SpeechHon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): Thank you Madam Speaker. Look I also rise to speak in favour of this legislation which I think is very important particularly given some of the stories we've heard in the House of the kind of harassment that has accelerated in some of the areas around clinics providing medical services for people who are needing an abortion.This piece of legislation is not about the rights and wrongs of abortion and who should be able to access it—previous speakers have made that point well. It is about whether or not people should be able to be stopping people encroaching upon people's freedoms within 150 metres of a site that is providing medical care in respect of abortions. I think from the outset it's always important to remind ourselves that no one at all is ever seeking an abortion because of a situation they deliberately sought out. People do not find themselves needing an abortion because of something they wanted—it's not a position anybody wants to find themselves in putting it plainly. People who are seeking an abortion are often in a position of some distress. It can be a stressful situation for the individuals involved and as a consequence it's important to remember that people in the position of needing an abortion can be vulnerable you know whether that is because of rape or incest or any other number of horrific realities that unfortunately can sometimes be inflicted upon some of those who will need abortion services or for other medical reasons.So I think finding the balance is what this bill seeks to do between freedom of speech and those who wish to protest against some aspects of abortion—finding the balance between that and protecting the rights of individuals to access medical services without harassment. I do feel that this bill has sought and found a balance and previous speakers have referred to the work of the Attorney-General and his comments—the changes made in select committee to try to ensure the right balance is struck; shifting away from certain language moving towards other language which describes the kinds of behaviours that are prohibited:  obstruct[ing] a person in a safe area who is approaching [leaving or entering] any building in which abortion services are provided; … mak[ing] a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a manner that is likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing providing or assisting with providing abortion services" or a number of other behaviours that might indeed be perceived by the person accessing the services as intimidation or harassment.I think again if we come back to that position where we know that those who find themselves in the position of needing an abortion will not have sought to be in that position I think it's a call upon our humanity to make sure that those people are able to access the services in what can be a very distressing situation particularly where there is harassment which is documented. Look I mean in my electorate there is a hospital and there are people actively protesting outside where people are going to seek medical support and I have to say it makes me distinctly uncomfortable to see that practice. I feel that this bill is striking the right balance. It's preserving the right for people to protest further away to make their point and people need to be free to express their concerns and to protest the way that laws are but there are appropriate ways to protest and to get a message across and to support change if that's what you firmly believe should happen and there are ways which are more akin to intimidation and those must never be allowed to prevail because that's not the society that any of us in this House want to live in.I think also one aspect that I've seen less comment on in the time I've been following the debate in the House is the requirement for review of this legislation and I think it's something that is more and more best practice but I actually think it's a good thing to make sure things are fit for purpose. I just this morning presented on the Data and Statistics Bill that is before select committee and one of the aspects that's happening in that bill similar to here is a requirement that when we conduct censuses we review each time and learn the lessons and make amendments to laws and so on if they need updating. The way in which our society is moving and changing means it's very hard to project forward in 10 years' time whether this will be appropriate whether people accessing services will arrive by different means whether they'll be provided in set premises or in other circumstances as medical science improves or changes. It could be that these kinds of protections we're passing today are not relevant in 50 years' time or 30 years' time or whatever. The stats bill it's nearly 50 years since it was last updated and it talks about statistics. It doesn't even talk about data. Here we're talking about a medical practice as it's currently carried out and the behaviours that we're observing that cause distress to those who are seeking medical attention. So I think that that's something although not covered in the debate I think is a very good thing to see in the legislation.I do thank those who have given it consideration in select committee who have ensured that we have those regulation-making powers there—no later than five years they must be reviewed and " at subsequent intervals of not more than 5 years the Director-General … with the Secretary for Justice must—(a) review the regulations (if they are still in force) to determine whether that prescribed safe area is still—(i) desirable for the purposes specified in subsection (2)(a); and (ii) demonstrably justified as specified in subsection (2)(b);" and report to the Minister of Health and the Minister Justice to facilitate amendments if they're required or revoke the Act. So I think these are really healthy and good things to see in the legislation—that is good practice. We do need to revisit these things as practices change and indeed the member Louisa Wall who's brought this bill has looked to current practice and said "Look what we've got here does need to be updated and changed." and I commend that and I commend her for bringing this bill to the House.So I also want to just acknowledge the respectful debate that's being held in the House and I think that that is incredibly important for a healthy democracy. We do need to be able to debate the rights and freedoms that are being developed here today and the balance that's been struck in the legislative change—that is incredibly important to our democracy. I do want to also acknowledge the way in which that's been done in a respectful way in what is a very difficult and sensitive topic particularly for those who have endured trauma and had to engage with the peculiarities of the medical system the particular institutional arrangements that often characterise it which may not always be culturally familiar to those who are accessing services in our country.So in concluding I do want to say thank you again to the member who's brought the bill. Thank you to members around the House who are debating actually important issues of freedom of speech because curtailing it should only be done in a way that is really clear about what we're prohibiting and that is those things that that could be well characterised as intimidation and also balancing that out with the privacy and the rights of people to access without harassment medical services. I do commend these changes to the House."