SpeechHon ALFRED NGARO (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I take this call to talk on the title. There have been many debates where in legislation people have then reframed the title. I do this with respect. So I look at the title and it's the Abortion Legislation Bill. But as we've progressed through the House—first reading second reading as it's come out of select committee and also committee stages—I have a concern. Out of that concern I want to sort of quote so that I substantiate when I talk about this why I think it should be reframed.I first of all want to point to the evidence that was given by the Attorney-General. And I want to quote from paragraph 22 of the evidence as the Attorney-General which he submitted to the Abortion Legislation Committee. I read this in paragraph 22: In considering limits on abortion access I conclude there are two equally important interests at play: personal bodily autonomy on the one hand; and a broad societal interest in the preservation of human life on the other." I then want to further down in that read the whole paragraph because I don't want to misquote it.CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): Well I would like you to—Hon ALFRED NGARO: This is to do with the title Madam Chair. So this is to add to the title that I'm going to pronounce to give evidence to the reasons for that title. Should I pronounce what that title is now?CHAIRPERSON (Hon Anne Tolley): I think so and then that sort of links it in.Hon ALFRED NGARO: Would that be helpful? So in order to keep it in the focus I propose that the new title should be "Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill". And the reasons for that I then quote from the Attorney-General "I conclude there are two equally important interests at play: personal bodily autonomy on the one hand and a broad societal interest in the preservation of human life on the other. I do not consider that the fetal viability alone is determinative reason to limit pregnant women's human rights. But states must none the less find some way to balance the two broader interests I have described. The broad societal interest in preserving human life is therefore a sufficiently important objective to justify a limitation on human rights and limiting access to abortion is a rational way of achieving that objective. Throughout this debate and through this legislation there haven't been the two interests at heart; there has only been the one interest. I want to put on the record here that being pro-life is not being anti-choice. Being pro-life is being pro-choice both at the same time. I disagree when people try to draw a line and say you're either pro-life or pro-choice. I believe and many who are pro-life believe in the choices of both the mother—the woman—and the child. That's what we're clearly saying. So we're saying this: where is the balance of the perspective of the voice and the understanding of the child in regards to this? Hence the reason why the title that I've submitted here is "Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill". That title is also supported by advice that has been given from the High Court. When I read from this here is what it says which I believe supports the changing of the title: "Currently our abortion law seeks to balance these competing interests by requiring each prospective abortion to qualify under statutory criteria and by making unlawful abortion subject to criminal provisions. In the words of the High Court 'the legislature has recognised through the abortion law that the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community.' "—has a claim on the conscience of the community—" 'the legislature has recognised through the abortion law that the unborn child has a claim on the conscience of the community.' We therefore consider it both unprincipled and inconsistent with aspects of our current law to entirely disregard the interests of an unborn child as [proposed in this bill]." So the changes that I propose are consistent with both legislature and the judiciary with the advice from the Attorney-General that we have not taken into account the interests of the unborn child. We have not taken into account that there are two interests here. Again as I say we are both pro-life and pro-choice—the choice of the woman absolutely; it's their democratic right. But what about the rights of the child? So therefore again my title that I would like to submit to the House—in order to reflect the truth of this legislation and the truth of this bill it should be titled the "Aborting the Rights of the Child Legislation Bill" because we are no longer hearing the voice or the concerns of the child in this legislation and in this nation many people are now starting to hear this concern and have voiced them. As I said there were over 21000 submissions—91.6 percent of medical practitioners and otherwise have said that this bill is unsafe for our community and for our nation."