Loheni AgnesAGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I acknowledge first the over 25000 New Zealanders who took the time to make a submission on this bill. Of those an overwhelming 91.6 percent opposed this bill. I'd also particularly like to acknowledge the many brave women who came forward to share their abortion stories with the Abortion Legislation Committee either in writing or in person. Women from both sides of this debate came forward. This is an issue that dredges up a lot of pain and hurt and clearly still a lot of healing is required for many of them.Leading up to the introduction of this bill Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern stated that she wanted abortion decriminalised. I don't agree with her. This has always been a solution looking for a problem. No woman has ever been criminalised in New Zealand for having an abortion. Not one. So not only do we have a solution looking for a problem to solve but this bill stretches itself to the furthest reaches of abortion liberalisation.This bill seeks to strip unborn babies of what little recognition and protection they had left in the law. In decriminalising women who seek an abortion the sad reality of this bill is that it dehumanises the unborn baby by framing abortion via termination as a health issue. Further this bill not only infringes on a health professional's right to conscientious objection it also seeks to stamp out New Zealanders' democratic right to freedom of speech and expression which includes the right to peaceful protest. Most harrowing for me this bill frees up post - 20 week abortions to the point that any measured reading of the bill can only conclude that it will allow abortion on demand up to birth.As a member of the Abortion Legislation Committee I was not able to effect any meaningful change to this bill despite an overwhelming number of submissions against it. As a consequence I wrote a minority view to ensure those views that opposed were heard.In replacement section 11 inserted by clause 7 of this bill it gives full effect to abortions post - 20 weeks gestation. This stands in stark contrast to the hollow assurances that the Hon Andrew Little gave when he stood before the House to present this bill at the first reading. There is nothing in section 11 that the Minister of Justice can point to that defines when an abortion can proceed and more importantly when it cannot. These are vague generalisations that use loose and broad criteria for post - 20 week abortions. As the Minister has also defined I do not agree that these are better criteria: Clinically appropriate" having regard to the physical and mental health of the woman and the most nebulous of all "overall well-being"—terms so broad as to be legally meaningless. The current law is clear that abortion after 20 weeks is only available to save the life of the woman or to prevent severe permanent injury to her physical or mental health. These are robust terms that include the awful situation when a mum is carrying a baby that is simply not viable outside the womb.The current law also requires a sign-off by two certifying consultants. In oral submissions Dr Aimee Kettoola a general paediatrician spoke about the undue burden this loose criteria wellbeing will place on doctors. In her words "As a doctor I don't even know what that means." She also argues that the broad and loose criteria will make late-term abortions easier as it significantly lowers the threshold for eligibility. It would be difficult to see any instances where abortion could reasonably be refused by any medical practitioner given the terminology of criteria in this bill before us today. This leaves health practitioners dangerously exposed should they deem that an abortion for that woman post - 20 weeks is not appropriate.I do not support the amendments in section 11 as they have added nothing. They do not strengthen the criteria at all. For example we now also have in section 11 that the qualified health practitioner must consult at least one other qualified health practitioner. The bill does not define what that consultation should look like. That is not two doctors taking responsibility and oversight over this serious decision. What happens if the second qualified health practitioner does not agree with the first and does not agree that abortion is warranted? We don't know. The bill is silent on that. It is not unreasonable to think that two doctors may not agree on the wellbeing criteria.Further in section 11 it also says that the health practitioner must have regard to the gestational age of the fetus. Again this criteria is meaningless because it is silent on how that regard should be taken account for. So these are words that are utterly meaningless in practice.The New Zealand Medical Association recommended that the statutory test for the period post - 20 weeks needed to be narrower. They recommended a point of distinction in the legislation a statutory test at say 21 weeks and 38 weeks. There is no distinction or upper limit in this bill. Some in the House will say that I am scaremongering. I urge those members who take this view to look closely at the meaning of section 11 and tell me how a different conclusion could possibly be drawn. How can one doctor deny a woman an abortion under these criteria?I turn now to sections 19 and 20 in clause 7. There are provisions around conscientious objection—except that there are no provisions for conscientious objection. The employer can discriminate against an employee if they deem that their conscientious objection would unreasonably disrupt provision of health services. The bill does not define "unreasonable disruption". It is vague. A submission by a legal organisation told the committee that the phrase was too subjective and it doesn't require an employer to prove that the objection would disrupt their business.I have outlined a lot to be alarmed about in this bill. I am deeply saddened at this bill's blatant attack on the right to life and recognition for our unborn babies. If we can discard the life of an unborn baby—if we can diminish their value and their humanity to the point that we no longer call them babies then we have lost our own humanity because they are the smallest versions of us. Late-term surgical abortions are nothing short of barbaric; there is nothing kind in it. A truly progressive society protects the rights of all its members down to the smallest and most vulnerable—the unborn child. I take a stand for that unborn child. I oppose this bill. Thank you. [Applause in gallery]SPEAKER: Order! Order! I just make it very clear to people in the gallery that there are to be no interventions. Anyone who intervenes again will leave."