SpeechSIMON O'CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you very much. Hey I will be continuing to oppose this bill. It sits very firmly as I mentioned in the first reading within the scope of some of the most fundamental freedoms of a proper functioning liberal democracy and that's freedom of speech freedom of association and freedom of assembly. I think others have rightly noted including the proponent of this bill that rights always interact. Along with those rights we have also the right in society to not be if you will molested abused harassed and so forth. So fundamentally for me this bill doesn't strike the right balance and hence I'm opposing it. As people will know in this House I'm more than happy to argue and debate abortion—I think relatively confidently; you don't have to agree with me but I'll debate.But that's not really ultimately what this bill is about because it's situated for me in a growing number if you will of safe spaces. It doesn't matter if it's the spaces themselves the ideas that need to be kept safe from people right through to more and more legislation in this House. It's been a growing concern of mine for many many years—in fact even from my early days in university which was a long time ago now. We seem to have this increasing desire to isolate ourselves as a society from ideas and opinions which we don't like and some speakers tonight—and it's been a respectful debate so I want to keep it in that tone—have said we've just got to keep those opinions those ideas we don't like away from us. They could be harmful and there's been a stress particularly on emotional harm. Of course there's emotional harm but we should never conflate that I would suggest with obviously higher levels of harm and violence such as physical harm and so forth.There has been unfortunately even around this debate of safe spaces quite a conflation out of the American situation which is often quite heinous actually the behaviours of pro-lifers or anti-abortionists or whatever nomenclature you want to use. It can be very very aggressive but it's conflated and drawn over as if that's happening here in New Zealand. But by and large and from my own understanding from reading the select committee report and others more of it is just seen as offensive problematic that someone might be outside in this case an abortion clinic offering an alternative opinion. As I've noted before in a different topic and speech a nun standing out with rosary beads is now deemed as harmful—emotional harm. I just think we're treading an unfortunate path as a society and as a democracy if we're beginning to limit actions like that simply because something is perceived to be harmful.I want to stress again: a lot of the conversation tonight's not been about physical violence. We all abhor that. The law rightly covers that already. We're talking about ideas which are seen as harmful opinions which we don't like and it doesn't matter if it's increasing safe spaces because of course as I put before what's the next safe space that is required to protect another group from ideas again or opinions that they don't wish to hear? We've had laws passed through this House which effectively criminalise conversations. We're still having discussions or the Government certainly is and some of its activist friends of introducing hate speech: certain words ideas have to be banned. Then we look in the wider society to I'd suggest the overflow—the harassment for example of the seven professors because they happen to have a view around issues like mātauranga Māori.So it sits this bill within that purview within that context of a tightening of the grip particularly by the State on ideas and opinions and I don't think that's right. I think fundamentally too—and it's probably why abortion in this one becomes quite important—this is a controversial topic. No matter what people think it is controversial. There isn't a singular view. It won't again surprise the House and those listening in that I sit on the side that when things are more controversial you need more leaning in to the rights and freedoms to have a different opinion. So that's the first point.The next point I think we have to touch on and it has come up in some of the speeches tonight but it's more manifest outside in society particularly those who rightly say there shouldn't be harassment who are themselves often involved in a lot of harassment and abuse of people. You often see it in the likes of social media and so forth. I want to stress: it's not here in the Chamber. But absolute abuse of anyone who might in this case hold a pro-life—you might hold a different view. If they're not part of the monological view on particularly ethical issues they are to be derided insulted threatened and so forth. Well at times I've been one of them but I'm not asking for a safe space to be put around me. People are welcome to have contrary opinions and I'm sure those who deride people like myself who have a different view are more than happy as they continue to be to protest to yell to scream to threaten and so forth. So there's a paradox a hypocrisy if you will.But we're also seeing more and more in society the labelling of people and denigrating them. There's again been hints of that tonight: the suggestion that someone who might be pro-life is misogynist and then that begins to be applied to women as well. It all gets for me wrapped up in pseudo-academics to try and explain how this is all internalised and so forth. But it is ultimately a denigration and I'd say particularly to those academics they are just activists. They're just activists who masquerade coming up with ever-latest terms particularly in the panoply that is identity politics and intersectionality. I think it's dehumanising ultimately because it doesn't allow again this forefront of a proper functioning liberal democracy—which is all people are inherently good and trying to actually articulate views which are very deeply held by them.I'll begin to finish here. We are seeing a dangerous trend developing in particularly the Western world that who you are as an individual is becoming secondary to the group and the more insidious element that's coming through in recent years is that your identity within the group is now defined by the group. So if you're a woman you'd think you were in the woman group but unless you hold to a set of views that you know a certain group have defined as I say you're now a misogynist. So you're a woman who's a misogynist. It's the same as we've seen in the anti-vax movement—or rather people at the moment running around saying everyone's anti-vax who might have a different opinion. The fact that a whole lot of people are vaccinated but have a different view doesn't make them anti-vax. It's the same when we talk about cultural or race issues. Just because someone has a different view doesn't make them a racist.Got friends in America—God you could bring it here to New Zealand—who are themselves Black Americans or Māori here but now they're being called racists or white supremacists. It's this bizarre dehumanising labelling that's going on and I think it's an unfortunate dynamic that's even coming through as we discuss safe spaces tonight that people who might have a contrary opinion are being I would suggest mislabelled. I think it would be useful for people to reflect on that particularly if they are wanting to argue that they should have particularly opinions around abortions protected—they need a safe space. They are making life if you will unsafe for another group of people by deriding them. As I say this groupthink I think is becoming a problem.Again to address what was a very particular charge or suggestion earlier that any women—woman sorry; I'd better get my wording and grammar right—who opposes this bill and I know thousands of them are all of a sudden not proper women or they're misogynist is just wrong. It's just this manifestation of a growing groupthink: you can be a woman so long as you follow a whole lot of prescriptions of particularly the academic left; you'll be Māori so long as you fit a certain set of views. That's why amongst many many reasons I continue to oppose this bill.Our liberal democracy functions best when firstly we're not dehumanising people we're not labelling them and we're not trying to degenerate—or rather denigrate—their views. So freedom of speech freedom of assembly freedom of association are so fundamentally important and as I said at the start too so is the freedom to not be harassed if we get into the negative freedoms at different levels. Those are important too but the fundamental point is the more controversial a topic is the more discussion there should and needs to be. So we'll have to continue opposing this bill. I'm not going to go into all the details. That would have been dealt with in committee of the whole House and obviously within second reading.I will acknowledge to the sponsor of the bill what we have here now is a huge step forward from where we started. Things are better defined. Still not enough for me. As I say conceptually I don't like the idea of safe spaces and I asked a rhetorical question of the House: what's the next safe space that we have to create? Safe spaces around parliamentary offices from Green Party activists? You know of course I don't want that but why not if you want to follow that argument through. We shouldn't be if you will—and I've said it in a different context before: ideas and opinions are never safe. They always challenge us. I again just want to reiterate in this House tonight: I worry of this continuing trend to try and limit what people can say think or be. So with that I'll leave it there. Thanks Mr Speaker.