well as the Minister of Justice previously in particular. I also just point to the trouble of having the definition in here which is being suggested because at the moment this is not in the legislation. We are not putting anything to do with the fetus as grounds for abortion.We've heard some evidence that liberalisation in Victoria led to an increase in post - 20 weeks. That was reported that fact but the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology fact-checked that and it is not the reality. What happened was after their law was liberalised in 2008 for five years there was an increase but after that time it has gone down below pre-liberalisation levels. So actually there has not been an increase at all. In fact there has been a decrease.People also need to remember that when you're looking at the grounds and what's recorded as the grounds we know with our legislation the reasons that are recorded match the legislation. They don't match the reality. In New Zealand almost all of the grounds the majority of grounds are on mental health reasons because that's the legislative vehicle to be able to access a termination. That's not the reality. We know and we've heard from women again and again that they are feeling as if they have to lie to be able to access those essential abortion care services. So do be very careful when you're reading data that shows a change in the reasons after liberalisation because it probably just reflects a change in the legislation not the reality.I think this is important to note because there is misinformation out there. I want people to know that we've looked at the data that people are raising as concerns and we've checked it and it doesn't hold up. We would not be supporting legislation if we had any evidence whatsoever that it would have an impact against people with disabilities or girls and the status of women.