Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Chair. I rise to speak primarily to the Supplementary Order Paper in my name that is looking in effect to implement option A from the Law Commission's report and to remove the 20-week threshold. This I'm very aware sits in direct contrast to the debate on those who are opposing this legislation so I welcome this opportunity to talk to some of the reasons and counter some of the concerns that I believe misrepresent the potential impact of this legislation.So removing the threshold—there's a perception that's put out there that that will increase the number of abortions that happen post - 20 weeks. We have absolutely no evidence for that in any country that has done this. In fact we have evidence to the contrary to that. Also I do want to just say that it's currently possible to have an abortion after 20 weeks right now under our current legislative framework. This is just changing the criteria to enable it to be more—and I would say our proposition is to remove the criteria altogether to enable it to be a decision between the medical practitioner and the pregnant woman the pregnant person and her family if they are involved. The number of cases where this happens it's incredibly rare. It's 0.75 percent I think of all abortions that happen at that stage and almost all of them—and the evidence that we heard on the select committee was from people who'd been through it and supported others who had—where they were wanted pregnancies. They had the crib set up in their room. They had planned their future as parents. Making people go through additional hoops and feeling as if the decision is being made by this place and the law rather than actually the urgency and their medical need and their health needs and their own morals to me is just wrong.I would say that we heard from the Cavanaghs and they presented evidence from other people that they support. To give one example Madison and her family chose peace after spending their life savings on IVF and they chose an abortion at 24 weeks. Their baby had a rare disorder causing catastrophic brain malformations. That's not a decision for this place and when people raise the question of there not being any upper limit in this legislation you are potentially preventing these people being able to save their own lives or make a decision to prevent developmental harm as a pregnancy continues. I don't believe that is an ethical decision that can be made on a blanket basis in this House. I believe and the Green Party believes with me that that is a decision that can only be held with the pregnant person and their medical practitioner with the best evidence possible. I would also say that the Law Commission in their review of this found that this option was the option that was most supported by health practitioners and that this is the option that best fits with international human rights legislation. This is not a kind of a way out" option. It's not frivolous. It's not going to result in increased or frivolous terminations.People are not frivolous. These are difficult difficult decisions and I believe that it is the job of this House to act compassionately to support those decisions to be made as carefully and appropriately as possible. And that is between a doctor—or doctors as is almost always the case—and the people most directly impacted."