Bayly AndrewANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Speaker. I believe that as MPs we have a responsibility to assess the proposals in this bill not just against our personal preferences and beliefs but whether in fact this is a good piece of legislation for all New Zealanders. Sometimes in making that decision that does not accord with our own personal views and that can be a difficult decision. That requires a degree of tolerance in a debate and argument and I think that tolerance is an issue that we should cherish and need to cherish in discussing this issue. My view is the debate on this bill has not always being conducted in a manner that reflects a tolerance of thought and a flexibility as to an approach of how to deal with this difficult issue. And possibly that reflects that this bill follows so closely the euthanasia bill and I think that was a pity.However today I wish to clarify my own position and I want to make it clear that my start point is that I agree that a woman should have the right to have an abortion and I also believe that a woman has a right to choose. I do not accept under any circumstances that there should be criminalisation of a woman who chooses to have an abortion. There are times when it is appropriate. Earlier this week I met with a small group who said to me that the issue of criminalisation is a theoretical issue—no one has ever been convicted. I do not think that's an acceptable argument. I think our statute should be clear: there should be no prospect of criminalisation for having an abortion. For that reason I have up to now voted for the bill. I've been keen to see what happened with the process and particularly to see what happened to the amendments or Supplementary Order Papers as we call them as they progress through the committee of the whole House.I wanted to keep an open mind. Personally I voted for a number of the amendments. Unfortunately none of them succeeded. The only one of note to succeed is the one that we've just voted on from a procedural issue around the issue of safe zones. I have a strong view that we have an obligation to protect women when they're in this most traumatic process of having an abortion and I do not support any form of close proximity for people who want to express an issue that is against what a woman has chosen.However I've got to say I will not be voting for this bill and that is after careful consideration. I have three principal concerns. The first one: I'm concerned about young women and I mean women who could possibly be minors having an abortion that is in this case allowed without the knowledge of their parents or guardians. I don't think that's right. There are already measures in place in legislation to protect those young girls if there is an issue of security; we already have those protections. But this bill cuts across that.The second issue I have concern with is around the permissive nature of post - 20 week abortions. I accept the argument in most cases that those types of abortions are very few and far between. But I think we have a duty to make sure that they are conducted in an adequate and proper manner. And the third issue is around the issue of the monitoring of people who conduct these procedures and the nature of abortions. Now none of those issues were accepted and on that basis I cannot accept the bill.