Logie JanJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Mr Chair. There's just a few points in response to that speaker that I'd like to raise.I guess in my previous contribution and previously I do feel an emotional connection to the experience of people that have gone through this. And that certainly does inform my position on this bill which is that I hold compassion for their experience and I want us to have a law that enables them to be able to make the right decisions for themselves without stigmatisation or interference from this place. But it is also rational. And I would point to the fact that there was quite a strong statement—and I wish I'd got it down to be able to repeat it back—about the position of wanting to remove the 20 weeks not being consistent with any human rights perspective where actually that is not the case. In the Law Commission's report I point the previous contributor to page 79 where they note—and in chapter 3 additionally—that international human rights law supports the removal of third party authorisation requirements and other statutory restrictions on abortion."I thank the member for also stating clearly his opposition to abortion—and I absolutely support people's right to that view and to express that view and for that to be represented in this House. That is appropriate; there is not consensus in this country on abortion. However one in four women are likely to have had an abortion in this country. We are not going to stop that. The numbers are decreasing because actually it's about good medical practice and good relationships and access to contraception and we are supporting more of that.But I would also make the point that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court recognises forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity. The fact that the human rights agencies around the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women has been calling on this country through several reports now—three I think—to decriminalise abortion in this country and to support appropriate decision-making in relation to abortion—and this is in consideration of ethics of law and of international comparisons as well as human rights. There were I think quite a few submitters who pointed out some language in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as evidence against this piece of legislation but did not look to the understanding of that language and the consensus understanding across different nations that—while it talks to the right to life—there is an understanding of the rights and sexual and reproductive health rights of women and that that does not stand against countries decriminalising abortion in any way. So while I do absolutely hold to this on an emotional level and see the importance of this House acting with compassion to the forefront there is very strong logic supported by health practitioners that lies behind this. And when I hear the previous speaker say that there is no medical reason ever for a post - 20 weeks termination I do just want to point out that that will result in the death of a significant number of women—if his world view was put into legislation. And not just through taking their own lives which we know happens when we suppress access to good abortion care but also through removing the ability of doctors to save women's lives which was partly the case for the Cavanaghs as mentioned earlier. That is a consequence I really suspect very few people in this House would have any support for."