Willis Nicola; Mallard TrevorNICOLA WILLIS (National): I want to start by congratulating the members of the Abortion Legislation Committee who've reported this bill back to the House. They've responded to a piece of legislation that arouses strong emotion on both sides of the debate. They have heard harrowing personal stories. They have managed their way through complex legal health and ethical issues. Many will have been subjected to gruesome images. They have by majority amended this bill in ways that I believe largely improve it and they have worked constructively together despite their divergent views.I support this reform of our abortion laws. Many people I deeply respect and admire do not share my views on this issue. I feel moved to express why I support it. I have carefully studied this bill. I have spoken with medical practitioners those who perform abortions those who have had abortions those who've supported those who have had abortions and my conclusion is that this bill advances the rights of women. It will improve women's access to health services. It will enhance our legal autonomy over our own bodies and our own fertility. It brings our law into line with good medical practice. It reduces unnecessary and potentially harmful delays in access to abortions and it improves reporting on important issues such as equity and timeliness of access availability of counselling services and the spectre of gender selection. This bill will reduce harm. Fundamentally it improves choice for all of us and crucially requires that choice from none of us.The majority report on this bill is commendable for its dispassionate analysis of the issues. Those who've been hearing frightening claims about what will change if this bill is passed should go and read the report because it treats abortion like other health issues. It trusts that highly trained and specialised medical professionals will as in all medical procedures exercise good judgment good practice and be bound by good ethics. We should uphold that principle of trust in our medical professionals in this House. It trusts that existing laws including the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights made under the Health and Disability Commissioner Act extends to abortion services. It trusts that women as my colleague Amy Adams said are not fickle selfish actors. We are not incapable of making good decisions about our pregnancies. No; we are capable of making good decisions for ourselves and our own families and it is wrong to suggest that those in this Parliament are better placed to decide what is best for women seeking abortions.Some have argued that this bill is unnecessary because the current system works. The truth is that our abortion law is outdated it creates harm and it is fundamentally sexist. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act was debated in 1977. At that time this Parliament had more men in it named William than it had women and I think it is entirely possible that the men of those Parliaments were not best placed to dictate the arrangements for services that are used exclusively by women.The select committee process showed abundant evidence of problems with the way the system currently operates. Women do have to lie about their mental health in order to access an abortion. Women have been made to feel criminal and women having made a decision for themselves in consultation with a medical professional are on average waiting an additional 25 days between their first appointment to a referring doctor and actually having the abortion procedure—unnecessary delay.Others have scaremongered about what this bill will permit. We had the phrase abortion on demand" and I share the horror of the spectre of medical professionals carrying out abortions on a late-term fetus because a woman wakes up one day and says she doesn't want a baby. That is ridiculous. It demeans women and it demeans medical professionals because it does not reflect the reality of the circumstances in which a woman with a wanted pregnancy in late term is forced to have an abortion.Other speakers have done a very good job of detailing the clear statutory tests that this bill has for the limited circumstances in which a woman could access an abortion after 20 weeks. And I note that unlike the current law these include medical professionals having regard to the gestational age of a fetus. So it's clear I strongly disagree with some of the arguments put forward by the opponents of this bill. But I want to acknowledge that they are also my colleagues my friends my supporters. And I know that their opposition comes from a place of deeply held belief and that they have weighed the issues just as carefully as I have. Opponents are entitled to reject abortion as a medical procedure for themselves. They are entitled to condemn its use by others. And I support the conscientious objection clauses in this bill which uphold those rights. But I cannot stress enough: nothing in this bill will require a person to undergo or undertake an abortion. I respect also that some of the opposition to abortion is rooted in faith and I empathise with this. I was christened Presbyterian I attended Anglican schools I was married in a church. And faith plays a crucial role in my community and we should all cherish it and the right to freedom of religious expression that comes with it. To quote page 15 of the select committee report "All of us want to ensure that the rights of a person to exercise religious freedom and a person's ability to access services are balanced."Freedom of expression is a crucial tenet of our liberal democracy and we should guard it carefully. And it is for that reason that I am uncomfortable with the provision in this bill that would allow safe zones around abortion clinics effectively limiting rights to free speech there. I am not convinced the current law can't do the job this section is trying to do. If people are harassing assaulting or verbally assaulting people then that is potentially criminal and should be policed as such. As I said I come to this debate respectfully. But what I do not respect is the bullying that some outside this Parliament have used the disgraceful tactics that have been used to try and influence the votes of members of this House. Why do they think that emailing me images of dismembered fetuses will change my views? And why should our staff be subjected to that? Do they understand that gruesome images are available to illustrate any argument? Their shock tactics reflect badly on them and their cause and in some cases may be a breach of existing law. Perversely it is those images that finalised my decision to speak today. I will not be intimidated by those people and I will not stand by while they question women's rights to have autonomy over our own bodies. I want to say one more thing about the use of the phrase "pro-life" because it's a phrase that's used a lot in this debate and was used a lot during the select committee process. My views on all issues before this House are fundamentally rooted in my belief in the value of life the dignity of individuals and their rights and capacity to shape their own lives. I have carried and given birth to four children and the joy and miracle of their births has been amongst the most if not the most profound experiences of my life. I understand the transformational gift of life and I cherish it. So do not tell me I am anti-life. But there for the grace of God go I. There but for the grace of God go all of us because let us in this House make laws that allow for people in all their diversity and all their circumstances at the best of times and at the worst of times. Let us trust women and let us trust medical professionals. I want my children to live in a world that genuinely cherishes the life of every woman that respects her right to manage her own fertility her own body her own future. That is the world I want for my daughters. That is the world I want for my sons. This bill is a step forward and I commend it to the House.SPEAKER: Darroch Ball—a five-minute call."