Seymour DavidDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you Mr Speaker. I rise on this conscience vote on behalf of myself to support the first reading of this bill but I note that all ACT MPs have adopted the same position of supporting this bill at the first reading. I want to also make a preliminary comment that I doubt there are many members in this House who can claim to have given as full-throated support for a woman's right to choose on this issue as I have. I was one of very few members of Parliament who voted for model A as recommended by the Law Commission. I believe that the law that this Parliament passed is actually too restrictive. I believe that not because I am pro-abortion as some people who email me seem to think but because I am pro-choice and more specifically I do not believe it is practical for the State to improve matters around abortion—in fact it is probably one of the most evil and futile and actually counter-productive things the Government can do to deploy its apparatus to try and force women to take pregnancies to term against their will. It's completely nuts. So that is why I oppose prohibitions on abortion and I'm very happy to support this legislation today.But it is also true that I have had a bit of a role in ensuring that safe zones are not part of the legislation as passed just as the Law Commission originally recommended that there be no safe zones in this legislation because they said that it was futile. And actually the principle of opposing prohibitions on abortion is exactly the same as the principle for opposing prohibitions on free speech. It's not that we like the bad things that some people say; I detest the odious ogres that have been described standing outside abortion clinics. I'm not sure what else I can do to ensure that none of them are very likely to ever vote for me. However I do believe that while they shouldn't be saying it it is a greater evil—and the Attorney-General alluded to it—to have a Government that is allowed to decide what you can and can't say. There are people who have stood up in this debate and said Oh but this is an exception." The difficulty with standing for a principle like free speech is that it is a principle. Once you say "We're prepared to make some exceptions" the challenge is to actually explain where someone in that position would stop making exceptions. Nobody has got up and explained where they would stop making exceptions—that's what people can never do once they abandon principles such as free speech.So where does that leave us on this legislation? Well the ACT Party has looked very carefully at the drafting that is here. There are parts that we agree with. We agree that a prohibited behaviour should be intimidating interfering with or obstructing a woman going to seek an abortion. Now arguably that's redundant—and the Law Commission said it was redundant because we already have laws against doing all those things—but we agree there should be a law and we don't mind if this law reinforces that with safe zones. But we take the same position as the Attorney-General who spoke earlier that the word "communicating" is a step too far. A ban on communication even in a small area is an erosion of the principle of free speech that we will all regret eventually having admitted it.So my position and that position of ACT MPs is that we want to see this debate happen. We want to see this bill go to select committee and be properly examined. We're prepared to continue supporting it so long as we have that word "communicate" removed. That's in line with the Law Commission. That's in line with the section 7 report from the Attorney-General. That's in line with the principles of this country that is built on free speech. And it's also in line with having safe areas that stop intimidation interference and obstruction of women who are seeking what is perfectly legal healthcare.If the later stages of this legislation do not remove that prohibition on communication then we will argue that a prohibition on free speech is no better than the prohibition on abortion that we thankfully removed in this House last year. Thank you Mr Speaker."