Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair. I take this opportunity just to respond to some of the points raised in debate so far. Again as I have previously I acknowledge this is an issue that is very sensitive to many members and there are members who are participating in this debate who would rather we were abolishing abortion. That is not what this bill is about and that debate was lost and won—or in fact lost—in 1977. We are not having the 1977 debate again. We are talking about taking the 1977 legislation and making it relevant to New Zealand in the 21st century. That's what this debate is about. And it doesn't help I think for the reputation of this House for those no matter how passionate like the member Simon O'Connor to be making assertions and statements that are simply out of step not only with the bill but actually with the current legislation. It does help the debate when we accurately reflect what the current law is so that we understand what the changes are that are being made and it's in that spirit I want to respond to some of the points made. Now I know that the member Joanne Hayes is deeply opposed to abortion. She made that very clear and therefore I'm not quite sure how helpful some of her argument was. But in terms of repealing section 38 of the Care of Children Act and not allowing medical practitioners to make the judgment about whether the person in front of them has the capacity to consent to a procedure that would be taking a giant step back. And here's the problem for Mr O'Connor and Ms Hayes: that is a provision that protects a young woman even a woman who is under age from having to get the support of a parent particularly if the parent particularly the father of the daughter is the father of the pregnancy—because that is the reality. A young under-age woman should not be forced into the position of having to get the consent of the person who may well be the father of the child if that father of the child is also father of the young woman. That's the situation that Mr O'Connor and Ms Hayes will be putting a young woman in. Now I know Mr O'Connor used the dramatic language of those who support death and murder" but I wouldn't want to be a member who supports incest and affords no protection to a young under-age woman for being able to get a medical procedure to protect her from that because that's the position that Mr O'Connor is putting himself in. So that provision that section 38 is absolutely vital to ensure that that young woman who has capacity can with the help of the medical practitioner she is talking to make that decision and it is often a difficult decision. The reality is most young women in that position will have some sort of family or parental support but that cannot be guaranteed and we should not be putting young people in that position which would simply amount to further abuse of that person. I now turn to Alfred Ngaro's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 470. I know Alfred Ngaro. I consider myself a political friend of Alfred Ngaro's. He holds his political faith deeply to him and he articulates his faith well pretty much every time he speaks in Parliament. That's one of the things I admire about Alfred Ngaro. I understand what he wants to achieve with his SOP which is the obvious which is that if there is abuse by a medical practitioner of their rights and powers in terms of advice or not giving the right advice or not doing the right things to a woman seeking an abortion there should be not only an investigation but a follow-up. But I say to Alfred Ngaro that actually is already contained in the legislation that covers the Health and Disability Commissioner. The Health and Disability Commissioner already has the power to do that and the references that he made to the Law Commission report were about saying there needs to be an enforceability of this. Medical practitioners are governed by their professional and their ethical standards and all those rules and guidelines they are bound to as professionals and that is why we have the Health and Disability Commissioner—not only to apply the letter of the law but to ensure that medical and health practitioners are following their professional and moral obligations as well. So that is already provided for and I think the problem with SOP 470 is it simply replicates what is already there and it's for that reason that I don't support it. I turn to the comments by the member Chris Penk who argued in favour of SOP 479 about criminalising abortion. The reality is the starting point for abortion is that it is a crime. It is a defence to the crime that you've had an abortion consistently with the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act. That is the legal structure of abortion in New Zealand. That is why this legislation seeks to take abortion out of a criminal framework and to make it a matter for the health system for health or medical practitioners and the women who seek the support and assistance and consultation at a time when they are faced with making that decision. That is why that provision the new section 183 is there. As I said as I argued when the House was last in committee debating this I don't go with us legislating for health standards and putting obligations on health practitioners that are already provided for in their professional practice in their articulated professional obligations and the things that their various colleges put out for them and require them to abide by and comply with because that is the basis of complaints not only to the profession themselves but to the Health and Disability Commissioner as well.Turning to Louisa Wall's comments I agree with Louisa Wall that this is not legislation that in my view meets the test of the need for a referendum. We already have referendums in relation to end of life choice because we don't have any legal framework. We never have had a legal framework for that and that is a huge step in terms of social policy to make and it is right that that should be subject to a referendum. Likewise with legalising cannabis: we haven't had legalised cannabis—or it's been absolutely prohibited since 1965; it's had partial prohibition since 1927. So legalising it is a huge step in terms of social policy. It is a matter on which the electorate ought to have the opportunity to express a view and so they will have the opportunity to do that. We have a framework for abortions right now—have had since 1977—and although the number of abortions each year has been declining there are roughly around 13000 abortions carried out each year. That is already happening. What we are talking about is the framework under which women will be allowed to make that decision and seek advice and seek support and under which abortions will take place but we already have a provision for that. This is nothing new; there is no giant leap in terms of social policy and therefore in my view it does not justify a referendum. In relation to other comments by Mr O'Connor—and I know he argues that we are dehumanising the child. We are not; abortion is not about you know killing children. It is about women who early in their pregnancy make a decision they don't want the pregnancy and seek medical assistance accordingly. Women do not halfway through pregnancy decide on a whim they no longer want the pregnancy. No one can ever point to a situation where that has happened. That is not how it is and we do great disrespect and members in the public gallery do as well to women in this country if they think that women in this country kind of just at random and spontaneously partway through a pregnancy—20 weeks 30 weeks or as some have argued at birth—decide they're going to terminate the pregnancy. That doesn't happen. It is a ridiculous assertion to make. It is an insult to the women of New Zealand and I just hope that people might stop saying it. It doesn't help—people can put all sorts of photos and images up. That does not reflect the reality of the issue we are dealing with. It is simply false to say so and those images are just plainly ridiculous. I go back to the point I made before: Simon O'Connor was concerned about doctors putting pressure on parents. Now this might be a matter of perception because I think—in fact all the evidence I have and at my age I've consulted a few medical practitioners—they have an obligation to be and in my experience New Zealand health practitioners are very good at being very realistic to people about the medical condition that they're facing and what might to some at a very sensitive vulnerable moment look like pressure might actually just be some blunt advice about "This is the reality of the situation you're facing. Your health interests are compromised."—or it may be in some cases the health of the fetus is seriously compromised.That is advice that a health practitioner should be giving to a pregnant woman and where they're involved the pregnant woman's partner or the father of the child. That is what a health practitioner should be doing and it is possible that that could be seen as putting pressure on the parent. Good on those parents who went through with the pregnancy had the birth even though the child didn't survive. I know many parents who've been through that experience. It is deeply emotional and they are deeply vulnerable and it doesn't help for that to be paraded out as somehow some sort of mistake of the abortion legislation—because it's not and let's be very clear about what we're talking about in this bill."