Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Madam Chair. I'm speaking in the committee stage of the Abortion Legislation Bill and I would just like to comment on some of Minister's remarks leading into this part. The Minister has said with specific reference to the Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—SOP 460—that it is a massive leap backwards and that the challenges are administrative ones. I would say that this actually is a key part of the bill. This proposed new section 11 in clause 7 on post - 20 weeks amends the critical part of the bill which makes this one of the most liberal abortion regimes ever. So before I get on to my SOP I'm just going to refer to some of the select committee parts to this. As you know 25000 submissions were made on this bill with 91.6 percent opposed. There is overwhelming public interest in this bill. In particular in terms of assessing the concerns of submitters on this bill many—and I would say that it would be in the frame of 60 to 70 percent of those opposed—have concerns around the statutory tests of the bill. The comment was made that they thought it would lead to abortion on demand up to birth. So there is a general consensus that abortions after 20 weeks should be limited to extreme situations and actually the Minister of Justice himself Mr Andrew Little has stated that late-term abortions are rare and should only be sought in extreme circumstances but that is exactly the opposite of what this bill seeks to achieve. In particular I refer to new section 11 in clause 7 of this bill. New section 11 in this bill—and it's stated in my minority view as well. I gave an assessment of a better reflection of what I thought was coming through the submissions. In particular one of the changes in new section 11 was to add the word clinically" to make it "clinically appropriate"—that a health practitioner must reasonably believe that abortion is clinically appropriate. That is very vague and ambiguous. It is not the same as medically necessary. Further down in section 11 it says that "a qualified health practitioner … must consult at least 1 other qualified health practitioner:" and I've spoken in the House about this part before. There is no definition of what that consultation must entail. Does the second doctor cite the medical records or even have a consultation in person with the woman? There is no accountability or checks and balances on whether that consultation actually happens. The bill is silent on what happens if the second doctor does not agree with the first doctor. So in effect that part is meaningless and doesn't add anything into putting some real boundaries or accountability into the post - 20 week criteria. So in essence it is actually still one doctor. Overseas jurisdictions: if we look across to Australia the Northern Territory Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia—all these Australian jurisdictions have a requirement for two qualified medical practitioners for later-stage abortions after either 16 weeks 20 weeks or 24 weeks. New section 11 also had an addition in subsection (2) which was to have regard to the gestational age of the fetus. This part is utterly meaningless and does not set any upper limits on when abortion can take place. I've highlighted two key flaws in this section. The criteria is so broad and subjective that it is legally meaningless and the tests in section 11 cannot be enforced in practice. There is no meaningful ability to review a medical practitioner's application of this test which is why I say that section 11 is critical and categorically I will stand again by my statement—that is abortion on demand up to birth. I oppose this bill."