Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to speak on this the Abortion Legislation Bill. I do so acknowledging strong views held on all sides of the House—and indeed throughout this land of ours—and I'd like to start by thanking all those who have been in touch with me these past several days from both sides of the debate some sharing very personal stories of having access to abortion services and among those a division of those who support the bill and those who don't. But I thank them all for it; I'm not dismissive of our citizens being engaged in a democracy. It's important to me and it should be important to every member of this House to hear the perspectives that are out there and so strongly held.Let our starting point be to consider the current law that is sought to be changed. The various pieces of correspondence that have lobbied me essentially in support of the proposed changes often cite instances where it's contended that an abortion would be appropriate. In all of those cases so far of the emails—some hundreds of emails—that I've read all of these situations are already covered under the current law. So then we turn our minds to what the provisions of the proposed law might be. Within that we have a couple of different scenarios—one a situation of conception up to 20 weeks' gestation which is relatively similar to the current practice albeit not the current law and then again the situation of a period beyond 20 weeks' gestation to the point at which birth would otherwise have been due to take place.Before I discuss some of those proposed changes with the House I'd just like to touch on the crucial aspect that must guide our consideration whichever side of the debate we come from which is how we regard that being that is in the womb. Whether an unborn child—or foetus" as one might refer to it variously—that being has a beating heart unique DNA independent movement and is capable of feeling pain increasingly as time goes on. It seems to me clear and the science is clear that this is some manner of human life and independent from her mother in many different ways. If anyone can convince me that such a being is not worthy of at least some protection then I will support the proposed changes that we have before us. But it seems to me obvious that if the being in the womb which for the sake of shorthand I'll henceforth refer to as "an unborn child" is merely a collection of cells then I put it to you that we are all merely a collection of cells.Looking at the criteria for abortion in the proposed law beyond the 20-week period we have broad and unrestrictive terms for that—a "qualified health practitioner" which needn't be a medical doctor—and we have no safeguards to prevent abortions on the grounds of sex selection disability or coercion of the mother or the would-be mother. Also in relation to late-term abortions again another move in the direction of liberalisation. There is no restriction or regulation on the method of abortion that may be used. No parental input or notification is required in the case of a would-be mother under the age of 16 years. If we're going to make evidence-based policy in this place it's important that we do give regard to the evidence including the historical record which is that as far as I'm aware there have never been any criminal convictions under the current law for a woman seeking and indeed obtaining an abortion under the current Act.I'll conclude my remarks on that aspect of the current versus the proposed because of course the detail does matter and I would urge all MPs on both sides of the House—or more to the point the issue—to engage meaningfully with that detail when it comes before the select committee if it should pass first reading of course today. Let me conclude with a short quote from one of the many pieces of correspondence I've received from a woman who has had an abortion and it is as follows: "I don't believe the abortion laws need more reform in the liberal direction but should rather include other support services for women considering abortion." I strongly agree with that but I also put forward too the radical notion to the House that if you don't like a bill if you disagree with its provisions you should vote against it. And with that I have no hesitation in opposing this bill."