Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to speak in favour of this Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I understand that all ACT MPs will be voting for it although there's a limited number of speeches.The genesis of this bill I had a little bit to do with. The Abortion Legislation Bill would have included the original version of safe areas" that were in this bill before we had amendments made to it through the Health Committee. And I want to take a bit of time to explain how it is possible for someone to be stridently pro-choice and in favour of a woman's right to choose abortion without State interference and yet have concerns about these safe areas and then how ACT has watched this legislation change to a point where we believe it is consistent with the values of free speech and we can support it. Altogether a very good story. The Abortion Legislation Bill is one that I supported stridently. I was one of 20 members of the House at the time who voted for option A which would have made abortion a choice between a woman and her doctor at any stage of pregnancy rather than after 20 or so weeks which we actually ended up with.And I believe in a woman's right to choose and I am pro-choice on this issue for a couple of reasons. One it just seems right that if it's your body it should be your choice. But when you drill into what anti-abortion laws really mean practically they mean that somebody wants the apparatus of the State—the police the courts corrections—to actively go out and force women to take pregnancies to term against their will. And I seriously struggle with why people think that would be a useful thing for the State to do. I think anyone that believes in freedom would have to ask themselves how you can really talk about freedom once you have done that. So it's very easy for me to be pro-choice. It's the right thing to do and I think our country is a much better place having passed the Abortion Legislation Bill two years ago which effectively decriminalised abortion and that is something we're proud to have supported it.But it's also true that it was my amendment that took safe areas out of that bill because there's a tension: you can be in favour of a person's right to choose but also be concerned about free speech. The bill as originally introduced in this case and as a subpart of that Abortion Legislation Bill would have said that it is prohibited to communicate with a person on any terms within a safe area. And I think it's true—I find myself agreeing with some of the earlier speakers and even Simon O'Connor which is rare; the Venn diagram of beliefs that intersect for us is a very tiny sliver it has to be said. But nevertheless he's right that we have a real problem in the Western World that people find it harder to disagree without being disagreeable to have honest conversations and work through our problems in a way that's respectful. And we also have a terrible habit of commodifying people into identities rather than focusing on our universal humanity in an objective reality that we can observe and work through together as equals because we're human. That's a big problem and it's a problem throughout the West. And if we look at the situation in Europe I think it becomes more and more important that we understand articulate and stand up for those basic classical liberal values.So when we were confronted with legislation that said a Minister of Health can define an area—a part of New Zealand a public place—and say it's illegal to communicate in that area well here's the thing: standing up for free speech seldom involves defending people that you'd want to have over for dinner. In fact I don't think I've done any defence of free speech on behalf of anyone who I actually like yet—but you never know; the way that this Government's going they might widen the range of people who need defence of free speech. And so it's easy to say that you really detest the odious ogres who stand outside and shout at scared often young women who are going to have a pretty traumatic medical procedure and abuse them because of their own sense of justice or belief or spirituality. It's pretty easy to be opposed to all of that but still think it would be wrong to have the gradual creep of State power to ban communication within an area. And when this bill was introduced the Attorney-General and Crown Law advice agreed with ACT about that. They said that the word "communicate" being included was actually a breach of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act particularly the right to freedom of expression and it was a breach that exceeded what was demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.Now here's the good thing—sometimes it happens: people listened. And the select committee did its job and often select committees can function very well on these cross-partisan issues when people take down their political party affiliations and actually work on the issue. I just wish we could do that in Health Committee sometimes—I know Chris Bishop will agree with me on that.Chris Bishop: That'd be a fine thing.DAVID SEYMOUR: Yeah it sure would. But the select committee listened and what they achieved—they said "We're going to listen to the Attorney-General. We're going to take the word "communicate" out." And so our big concern about a Government banning communication even communication that I personally don't like—that has been resolved by the select committee changing this bill.And what the bill now says is that if there is an abortion clinic a premises they call it then the Minister has the ability to define an area—doesn't have to be a 150-metre radius but up to 150 metres around that premise—and say this is an abortion safe zone. And in that area you must not "obstruct a person who's approaching entering or leaving". Well that's reasonable. I don't think anyone in a free society should be physically obstructed. So we support that. It's a big tick. "Make a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a manner that's likely to cause emotional distress"—well frankly you know I would defend a lot of freedoms but the freedom to go and video people that are going to get an abortion—that's not of the freedoms we need to defend. I don't think it's a priority. In fact I think it's pretty grotesque. So very happy with that. And it says "do any of the following in a safe area in a manner that could easily be seen or heard by another person who may be accessing providing or assisting with abortion services: advise or persuade against it; inform them about matters relating to the abortion other than if you are actually a clinical person or engaged in the procedure; or engage in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services."You can't do those things but you can still communicate. You can still do silent prayer. You can still do things if you really want to and you can still communicate. There's not a ban on communication. And if you do do those things a police officer can come along and ask you to stop. Here's your opportunity: just stop doing it. And if you don't then the law gives them the right to arrest you without warrant and you can be fined up to $1000. So that is how this law works. And then every five years the Minister has to review and check if it's still necessary the safe areas that have been put in place. That's how it actually works in what you can and can't do in these safe areas and how they are established and how they're reviewed and how the police behave in them if necessary. And I think that is a pretty reasonable place to land. The Attorney-General has revised his opinion in light of the changes made and said actually this is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.So I think this is a very good example of how this Parliament can work: people send their representatives here everybody has a voice people listen there's deliberation the laws can actually change and be made better and more consistent with our values and principles—such as freedom of expression—that are so sacred in this place and up and down our country and we can get to a place where we have better laws that protect those people who just don't want to be harassed and also not impinge on those other values that we need. We've found that balance. And I'm very pleased to have stood on principle to make this possible by ensuring that a safe area provision inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act was taken out of the original Abortion Legislation Bill which I stridently supported in every other aspect so that it could come back and be properly and separately debated and improved by a select committee and made consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That's a very good ending for a piece of legislation. I commend Louisa Wall for her indefatigable approach to lawmaking and making this possible. Thank you Mr Speaker."