Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I would like to comment on a number of amendments proposed to Part 1 of this Abortion Legislation Bill. Darroch Ball is proposing that much as the recently passed End of Life Choice Act this bill become an Act that is passed only in truth when there's a referendum to confirm it. I of course supported a referendum on the End of Life Choice Act; regretfully I don't think there's a need for that on this Act and therefore I'm opposing that.On the other hand Jan Logie's amendments on Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 325 propose that Model A as recommended by the Law Commission be introduced or at least restored to this initiative. When Newshub's Tova O'Brien did a straw poll of MPs asking which model they support I'm proud to say that I was one of only three MPs who supported Model A. Model A would mean that there was no statutory test at any point of pregnancy. It goes to the practical reality that abortion is a matter between a woman and a doctor and the only thing that the State can do by putting in place a statutory framework is to make it more difficult more stigmatising and more traumatic—and I'm opposed to that. I hope that Jan Logie's amendment will get up and pass.There is also another amendment by Jan Logie to replace woman" with "pregnant woman or other pregnant person". I understand the intent of what she is trying to do but I do have to say that getting bogged down in these definitional debates is a great frustration for people who want to pass this law; I don't think I can support that.Melissa Lee I have to say is perhaps the most heartfelt person putting an amendment up on this legislation. She is deeply concerned about sex selection and disability. She has put two amendments that would prevent—in theory at least—people having abortions for the purposes of sex selection or stopping a baby being born with a disability. I think it would be churlish not to think very hard about what Melissa Lee is saying. However it's also important that when we consider legislation that we look not only at the intentions which in this case are absolutely noble but also that we think carefully about the effects or the outcomes of a legislative initiative. In this case it is very difficult to imagine how this law is going to prevent a person truly determined to practise sex selection.The Abortion Legislation Committee that was chaired by Ruth Dyson that I was a member of considered this issue very carefully and we decided to put a declaration that the Parliament does not approve of abortion for those purposes. We also recognised that we couldn't effectively stop determined people; what we might achieve inadvertently by putting such a condition in the law is to create prejudice as a way of trying to detect who might be carrying this out. Unfortunately the practical reality is that women who are from a culture that is thought to practise sex selection for instance are going to find themselves discriminated against. So in a bid to remove one prejudice we fail but we introduce another. So I say with some regret to Melissa Lee that I for one can't support that and I don't think others should.There are amendments in the name of Agnes Loheni. I question some of the science around anaesthetising a fetus. In terms of the 20-week restriction I think that just shows a real lack of compassion for that tiny portion of women who find themselves in need to abort a wanted pregnancy often to save their own lives. I really think that she needs to take a look at her SOP and frankly at herself before she brings things like that to this committee.There's Jo Hayes' amendment saying that there needs to be informed consent. Well we have a lot of debates like this over the End of Life Choice Act and consistently what was found was that the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights already requires that so it would be somewhat redundant. We then have Jo Hayes saying that children shouldn't consent to an abortion. I think ultimately wherever you fall out on the side of this particular issue you should be very cautious about how you impose it on children. So obviously no one would want children or minors to be pregnant; I don't think that should be the case—it's almost illegal—and I don't think that they should be seeking abortions either. But given the circumstances that some people face it's really not clear how a prohibition on abortion is going to make matters better as it won't with adults. So I can't support that.There are a number of further amendments that have been tabled later and I just want to comment on two of them. One of them is in the name of Ruth Dyson which as you might expect from her is eminently sensible and I think that deserves the committee's support.The other one is from Marama Davidson which says that there should be amendments to the extent that the safe areas still exist but they're initiated by the provider the clinic in question rather than the Director-General of Health and that the test is more objective and that it's any discussion of abortion services and that it becomes an infringement notice regime. Now as somebody who is always concerned about protecting freedom of expression I think there's a lot of merit in that particular amendment. However there are also some major flaws in it. For one an infringement notice regime while technically defensible for those accused in practice means that you can be suppressed simply on the basis of an officer or a constable deciding that they don't like what you're doing. You do not have the kind of defences when a prosecution must be brought. Secondly the issue that I find a little bit odd with it is that in a sense it's a pass for people to be able to protest according to ability to pay. That from a civil liberties point of view I find very difficult. So I do think that that Marama Davidson's amendment is better than the status quo but I think that it is actually not the best amendment for people who are concerned about freedom of speech.I have an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 464 which would remove the safe area provisions from this legislation. The reasoning for doing that is several. First of all we all know that freedom of expression is critically important to New Zealand. We should only remove it if we feel that there is a very justifiable reason. Now the Law Commission has said "The commission has not seen any clear evidence that the existing laws around intimidating and anti-social behaviour are inadequate as would be required to justify the introduction of safe access zones."It is also true and I hope the Minister will get up and tell us—I'm sure he'll tell us—that Crown Law has said that Crown Law believes that the impairment of freedom of expression is justified in this particular instance. Well that's all well and good but I would rather that this committee takes the facts from the advisers and makes the value judgments ourselves. The Law Commission has done the most rigorous and robust empirical study of whether there truly is a problem out there with people harassing and intimidating women around abortion clinics. They've said that there is not a problem. It's not up to Crown Law to make value judgments; it's up to elected representatives.Secondly we need to think very carefully about the implications of this legislation because what it means is that the society has decided that on an ad hoc basis when there's people we don't like—and I for one don't like anti-abortion protesters very much—that we are going to introduce a makeshift law that suppresses freedom of speech on an ad hoc basis. People might think very carefully about the words of a member who changed her mind and just told me in the last few minutes that she's supporting this. She said "Had a change of mind. You're right. Freedoms of movement and the right to protest is a value that's critical in a democratic country." In New Zealand we might want to think carefully about groups of students about farmers about oil and gas industry people who might say actually "We want the kinds of protection from protest activity that those people got in the Abortion Legislation Bill." That's the precedent that's being set here and I think we should be really careful about setting such a precedent when the Law Commission says there is not a problem. Thank you Mr Chair."