Lee MelissaMELISSA LEE (National): Thank you Mr Chair. I'd like to start off by thanking my colleagues who have actually spoken to and in support of my Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) 479 and also 478. I have actually split my earlier SOP I think—which was 459 if my memory serves me right—because it actually had two issues joined together in terms of discrimination. But I have actually since separated the issue of gender discrimination and disability discrimination so that members can actually vote on them separately.I'd like to start off with the Minister Andrew Little's comments when he actually said that people who oppose this bill are generally opposed to abortion and that we have a particular religious view and hence we are opposed. I find that extremely offensive. I'm a woman I'm a mother and he suggests that I can't deal with facts. The fact is we have 13000 abortions in this country—fact.When children are raped or are victims of incest most of us in this House would probably support the idea that she has an abortion. I don't think there's anyone in this room who actually would suggest that Oh no that child should not have an abortion." or that it should be made more difficult for that child to deal with that impact of having gone through the process of being raped or the incest that she's actually suffered at the hands of—the example that the Minister actually gave was the father. That is apparently the very reason why the father or the parents are not supposed to have anything to do with the decision of a young child who decides to have an abortion. Parents are not supposed to actually be notified even though they are not allowed to give Panadol or any kind of medication at school without the parents' consent.Earlier when one of my colleagues was actually speaking—I think it was Simon O'Connor—Louisa Wall yelled out certain things about facts: that we need to deal with facts. Yes facts. In this country we talk about gender discrimination pay parity. We talk about all kinds of things that supposedly—we apparently don't like discrimination and yet in this particular bill we discriminate. We do not protect people from deciding that they can have an abortion based on gender.The Minister in the chair the Hon Andrew Little earlier said that women are not stupid; they do not actually all of a sudden after 20 weeks go to have an abortion—that they actually decide that earlier. Then why does this bill not restrict abortion to earlier times of pregnancy rather than making it open slather? There's no limitations after 20 weeks when a woman could not have an abortion. That is where misinformation happens. It's not us who are spurring the misinformation; it is the bill that is problematic.The issue is that when people discover that they're having a particular gender child they can make a decision whether to abort or not. When a parent finds out that there is an issue with the child in utero—that they might have Down syndrome they might have spina bifida they might have any kind of a disability—it is an opportunity for that parent to make that decision to abort. What I am actually saying is that we should not allow that discrimination. I have fought discrimination all my life. As an Asian New Zealander discrimination is rife out there against people who are of different ethnicities and yet this bill is allowing people to discriminate on gender and disability in utero. After 20 weeks when the sex is actually known they should not be allowed to abort. This is ridiculous.I would like to read a couple of the emails that I've actually received from people. Chantel Mitchell says—and I quote—"This is becoming more about us making sure we have perfect babies the gender we want the baby without a disability etc. than merely a healthcare issue." And I totally agree with her. Another one from Evan Clulee who says—and I quote—"As a person with spina bifida we literally are a dying breed. Parents now may face extra pressures and babies diagnosed with spina bifida in utero will be at even greater risk prevented from even beginning our lives if these proposed abortion reform laws go through." Another one from Sorbhanya Kim who actually says—I quote—"We shouldn't be allowed to kill someone weaker than ourselves because they are an inconvenience. We shouldn't be allowed to kill someone weaker than ourselves because they might have a disability. People with disabilities are just as valued as anyone else. They can live a loving and fulfilling life." And I agree with them all.I think it was Louisa Wall who actually mentioned I think in earlier debates that lots of members have actually talked about the right of a woman to control what happens to her body. I am a woman. I have had a child. But the DNA of a child in utero is not part of a woman's body; it is 50 percent the father's. So does the father have a say in this issue? What happens if the abortion is forced upon a woman by an abusive husband? In section—I have actually folded the part—182 of the Crimes Act it contains an offence of killing an unborn child and provides a prison term of up to 14 years. They were particularly concerned if a pregnant woman is abused—let's say kicked—and the child in utero is killed. The abuser can actually go to prison. What is the difference between an unborn child that has been kicked and dies and an unborn child of the same age that is being aborted by a woman who makes a decision to abort based on the gender or the disability of the child?Sure I understand as a mother who has actually gone through the process when I was pregnant me and my now ex-husband. When we were pregnant—and it was the best thing that happened to us; we were so joyous—at six weeks before that you go through the process with the doctor. The doctor actually says—oh apparently I was a geriatric pregnancy because I had my baby in my thirties.Simon O'Connor: Oh!MELISSA LEE: Yes a geriatric pregnancy! I was given an option to have an amniocentesis and I wanted to know what kind of danger that might actually put my child in. The reason why that amnio was actually provided or was offered to me so easily was because apparently as a geriatric mother to a child in a geriatric pregnancy they wanted to actually make sure that I didn't have a Down syndrome child and that I could be provided an abortion. That offer came so quick and so fast.As a first-time pregnant woman I just wanted to gather the information and actually sort of read all about it and consider all options. At six weeks I heard the heartbeat of my child. There was no way—there was no way—regardless of gender regardless of disability that I could abort a child that was growing in my body. The DNA—Marja Lubeck: Then don't have it!MELISSA LEE: She says "Don't have it." Well that's the problem: some people use it as a method of contraception and I oppose that. The problem with this bill is that we are liberalising abortion in this country—the very fact that we are allowing people after 20 weeks of pregnancy to abort—and I want to provide some parameters I guess through my Supplementary Order Paper to make sure that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of gender nor do we discriminate against people on the basis of disability. I think this bill is abhorrent. I do not support it. I hope it doesn't actually go through. But if we have to we want to make sure that there are some—some—protections in this bill. That is why I move my Supplementary Order Papers 478 and 479. Thank you."