Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this the third reading of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I've enjoyed the debate. As always in these matters it's helpful I think that we have such an opportunity in this case for me to make a second contribution having spoken at the start of the legislative process—so to bookend it so to speak with some thoughts that I'd like to share with the House and indeed anyone who may be watching.First may I place on record what I would hope would be an obvious wish that harassment not be visited upon anyone at any time anywhere for any reason but that general desire and hope is not the stuff of legislation. We are concerned of course in this House or should always be concerned in this House with the specific application and implication of laws that we pass in this place. So within my time I'd like to focus a little bit on some arguments around what this bill might add to the statute book relative to those provisions in other laws that are already on that; second to give a bit of context in terms of the constitutional interplay that we had with the Attorney-General's original vet and then discussion effectively with the House through the select committee on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications; obviously then to look at the specific provisions of the bill including and especially the extent to which it may capture behaviour that may or may not be intended by the Parliament to be caught; and then finally a reflection on the unique nature of the services that have been—protesting about the nature of the services at stake in this particular bill as opposed to protest more generally. First of all then relative to existing laws I do note that the select committee report addressed the fact that our statute book has already various pieces of legislation that substantially do cover this area. So I'm just quoting from that in a way that would more usually take place at second reading but noting that I didn't speak at the second reading they note that the Summary Offences Act 1981 to which I'd add section 4 Offensive behaviour or language" has provisions that are very much in the space of preventing behaviour that is deemed to be offensive or language included; the Harassment Act 1987 the Trespass Act 1980 under which notices can be issued and so forth. We've heard from a previous contributor to the debate who was arguing in favour of the bill that one of the issues with such legislation is it would require evidence to be given of such wrongdoing. When the State gives itself the power to forcibly remove a person and to limit their rights in such a way as this bill is seeking to do the giving of evidence about the things that have taken place is a feature of our system not a bug. We should tread very carefully when we contemplate giving the power—physical coercive power—of the State over human beings in relation to matters in which evidence is not required for the exercise in application of such force.The second point—but actually I'll just pause on that note briefly. I think there is a legitimate argument around the privacy aspects. I think in this country—and this is a personal view; I'm taking the liberty of expressing it under the guise of a conscience vote—but I think our privacy laws in this country are seriously deficient in many different areas. And so I would have sympathy for the view that's expressed in the House that that the privacy of people generally needs to be protected much more rigorously than it currently is.On the point that I've appealingly described as a constitutional point but bear with me I do want to acknowledge the interaction which I regard as very positive in itself between the Attorney-General and the Parliament through the select committee. The member in charge of the bill is nodding and I'm pleased that she acknowledges that point and other colleagues have spoken on that—I think approvingly in every case notwithstanding that other views on the bill may differ. So I think it's positive that the Attorney-General having given a report on the inconsistency of the bill as introduced with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act then became subject of the dialogue between the select committee and the Attorney-General such that he suggested I think a couple of amendments. I think the suggestion came from him and I think I'm receiving affirmation again from the member in charge of the bill. The select committee responded by making essentially the suggestions that are amended. So I would say on that basis that the bill is better than it was. But of course in order to cast a vote in favour of a piece of legislation to me at least the test is not whether merely that it is better but that it is good enough and specifically that its positives are not outweighed by its negatives.So in terms of the issue that was raised by the Attorney-General his view—with which I agree for what that's worth—was that the phrase "communicating with" was too broad in the bill as introduced at first reading. So we have now three sets of behaviour if you like that are prohibited under new section 13A set out in clause 5. The first is that a person cannot be obstructed in a safe area. Well that's already covered by existing law. The second is to make a visual recording of another person in a safe area in a way that might cause emotional distress. I do actually have sympathy with that. As I've said I'm happy to place on record I don't believe that such behaviour is valid anywhere in New Zealand including in this context. So as I said that fits in with a more general view I have about the need to protect New Zealanders' privacy in any kind of intimate situation notwithstanding that such recording may take place in a public space.Then the third set of behaviour includes a provision in new section 13A(1)(i) which I still have difficulty with and I refer back to my comments in the first reading. So it would be an offence to do any of the following including in the one particular I wish to highlight: to "advise or persuade [person] A"—the one who may be accessing providing or assisting with providing abortion services—"to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services (unless the advice or persuasion is by a person who is with the consent of A accompanying A)". So they have covered the consent possibility but this doesn't preclude the possibility or doesn't exempt from the application of the bill that the other parent if I can use that shorthand might wish to seek to persuade their partner so to speak against accessing abortion services in relation to the unborn child. To me that remains objectionable and it is of course entirely possible that a person—it would more typically be a male partner; not necessarily I suppose—would wish to say and the other person might not agree that the abortion procedure should not take place. And we are providing a pretty heavy hand of the State on that person and preventing them from doing so with a fine of up to $1000 the commission of an offence and the ability of that person to be taken into custody without a warrant. So I refer there to the following provision which is new section 13B "Power of constable to arrest without warrant". It is pretty serious stuff and as a Parliament we should take very seriously the impinging of liberty in such areas and I don't believe that we should legislate as lightly as it seems we are about to act in this space bearing in mind you know different rights and balances that need to be struck in those areas. I do want to acknowledge the arguments that have been made I think on both sides of the debate but including by proponents of the bill that this is not about abortion it's not about relitigating the legislation of 2020. And I agree with that. I agree strongly that we should be considering this through the framework of rights. But nevertheless it is. It is about abortion and the clue's in the title of the bill; the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act is the one that is being amended. So while it is true in a way to say as a previous contributor has that abortion is a key medical procedure it is unique in its own terms and that was put forward as a reason to allow this as an exception to the general rule that we allow freedom of expression. But actually it's also unique in the sense that it's on our statute book alone as an act to end a human life without the consent of that human—other than in self-defence. I'm conscious that some might say that's just my view. It's also the view of science of course that an independent separate human life is involved. As I say that's my view; others have different views. They're entitled to these and those who hold the same view as me are also entitled to theirs. So for that reason and with the caveats and qualifications that I've put on it I cannot support this bill at this the third and final reading."