Barry MaggieHon MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Thank you Madam Chair. Remind me again why this bill is needed. We were told that this Government bill emerged from a policy decision from the Government an idea conceived to apparently decriminalise women who had abortions by removing it from the Crimes Act and by making it a health issue. Many of us felt Fair enough." But why do we really need to have new legislation to do that? The Crimes Act already specifically excludes women from liability for having an unlawful abortion and women are not criminalised now for accessing abortion services. No woman indeed has ever been criminalised in the 40 years that this supposedly inadequate law has been around. I contest therefore it is fit for modern purpose. But if women are uncomfortable about this and many of us in this House are motivated to see that the right thing is done then why not take a review—the sort of review that could be done by the royal commission? A straightforward amendment to the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act section 44 would achieve that aim of removing criminality for the woman. But this is a bill that goes so much further than just shifting it across into a health issue because it decriminalises women but it also decriminalises abortion. Many of us in this House and many people who have written and talked to me about this are deeply uneasy about the later-term abortions and you know this is a bill that significantly expands the criteria for abortion after 20 weeks and does go so far as to repeal criminal sanctions against any health practitioners who provide an unlawful abortion. So decriminalising abortion and doing later-term ones are things that do not sit easily with many of us. I am particularly worried about the provisions for making decisions about terminating a child's life in the terms of this bill. It's unenforceable and there is no genuine—it's hard to imagine the circumstances in which an abortion would not be allowed. Let's put it this way. As others have pointed out—and I refer to Melissa Lee's contribution and her Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 459—there are potentially grounds for discrimination on the basis of the gender of the fetus and also whether the child has a disability because taking it beyond 20 weeks means that the ability to determine whether a child has a disability is far more apparent. The provisions that she set out in her SOP to provide a certificate confirming that the doctors "are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that the unborn child is affected by a condition that is likely to lead to the death of the unborn child either before or within 28 days of birth." spells it out very carefully I think. Others have mentioned you know the Downright Discrimination NZ submission that has come before us that Down syndrome children will be actively discriminated against and aborted before they are even born. I believe that again SOP 459 in the name of Melissa Lee does provide some safeguards there. Downright Discrimination which represents not only the whānau but also the people living with Down syndrome themselves point out that in jurisdictions such as Victoria in Australia where they changed the law 12 years ago there has been a dramatic increase in the number of children who are aborted between 20 weeks and birth. The data shows that since 2008 there have been 1685 abortions of babies specifically with a disability. So the idea that later-term pregnancies at the moment under the current law will not increase—I think if you look across the Tasman and look at what's available there then you will find that there are ample measures and ample room for worry that this will occur here in New Zealand. I agree also with the amendment in the name of Greg O—Greg O'Connor. I did nearly choke on that one but I do support your amendment Greg. I think that it is something that has been a careful consideration around trying to come to terms with the unease in this House about having more than 20 weeks allowable and freed up for abortions. I think that the two medical specialist practitioners that are spelt out in your amendment who can determine whether there's risk to life or of serious harm to the physical or mental health and also if the child is impaired—that there should be something done about it. I'd like the Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little to answer this question and it's been skirted around. When does life begin Minister: at conception at birth at 20 weeks—for those of us who've felt the kick who've seen the heartbeat? Where does it start?"