Davidson MaramaMARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green): Thank you very much Mr Chair. I am going to speak primarily to my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) in my name—the Abortion Legislation Bill proposed amendment 474—which is in Part 1; it is clause 5. This amendment is essentially about the right to safely access health services and my amendment outlines that protecting this right can happen in a way that does not contravene other freedoms. I see this amendment as a way of living our values—living Green values—of respectful engagement and allowing people to also access a health service with dignity.If we go to the amendment that I am proposing primarily it wants to improve the current provisions around establishing a safe area. There are three main ways that I want to improve the current proposals. The first one: I am proposing that it is the Director-General of Health who may establish a safe area instead of the Minister. This is part of streamlining a process for service providers to be able to establish a health area. This is also ensuring an independent decision maker is the way to establish the safe area rather than a ministerial or political appointment making the decision around establishing a safe area.My SOP maintains the high threshold for the establishment of safe areas. The high threshold is for example where it says that the director-general needs to be satisfied that the establishment of a safe area—(a) is necessary to protect the safety and wellbeing and respect the privacy and dignity of persons—(i) accessing abortion services:"—and it continues on.My proposal also wants to give a clearer definition of restricted activities such as restricting displaying signage with images or messages about abortion services or broadcasting or otherwise communicating such messages about abortion. The provisions as they stand are not clear do not give a clear definition and so my SOP goes a fair way to giving a little bit more certainty and definition for these safe areas to be established in the first place.The third way that my SOP wants to improve the law in the current proposals is to actually provide that a breach of a safe area restriction is an infringement offence with a $500 fee as opposed to the $1000 fee that is currently being proposed. This is because we do not want to criminalise protesting. We understand that the right to protest and the freedom of expression is a dearly held value across a society that affirms human rights and indeed our bill of rights framework. For this reason my proposal is wanting to reduce the fee but also do away with the power in the current provisions which enables a constable to arrest and take a person into custody without a warrant.Again we do not want to criminalise protest and valid freedom of expression behaviour. We do want to find a clearer and more defined way to set up necessary safe areas. We need safe areas to allow any person wanting to access health services the right to access them with safety and with dignity. So we do see an important need for being able to set up safe areas. We want those safe areas to be established in a way that is far more streamlined for the providers and in a way that doesn't involve a political appointment and instead has an independent decision maker. I think I will leave it there for now. That is the SOP that I wish to submit to the committee."