Dyson RuthHon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I just begin by acknowledging and thanking the Hon Andrew Little for introducing this long overdue legislation to the House. I've been in this Parliament for 26½ years and it's been discussed in every caucus I've been in. It's only now that the time has been considered right.I also want to acknowledge all the members of the Abortion Legislation Committee. We were a select committee of seven representing every party in this Parliament. We had fundamentally three different views about the legislation which you might think would've been awkward. But actually the behaviour of the select committee members should be acknowledged and admired. Despite deeply opposing views there was almost without exception an atmosphere of respect and tolerance of each other's views. I think that's the way that our select committees should model themselves because we are a Parliament full of different ideas and on sensitive and contentious issues like this we should show each other the most respect. So I want to just acknowledge all the members of the select committee.I want to thank our clerks who did an extraordinary job trying to piece together the various views and questions and inquiries that we made during our time. I want to also acknowledge our officials from Justice and Health. We had officials from both the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Health. They did amazing work and research for us. I want to acknowledge the parliamentary counsel who were quite challenged by some of our requests. I guess that will become obvious as the debate goes on. But we did some things in this bill that were new for New Zealand because we wanted to have conditions placed on parts of the legislation in a way which hadn't been done before. I'm very proud of the work we did in that space.I want to thank all the submitters particularly those with medical expertise or social work experience people who practise in this field who came and told us what life was really like. For many of us on the select committee that was new information. I want to thank the submitters who gave their personal experiences. They highlighted for us the fundamental flaws in the current law. The submitters came and told us harrowing and horrific stories of delays of humiliation of bullying of the trauma of having a post - 20 week abortion.The situation that David Seymour outlined brought nearly all the select committee members to tears because it was just so wrong. To hear some of that debate repeated in the House makes me really sad. One of the submitters that came to our committee told us that post - 20 week abortions would be used as convenience. I find that as offensive as can be.There is nothing more offensive than being told that a woman would wake up one morning 30 weeks pregnant and say I'm over this. I'm going to have an abortion." Then to layer on top of that the accusation that a doctor would then say "That meets my professional and ethical standards." and would go ahead with that termination—I don't know who the people who say that know. Who do you know that would do that? Nobody. It's just a lie. On any topic I think it's important to tell the truth but on a topic as important as this as sensitive and as contentious as this we should just tell the truth.Another submitter who should know better said that doctors would be required by law to abort a baby in the birth canal. That is a lie. It is an outrageous thing to say. It totally undermines the quality of debate in this Parliament and for a former Prime Minister to say it I find deeply disturbing. It is a lie; it just isn't true. Let's all tell each other the truth in this debate. Our democracy deserves it.The opposition to this bill came not from people who oppose this bill but from people who oppose abortion full stop—people who if they were being given the contraception sterilisation and abortion legislation would oppose it. The same thing happened in the marriage equality bill. People came and said "You've got civil unions. Why would you want marriage equality?" They opposed civil unions as well. It's exactly the same frame. They have a right to their view; I don't deny that at all. But they weren't opposing this legislation; they were opposing abortion at all in New Zealand.I want to endorse the comments from the Hon Amy Adams and Greg O'Connor on that very point. That was why many of the submitters who weren't invited to be heard would not have added to the consideration of this legislation—because they weren't submitting on this legislation. They were submitting in opposition to abortion start and finish.I want to talk briefly in the time I've got about some of the more difficult issues. The issue of sex selection was very difficult for us to determine where to go. None of us—and this was one of the rare unanimous views of the committee—want sex selection used as the basis of abortion in New Zealand. It isn't our culture and we don't want it ever to be.So we have put in the legislation a process by which the Director-General of Health will monitor sex birth rates and if it's clear that this terrible practice is being introduced at all into New Zealand he or she will make recommendations to the Minister of Health to respond to that. But that has to be a very clear message from this Parliament: sex selection should not be used as the basis of abortion.We were very concerned about the inequities between services that district health boards provide and I am still concerned that with the generous and fair conscientious objection provisions that we have introduced into the legislation—they're not too dissimilar from the current regime—there will still remain inequities in provision of services. I am particularly concerned about women seeking emergency contraception and not being able to get that contraception within the best time frame which is 72 hours. So that's something that I'm sure we can debate further down the track. The conscientious objection provisions generally raised some concerns for us in regards to equity of access.The only issue on which Agnes Loheni and David Seymour agreed was they both opposed safe areas. I'm not sure where that's going to go during the debate but it was an interesting alliance for quite similar reasons. But again it's a debate worth having. I agree with David Seymour: we don't have the intensity of opposition that they do in America but I feel very strongly that everyone in New Zealand has the right to perform and access health services that are delivered legally. It's clear in some parts of the country that that is very difficult for them. We also made a requirement to collect information in the same way as the current regime does but through the committee—which of course this legislation abolishes.I want to just conclude by saying that while this debate was respectful it was also difficult for all of us. We felt we were taking a needed step but one which we wanted to take very carefully in in a very considered way and I think the committee did a very good job of that. We want to see a country where there are very very few abortions. Our numbers are heading in the right directions now; I want to commend Pharmac for introducing long-acting contraception. We need more education we need better access to contraception but we will still need abortion services—the fewer the better but the earlier more equitable and safer the better. That's what this legislation seeks to deliver and I commend it to the House."