Little AndrewPart 1 Amendments to Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Madam Chair. I expect we're going to have a good intense scrutiny of this bill this afternoon so I want to just make some opening remarks. There are a number of Supplementary Order Papers (SOPs). I won't comment in detail on each of them but I just wanted to make a number of opening points. First of all the way the debate has been conducted over this bill so far has I think been constructive. I know that there are very strong views held and there are members of the House—like many members of the public—who are opposed in principle to the idea of abortions but that is not what this bill is about. We have a legal framework in place in this country for women to get an abortion. Roughly 13000 abortions are carried out in New Zealand today and this bill is about changing that framework and the objective of it is to make it safer for women—to make it safer for women by enabling women to get access to an abortion earlier than is currently the case because the average time in which women in New Zealand get an abortion is one of the longest in the OECD. So that is what that is about.It is clear that from some of the proposed amendments and the SOPs that some members are keen to see some further hurdles or obstacles put in the way when a woman is making the choice and the process of making the choice to get an abortion and dealing with her medical practitioner. Some of the Supplementary Order Papers set out in very prescriptive detail what medical practitioners might have to do or should do in the event that they are consulted by a woman seeking an abortion.I make the point in principle that it is not appropriate in my view for legislation to start prescribing to medical practitioners—qualified medical practitioners—how they should conduct themselves in an age when they not only have high-quality training but they are subject to professional standards in each of their professions subject to the oversight of the Health and Disability Commissioner and the powers of investigation there as well as the standards set by usually their employers—whether it's DHBs whether it's private clinics and private medical practices. So simply setting out a bunch of prescriptive requirements in my view is not helpful and I certainly won't be supporting any that do that.There is a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Agnes Loheni—I think it's Supplementary Order Paper 460—that sets out effectively three different tests depending on the point during the pregnancy at which a woman seeks an abortion. The first is up to nine weeks the second is between nine and 20 weeks and the third is following 20 weeks. I say of that Supplementary Order Paper that it puts in place obstacles that do not exist today. Supplementary Order Paper 460 represents a massive leap backwards in terms of the ability of women in this country to get medical advice and support and help in relation to an abortion than is the case today. It restricts the administration of an abortion after nine weeks to what is described as a specialist medical practitioner". Those specialist medical practitioners are not widely available—certainly in many rural areas around New Zealand—and would impose significant burdens on women in many parts of the country. So I certainly won't be supporting that.I go to the Supplementary Order Paper 462 from Joanne Hayes in relation to determining when a woman has the capacity to give informed consent and I simply make the point that that is already covered off in our legislation. I know that there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Nicky Wagner that seeks a change of language. But again notwithstanding the language it is a provision that is already catered for in the current legislation. I have been handed a further amendment in the name of Simon O'Connor which refers to "Care of children born after abortion". So this refers to—Simon O'Connor: Have a read and come back to me. Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I would like to see the science about a child being born after an abortion so I'll put that aside for now and maybe comment on that a little later. I think it is very important that when we are making our considerations about the content of this bill and the Supplementary Order Papers in relation to it we do actually observe what the medicine and the science says. I say that particularly in relation to some of the Supplementary Order Papers that touch on the issue of what happens in the post - 20 week period because when you look at the incidence of abortion at that point which is a very very very small number and you understand the background of women who seek an abortion at that point these are wanted pregnancies. These are situations where women because of their health and possibly sometimes the health of the fetus are put in that impossible situation of having to make a very very difficult decision and adding further requirements and obstacles to that point or even referring to the idea of a child being born after an abortion shows a lack of understanding about the reality of women in New Zealand today who seek an abortion. Women at post - 20 weeks seeking an abortion do not do so willingly. They do so with a great sense that their health is at risk and it is an extraordinarily difficult time for those women. I do not think this House should make assumptions about women in that situation. That has the potential to look at its most charitable extraordinarily patronising but actually in reality it is showing a total lack of understanding about the reality of that situation. I have great respect for my colleague the member Simon O'Connor but I think he is ill-informed in his amendment. I go to some of the other Supplementary Order Papers and Supplementary Order Paper 469 from Chris Penk which relates to the law related to conscientious objection. It is introducing an additional path for seeking damages in employment situations. That is already taken care of by existing law. If someone has been poorly treated and wrongly treated and unlawfully treated in their employment there are ample paths to take. One is under the Human Rights Act if it relates to discrimination and the other is under the Employment Relations Act. If I turn to the—and that may in fact be in Part 2 so I won't refer to those. I've made some general comments about some of the Supplementary Order Papers but depending on how the debate takes place I will respond to specific points made about specific Supplementary Order Papers. But I emphasise the point that those SOPs that actually seek to add more prescription in circumstances where none can usefully be added because of existing guidelines rules regulations and professional requirements in addition to the moral obligations and requirements of the medical health practitioners I personally certainly won't be supporting those. In the end this is a bill about dealing with a piece of legislation that is more than 40 years old and that is clearly outdated and for which the time has arrived for it to be updated and to be modernised to allow women in the modern age to with the help of their health professional make what is always a difficult decision and to get access to the healthcare and support that they need when they make that decision. I would hope that this House has moved on from an age of the past dominated by the thinking of men that women need to be sort of mollycoddled and cared for and over-regulated and totally regulated. We live in an age now where women are capable of making decisions about themselves and their health and our legislation should reflect that. Our abortion legislation should reflect that too and that is the spirit with which we should consider the Supplementary Order Papers in relation to this bill. I go back to the point I made before. I know there are members here who simply do not like the idea of abortions at all. That debate was won and lost in 1977 when the then relevant Minister Venn Young shepherded through the 1977 legislation. It was accepted that it was a legitimate choice for women to make and to seek healthcare and advice. A framework was set up in 1977 to do that and it is now time to bring that framework into the modern age which is what this bill seeks to do. I look forward to the remaining debate."