Wall LouisaLOUISA WALL (Labour): I move That the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.Tēnā koutou katoa tēnā koe e te Mangai o te Whare. Tēnā koe Dame Margaret Sparrow. Tēnā koe Terry Bellamak. So why do we need safe areas or 150-metre zones around abortion facilities? I want to quote Shaniqua. Shaniqua participated in the Stuff 2019 investigation into the Abortion Legislation Bill and she said: On the day of the procedure there were Christians lining the entrance to the hospital protesting against abortions. The Crimes Act was a favourite for them to throw at us young women having to go past them. The 'hallway of shame' as I would learn it was dubbed by the nurses inside. They were harassed as well … I remember being so scared. It was tough enough having to make this decision … and spent weeks in absolute terror crying thinking about life and what it would look like if I had a baby then crying again because I couldn't even keep a goldfish alive for three weeks … For years I really did believe I was a murderer. I can see everything for what it is now and I do hope for young women going through this that their experience is vastly different from mine."I also asked the library to look at the history of what I want to term "condoned violence against women". It was very interesting because they provided me with quite a few quotes from a woman called Alison McCulloch who wrote a book called Fighting to Choose: The Abortion Rights Struggle in New Zealand. In the 1980s McCulloch notes "Although in the early 1970s there had been harassment of doctors arson attacks threats and pickets particularly around the Auckland Medical Aid Centre in Auckland and often by unknown perpetrators it wasn't until the late 80s that direct action to shut clinics and physically prevent women from accessing them moved to the forefront." And during the 1980s and 1990s she noted that the Women's National Abortion Action Campaign wrote of patients being photographed as they went into clinics having their number plates taken down and subsequently seeing placards bearing their names. The Sunday Star-Times reported several cases of harassment including that of a 26-year-old patient who was recognised by a protester and who returned from the clinic to find her mother waiting with a Catholic priest. Some women were subjected to phone calls visits to their homes by anti-abortion activists and threats that their families would be told.Why do we need safe areas? Well actually the game's changed. Abortion is not a crime. It was in the Crimes Act; it's not any more. Abortion is a health issue between a woman and her doctor. So women have rights actually as patients. So if we look at the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights—the code applies to both public and private facilities and to paid and unpaid services. So if you look at those rights. Right number one: you must always be treated with respect. Right number two: you should never be discriminated against or harassed. Right number three: the services you receive should respect your dignity.So within the context of this bill there are obviously New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 considerations about civil and political rights that we as New Zealanders have. I want to focus on section 9 and that's the "Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment". I guess by definition can you say that women are being re-traumatised because they've made a decision and have to run the gauntlet with people calling them murderers and showing them pictures of dead fetuses? Is that cruel and degrading? Well actually I say it is. So ensuring economic social and cultural rights we should look at—and this is the definition; it include the rights to adequate food housing education and health. I think that if you look at section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA) there is I believe a case to be made about dignified access to health which is not listed in NZBORA. But it's relevant because from a social and cultural rights perspective reproductive rights absolutely have been reinforced by the United Nations and also by the World Health Organization which defines reproductive rights as the "rights … on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly … the number spacing and timing of their children." They also include the right of all "to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination coercion and violence." And women's reproductive rights may include the right to legal and safe abortion.I also think if you look at what Shaniqua said that actually the rights of workers have been completely nullified. They've not even been considered within the context of workers every day at those abortion facilities having to go into those facilities and do their job. I found it really interesting on WorkSafe's website that they have Violence at work: customer service areas and I like their definition because it says "Violence can take many forms – ranging from physical assault and verbal abuse to intimidation and low-level threatening behaviour. Violence or threats of violence are never acceptable." So I think there are two dimensions to this bill: one is obviously the woman or the pregnant person who's trying to access a health service; and the other actually is the workers at those facilities. And I know through talking to Jill Ovens who is involved with the midwives and also other representatives of our New Zealand Council of Trade Unions women's caucus and particularly the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc. that they have huge concerns for their workers and they will be making submissions on this bill.I just finally want to highlight that the Australians have dealt with this issue. They have safe areas in their bills and there was a case that went to the Australian High Court and it was about the justified limitation of that 150-metre safe area. And this is what they noted: "To force a political message upon another person is inconsistent with the human dignity of that person. While there is an interest to be protected in fostering free expression and political comment by members of the community the Court argued that this is not to be interpreted as putting an obligation on anyone else in the community to receive such messages. Moreover the court ruled a safe zone does not unfairly and unequally put at a disadvantage the views of the anti-abortion movement. In terms of content the Court pointed out the safe zone is completely viewpoint neutral. No views about abortion pro or con can be expressed within them." And therein lies the issue. We're not limiting people's ability to express themselves. This isn't a freedom of expression issue. What we're saying is within a 150-metre zone of accessing a health service nobody has the right—nobody has the right—to question a woman's right to choose abortion as a health service or a pregnant person's right to choose abortion as a health service. Fundamentally it's our bodies—women's bodies; it's our choice—women's choice. Kia ora."