Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I'm happy to take a call to respond to a number of speakers but I'll start with Simeon Brown's contribution just now which requires me to address Greg O'Connor's latest amendment which does remove the cumulative requirements to justify an abortion after 20 weeks. But what it effectively does is returns us to the status quo and the challenge in relation to that is the very reason—and as so many women told both the Law Commission when it did its inquiry and indeed the Abortion Legislation Committee is the current law requires women to lie to get an abortion. It requires women to lie and to say they would have some serious mental health condition as a result of it. So the whole intention was to move away from there. Even at the post - 20 week level even where women are not required to lie let's remember that at that point the decision is about a wanted pregnancy and the woman has been thrown into a health crisis that calls on her to confront a decision about abortion. So to Mr Brown and to others who say Give us an example of why it shouldn't carry on." it's because life has moved on. Our understanding has moved on. Women do not at a whim decide at 20 weeks or 24 weeks that that's it—they've had enough of this they're out of here. That's not how life works. The law should reflect the way people actually live their lives and should reflect the way that women can be trusted to make decisions about their bodies. That's what the law should reflect; not some sort of male paradigm that doesn't trust women and wants to have a whole heap of obstacles and hoops that women have to go through. That's the difference. That's what people asked for. That's what the law change is reflecting. That's what the Law Commission inquiry threw up. That's what the select committee heard. That is what the bill is that came before this House and it is not for me to justify that any longer—that has been justified already. It is incumbent on members who want to retain the status quo or go even further backwards to justify why their view of women and why it is they cannot trust women means that the rest of this House should legislate accordingly. I reject it entirely—I reject it entirely. I've dealt with Greg O'Connor's latest amendment. Jan Logie made a contribution and members will decide whether or not they want to change the language. As I've said the bill got to a point as a result of compromises from a range of people across the political spectrum that gave us the bill we've got now and I think that is the best way to achieve enduring change. I acknowledge the contribution of Louisa Wall. I acknowledge the contribution of Alfred Ngaro. Again I say Alfred Ngaro has misconceived the situation. Of course our health system should be reflective of our Treaty-based multicultural world that we're in and our legislation does that. The legislation that deals with the health system does that. It calls upon health providers to be sensitive to different cultures but principally our Treaty obligations in our Treaty partnership. But this is legislation covering a decision that a woman makes in conjunction with her health professional about a medical procedure that she is considering undergoing and that is abortion. That is not a matter for the Treaty. Where the Treaty is relevant is where that woman is able to go. Is she able to go to a practitioner who has been trained in a way that is culturally sensitive to her needs to an institution that is culturally sensitive to her needs and to a system that is culturally sensitive to her needs? Those are the system issues which our Treaty obliges us to ensure is sensitive to our Treaty obligations and to other cultural needs. I repeat with all due respect to my good friend the Hon Alfred Ngaro I think his Supplementary Order Paper 466 is misconceived in that regard. I acknowledge Maggie Barry's contribution which covered a lot of ground but really challenged why we should have abortion at all. I'm sorry Ms Barry but that train has long left the station. We're now talking about the legal framework we want in place. There will be a legal framework after this debate. There will be no such thing as no right to have an abortion in New Zealand so it would be helpful if people focused on the actual debate not on something they'd like to have. I conclude—unfortunately in my last remaining seconds—by responding to David Seymour yet again. Nothing in the safe zone provision is stopping people expressing their view. What it is is preventing women from being intimidated and harassed when they go to get an abortion and if he wants to know by way of comparison every Australian state or territory apart from the ACT has an automatic safe zone. This is discretionary."