van Velden BrookeBROOKE VAN VELDEN (Deputy Leader—ACT): Thank you Madam Speaker. I'm going to take a call this morning on behalf of the ACT Party on the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill at the second reading. I'm doing so on behalf of ACT in acknowledgment that we have all adopted a position in support of the second reading but also doing so for my own self. I have always been a staunch believer in a woman's right to choose. I'm very thankful that my colleagues are also in favour of a woman's right to choose. In fact David Seymour when he was the only member of ACT in this Chamber in the last term voted in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill but actually wished for the more progressive side of that abortion legislation to occur. That didn't happen. The House agreed on a more restrictive form for that Act.But I acknowledge that there are a range of views that occurred in the Health Committee which I was privileged to sit on and listen to some of the submissions. I want to acknowledge the hours of work that the Clerk's Office and the officials did in reading through all of those submissions—a huge number that were very emotive. I have a lot of respect for the Clerk's Office and the officials who do such diligent work for us. A lot of the submissions though weren't actually about safe areas. A lot of them were to do with whether or not we should in fact allow abortions to occur at all in New Zealand. But that's not really the debate that we were to have because we settled that in the last term with the abortion legislation. But if there is any cause for doubt we are firmly in favour of a woman's right to choose. This bill in particular aims to protect the safety and wellbeing the respect and privacy and dignity of women accessing abortion facilities and practitioners providing and helping with abortion services. That's a very well intentioned aim. I think we all know women who have had abortions many who would never have actually told us. But thankfully with how society is progressing more and more people are feeling it's OK to actually talk about these things with their friends and their family. And I know personally many people who have had abortions and they should be respected for their choices and not feel like they're going to be threatened or obstructed from entering an abortion service when they're already in a very vulnerable situation.I do also want to acknowledge the role that ACT had to play in bringing this bill to Parliament. When we had the debate on the Abortion Legislation Bill the ACT Party removed the provision for the safe areas. That was because we wanted to make sure that the correct balance was struck between protecting women from harm when they're going to enter an abortion facility and also the principle of the right to freedom of expression and free speech. We believe that both of these are very important principles and aims but we didn't believe that at the time the correct balance was struck in that piece of legislation and we are very happy that it was in fact removed. I have to admire the tenacity of Louisa Wall for putting forward a member's bill to put safe areas back into legislation.Now we didn't believe the right balance was struck then and we also didn't believe that the right balance was struck between protecting people and their rights and also protecting freedom of speech at the first reading. That's because we looked at the word communicate" and that was the same reason for why we removed that provision in the abortion legislation—it's because we believe that it was far too broad and actually went against people's rights in an undemocratic and unjustifiable manner. It was far too broad to simply say that communicating in an area close to an abortion facility should be prohibited. We believed it would have a chilling effect on free speech. And I note that our fears were actually also the same fears of the Attorney-General because I read some parts of the Attorney-General's section 7 report where he believed it was also inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and he said clause 5 of the bill as introduced would be defining a behaviour that would be prohibited in safe areas that would include intimidation interfering with or obstructing a protected person. Those are you know well-intentioned aims but also said that it was "overly broad and not a justifiable limit on s 14 of the Bill of Rights Act." He considered that the term "communicating" had a broad scope because it "appears to cover any speech or behaviour with a communicative element rather than focusing on the forms of communication common to anti-abortion activism" but also believed it was "likely to have a chilling effect on all forms of communication within a safe area."Now we had a lot of discussions in the select committee about how to strike that correct balance and we wanted to see the word "communicate" struck from the bill and the scope narrowed and I'm glad that we were able—in good faith—to come to a compromise that struck a better balance between the right for people to access health services in a manner that they feel respected but also to uphold the rights of freedom of speech in a democratic country with justifiable limitations. We were also glad to see the removal of safe areas being automatic and I think one aspect that became quite apparent was listening to one submitter that said "Well if my home is within the safe zone does that mean that I can't talk about my own personal beliefs within my home?" And the advice that we had was yes that would actually be a prohibited behaviour. So I'm very glad to see that the safe zones and the requirements around the regulations have been much much more narrow.We have struck a much better balance and we are happy to now support the bill because of the good faith that has happened in the select committee to make sure that we have that correct balance between freedom of speech and the right for people to access a health service. We believe that it's really important that people do have access to health services. It is their right under our New Zealand laws. I actually believe it is the right thing to allow people to have that choice. But we also must ensure that we're upholding freedom of expression and freedom of speech and it's not unnecessarily impinged on. I'm glad to see that the Attorney-General after the changes made at select committee does believe that the limitations on freedom of speech are democratically justified.At first reading we did say that we would support the bill if the word "communicate" was removed. That has happened and I'm very proud to stand here on behalf of a party that makes sure that we are always making sure that we're getting good public policy right and that we're taking the time to do due diligence and making sure that we are not unnecessarily impinging on people's rights and freedoms and that we are creating the correct balance between everybody's rights in society. I do note that there is the provision for a review in five years and if anything happens that is impinging too far on freedom of speech we can come back and review it at that time. But on balance ACT as happy to support this bill. Thank you Madam Speaker."