Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): Thank you Mr Chair and I thank Mr Brown for his invitation to speak. I had intended to go through a number of responses to a number of contributions but I'll deal with his because I think Mr Brown makes a good point. It certainly has been the intention—I think that the committee had intended it—that there will still be a continued collection of relevant statistical information so that we know what is happening in relation to the incidence of abortion in New Zealand. That proposed replacement section 20E is a transitional section. We know that the Abortion Supervisory Committee collects information collects data and publishes that data. That was intended to ensure that that continues: the data specified in subsection (1) of that proposed section as well as the data set out in Schedule 2 in accordance with subsection (2) of that proposed section 20E. However that part of the bill and specifically replacement section 20D requires the director-general to collect collate analyse and publish information. It is set out there and describes the information that has to be collected. I would also refer the member to proposed section 21 which is a general regulation-making power where the Governor-General can provide by way of regulation requirements and stipulations on the director-general. That would also include a requirement in relation to the information that has to be collected and collated analysed and published. So I think that is covered off.I think where the member's Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 480 goes a little bit far is in some of the information that he wants collected. So it's not just the previous pregnancies but viable pregnancies and what have you. That is not necessary to evaluate the impact of or the significance of or the incidence of abortions in New Zealand. So that is the reason why I don't support his SOP.If I could just go through some of the points that I and the other Minister who has sat in the chair on my behalf have recorded the points that have been made. I'll do my best to rattle through these to provide a response to members who have put in effort to put in SOPs and taking the time to speak to them. I think that is the right way for these debates to continue.I do note the member Agnes Loheni's reference to abortion on demand up to birth. It's a sad trope that gets trotted out by the anti-abortionists about abortion up to birth. There is no abortion up to birth; there never has been abortion up to birth in New Zealand. We regulate in relation to up to 20 weeks. When the Law Commission was looking at the question about where you put the threshold it was all about fetal viability.Other jurisdictions that have reformed their abortion laws more recently: I think of Queensland in Australia that has a threshold of 22 weeks; I think of the state of New York in the United States that has a threshold of 24 weeks. Because the medical evidence generally speaking suggests that fetal viability is not possible until at least 23 weeks. We have set it at 20 weeks. I think that is the right thing to do and reflects the law that has been in place since 1977. So it does not help the debate when we get into extreme—and frankly inaccurate—labelling like that.I know the member wants to change the language from clinically appropriate" to "medically appropriate". That reflects I think the fact that our medical profession now is bound by a set of articulated standards that did not exist 40 years ago. When Venn Young was pushing the legislation through at the time the medical profession was very much sort of operating like a conclave. It was even tighter and more secret than you know electing a pope but that's changed now. We have an openness and a transparency in our medical profession that we did not have 40 years ago. Those standards and the clinical standards that the medical profession of all types—health practitioners—operate to are known. They all have their own various colleges and professional standard-setting bodies—their disciplinary bodies. We didn't have that 40 years ago perhaps apart from the New Zealand Medical Association which didn't do a great deal at that time—a little bit more busy more recently because people know their medical rights.I want to go to the point made by Alfred Ngaro about his SOP relating to Treaty rights. I know he says that Māori he's spoken to regard pregnancy as tapu and therefore a taonga. But the Treaty deals with the obligations as between the Crown and Māori collectively. The Treaty was never intended to deal with the rights of a patient consulting a doctor—that is not what the Treaty was about and so we do not need to go that far. So I don't support the SOP that that member has put up.The member Jo Hayes refers to her SOP 462 and she's concerned about women being coerced to give consent and the issue of whether or not they're capable of giving consent. Medical professionals are required as a matter of course to determine the capacity of their patients whether they can give consent. In a situation like this where a woman is consulting her medical professional an issue that a medical professional has to be alert to is whether there is an element of coercion. That has always been the case in relation to these things. Medical professionals must advise if they are concerned that the person who is consulting with them may be under some sort of coercion or intimidation and what have you.I'm going to come to the issue of safe areas. I know the member Marama Davidson talked about her SOP 474 and would prefer it if the decision was left to the Director-General of Health rather than the Minister. For the reasons that David Seymour has well articulated—which is that it is in the end a political issue and political considerations will apply—I think it should sit with the Minister but I'll come to that in a little more depth to respond to the points that Mr Seymour has made.I acknowledge my friend and parliamentary colleague Simon O'Connor and his amendment regarding births following abortion. I should say although I said that that never happens I am corrected. It does happen extremely rarely when an abortion happens very late in the pregnancy. I'll go back to the point that others have made: women do not decide on a whim substantially through the pregnancy that they've changed their mind they don't want the pregnancy. By 20 weeks women want the pregnancy. They want that child but something goes seriously wrong and they have to consult their medical professional and the question of abortion might arise. Now he's concerned about the situation—the very very and extremely rare situation—in which having consulted about an abortion the fetus is viable and can be delivered viably. I acknowledge that point but there are medical professional obligations that already surround that particular situation.I acknowledge the points made by Nicky Wagner in her SOP 468. I agree with her that the language is out of date. A lot of the language in the rest of that legislation is out of date but I do note that this legislation deals solely with the issue of abortion. I would like to think at some point this House could come back at a later stage at the very least just to tidy up the language in the legislation so it is not cast in the offensive terms that it is at the moment.To Parmjeet Parmar who has raised her issue about ethnic profiling I repeat the point that I think David Seymour made which is to deal with that issue in the way proposed in that SOP SOP 475 ends up in effect requiring a medical practitioner to exercise a level of prejudice that may not be helpful—in fact may be harmful. I don't agree with that SOP.To David Seymour: I won't go through the SOPs he says he doesn't support because I largely agree with him on each of those. I make this point in relation to his SOP 464 about removing the safe area or safe zone provisions. I agree with him. I know he doesn't think I do sometimes but I totally agree with him and his concern. I look to him as the champion of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It is the right thing for a party of his ilk to do. He does it very well and I respect him for it.He refers to the Law Commission saying there was no evidence of the need for this. I recite to him the age-old adage "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". So the Law Commission didn't see it but the reality is that others came to the Abortion Legislation Committee and expressed their experience. Just from some of them that went to the select committee—Scott Summerfeld said "I want to be clear these anti-abortion protests are harassment." He was talking about things that have actually happened. They are directly targeted at people accessing abortion services in a very deliberate manner. There were other contributions as well.I want to make this point too: the purpose of the safe area provision with all the safeguards around it it's not guaranteed in any particular case. A DHB has to make the case to the Minister at the time who has to be satisfied that there is a need and that it is a justified limitation on the freedom of speech or freedom of expression. This is about prevention. It's no good saying to a woman who's been intimidated and harassed "You can lay complaint afterwards." They should not be subject to that when what they are doing is consulting a medical practitioner about a decision they must be entitled to make."