SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Speaker and it's a real treat to get to rise and speak in support of Louisa Wall's member's bill the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill at this the third reading. It really is getting the job finished that was started quite a long time ago. I really want to acknowledge Louisa Wall's very adept shepherding of this through the House and increasing support for it through the process and again to acknowledge the chair of the Health Committee Liz Craig and all the other members because unlike one of the previous speakers—who suggested that while yes it had been improved that actually this was a fundamental attack on fundamental rights—this has been given a very clear vet from the Attorney-General in terms of being compliant with our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which protects those fundamental rights. The committee spent a huge amount of time making sure that we got to that point and to be honest I was on the committee considering the abortion legislation back in 2019-20 and this was an area of that piece of legislation that I was uncomfortable with. I was totally willing to be voting and supporting it because it was a really tenuous dance and I didn't want to do anything to interfere with the progress of that legislation because it was such a watershed moment for us as a country to secure the bodily integrity and protect women from forced pregnancy; a pretty important moment in our history. I was OK with supporting the safe zone provisions as they were but I had levels of discomfort. So I'm really pleased that we got to consider this in its specificity and go through the detail of it and I think we've got a much better result now than what we had in the original legislation because it is the balancing of rights but also it recognises the fact that the provisions in our law at the moment that protect against harassment are fundamentally useless because they rely on the person going for an abortion to be providing evidence in the court to be able to take that case. That's not really something anybody wants to do. You imagine: you're going through this medical procedure you are harassed and then you have to deal with the police on top of that and then at some date well out into the future you have to then stand up in court and relive all of that in front of a public audience and spill your guts. There's a reason those pieces of law are not being used because nobody is going to do that. So we have fixed that problem in this piece of legislation and I think that will make it effective as well and I think that's really important. I do want to address the perception that was given by a previous speaker that this is an attack on the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet clearly says it is not. It is consistent with those rights in our society. That same speaker said that he disagreed with harassment but he didn't seem to believe that we had a problem with it and I've seen some other people opposing this legislation who say that there is no problem because there are no court cases. Well I've just explained why there are no court cases—because nobody's going to go through that process. What we heard very clearly in select committee was evidence of patients being chased into clinics. We heard of pamphleting with anti-abortion and inaccurate images and information that is just blatantly untrue; of loud hymn singing; of blockading of doors; of protesters approaching and speaking to patients and calling individual staff by their names; photographing of staff and patients; people refusing to leave when being asked. We also heard of a situation and we had somebody present to us in the committee who had previously been arrested for violent protests outside an abortion clinic who was telling us that this is God's work—to be protesting outside clinics—and we could not deprive them of that work. We also heard the survey from providers who are doing this work showing an increase in activities around clinics. One clinic who had previously not had any protest action was now reporting twice-weekly protests on the day that they provided services. An escalating protest was reported in another clinic and one clinic noted that after more than 20 years of experiencing protesters they were tired of the ongoing rights that the anti-choice protesters had but their patients' right to privacy and safe access without harassment was continually being ignored. This piece of legislation is recognising that they have rights—as staff and as patients—and our code of disability rights recognises this. It guarantees consumers the specific rights to privacy respect and the right to freedom from discrimination coercion harassment and exploitation. Now that right is not being protected in our current situation because people are—from so much of the evidence we heard—experiencing harassment and even in the peaceful protests where people are just standing praying with anti-abortion signs usually that are often inaccurate but even then they lose their right to privacy. We heard from submitters that sense of sometimes they've known people in that group and they have wanted to go and access their right to abortion but have felt intimidated or unable to because they have known that there would be people known to their family who would be observing them accessing that service. That is not consistent with our fundamentals of a safe and appropriate healthcare system. This safe zone does not stop anybody protesting. I recognise that where people are saying that people have the right to access they have the right to oppose. When people were presenting to the committee and they would say that and I would say So would that right still be in place if you were 150 metres away?" That right would still be in place. They can absolutely continue to oppose abortion—they can just do it 150 metres away so that they do not impinge on the rights of the patient accessing healthcare. That to me is an absolutely essential part of the work that we are doing which is to protect that right and balance the right of freedom of expression and protest and assembly for others. I think the other piece I wanted to touch on because I initially wanted to have automatic safe zones and that was what I came into this thinking—and we didn't get to that at the end of the process because we could not guarantee a process to set that up that would have a logic to it now that abortions no longer just happen in a very limited number of places where they could be provided through mobile clinics or in doctors' surgeries around the country. How would we coherently do that to set them up automatically? Also if we set them up automatically with set areas without thinking through the logistics of the space actually it could have some perverse and negative outcomes that wouldn't achieve our desired goal. While it may not be what I initially wanted I think this will work and again next week it will be two years since this country decriminalised abortion. We've seen in recent surveys an increase in the number of people in this country who believe women should have the right to choose what they do with their body. That represents progress; this represents progress. I look forward to a time when women and pregnant people are free of all stigma to be able to care for their own health."