Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker. Firstly I want to offer my congratulations to the member Louisa Wall and I hope that a little bit of your ballot mojo rubs off on me sometime in the future. It's a real pleasure to rise and hopefully sort out some unfinished business in this House tonight. I will be voting alongside all of my Green Party colleagues in support of this bill.From my perspective we're not debating this bill because people disagree with abortion. Possibly even more pertinently we're not debating this bill because people express their opposition to abortion. If this passes people will still be able to bait me and infuriate me on social media. They'll still be able to hold protests and public meetings or prayer sessions to express their opposition to the bodily autonomy of women and pregnant people. They'll even be able to hand out baby dolls and display wildly misrepresentative photos of abortions in public and call pregnant people murderers. It's just that these activities might have to be 150 metres down the road away from the pregnant people at a time of crisis needing to access a health service.The rights of anti-abortion activists from my perspective are absolutely not being curtailed; they're just being moved along a bit. What is being limited is their ability to target people trying to access or working in abortion services. These are private medical decisions and we should all be able to make them as the High Court in Australia put it without haranguing".I really just want to recognise that for some pregnant people having an abortion is not a stressful experience. For them going through that gauntlet will probably be the most stressful part of the process. But that is not universal and there is no way of predicting that. I have supported people through abortions under general anaesthetic where they were pregnant as a result of rape when they were unconscious. The degree of trauma in that moment through that period of time was extreme. We heard in the select committee of people where it was a deeply deeply wanted pregnancy but they had to choose to end it to be able to prevent further pain. Do we really in this House want to sanction the targeting of people in those moments of their life with messages of hate messages that misrepresent them as murderers and those that convey a message from society saying they are judged? I do not believe that is consistent with freedom of speech or a decent society. I absolutely hold the right for people to hold those views but not to target them at people at a time of really personal need.I also just want to take a second to say: imagine if we changed the context of this away from an abortion. Imagine if this was about someone having anxiety and their therapist's location was known and regularly surrounded by a group of people who believe anxiety was a sign of possession by the Devil and that that view was once pre-science generally accepted by society. So that person with anxiety probably had a degree of ambivalence around their own experience of that illness. Those people targeting them would be drawing attention to them and the fact that they had anxiety—making that public; undermining their right to privacy. They might be offering to cast out their demons—surely a peaceful act; an expression of a world view. But really can we consider it that when it is targeted at that individual? I say no."