Kaye NikkiHon NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I rise to speak in this debate. I am supporting this legislation for reasons that I have previously spoken about: the importance of ensuring that women have equal rights in New Zealand and that they have access to safe abortions. We know there are significant issues around access in terms of New Zealand but also I believe that we have a very archaic law. The specific issue and Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) that I wanted to deal with is actually David Seymour's SOP 464 around safe zones. This has been an incredibly hard decision for me on this SOP because I am what I would consider one of the most liberal members in the House. I believe in freedom of speech and I believe in freedom of political communication but I will not be supporting David Seymour's SOP which is a very hard decision and I'll tell you why. Basically I don't buy the argument that there isn't some harm that does occur with some women and some of the submitters turned up to select committee and actually said that. This is not an unusual provision across the world and in fact I've just been reading a lengthy judgment from Australia—a 200-page decision—whereby as I understand it most of the jurisdictions and territories in Australia have something like these safe zones. Basically when you look at that particular case and you look at the balance that is being struck here there is this recognition that with freedom of speech and freedom of political communication there are limits to that if there is harm that is being caused by individuals. I accept David's argument that the Law Commission has said that there isn't significant evidence of this but with all due respect we are dealing with a different legal framework. I have personally experienced and many other members in the House have experienced some of the bullying and intimidation that has come from some of the people who have been submitting. I have heard the stories of some of the people who have put in submissions and I can't with my conscience support David's SOP because I don't actually have confidence in the bullying and intimidation laws in New Zealand. So the ideal thing here for me from a parliamentary perspective when our schools are rife with bullying and our country has a major bullying issue would be to properly deal with that with a legislative perspective but we don't have that bill before Parliament. So I have been in a very difficult situation on this bill because my absolute instincts are to support David's removal of these safe zones but I know that the rest of our law is deficient and that there will be women who will be intimidated and who will be harassed and the reality is that it is not an unlimited provision. The reality is there will be protesters outside those safe zones. They will have the ability as was noted in a 200-page legal case in Australia where there are limits and proscription around these safe zones. I will also be supporting unusually Marama Davidson's SOP 474 because again and I know that there will be lots of different views in this House I think there has been an attempt to better balance—and I think David noted this in his speech to the committee—the right of freedom of expression and the right to protest and to be able to have people's views heard. Thank you very much.