Penk ChrisCHRIS PENK (National—Kaipara ki Mahurangi): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I take the opportunity unusually perhaps as an approach by agreeing with a number of the things that have been said by those who are voting another way than me on the bill. I agree with Louisa Wall that this is fundamentally not a question of support or otherwise for the practice of abortion; indeed the question is somewhat more narrow than that in scope. This House last year I think it was—it seems like longer than that but it was relatively recently that the House discussed more substantive issues in relation to that practice and its collective mind was determined at that point. This is not an opportunity to relitigate that one way or tother.I also want to agree with the previous contributor Anahila Kanongata'a-Suisuiki who said effectively that she did not endorse any of the following practices in relation to those who would provide abortion services: arson death threats tunnelling under a clinic for an evil purpose assault potentially inciting violence; although I don't know if that was specifically raised. I also don't condone those things and neither does the law already—all those things being against the law as it currently stands. I do acknowledge that there is a category of activity that is covered by the bill that is not necessarily or at least not conclusively already prohibited by the law. I do acknowledge that at least in the sense that the intentional infliction of emotional distress exists as a tort a civil wrong but it doesn't exist as a crime. So I do wonder in an echo of a point that I think a previous contributor was seeking to make if harassment or the intentional infliction of emotional distress is something that this House wishes to outlaw then it should do so consistently perhaps using that same test of for example communicating in a way that might objectively cause distress to a reasonable person or might be—anyway that test in any case. I do also want to agree with the remarks made by the Attorney-General in relation to the issues raised in relation to freedom of speech as outlined in his New Zealand Bill of Rights Act report. He's noted that he's voting for the bill at least at first reading but doesn't guarantee support I think beyond that he said. The point that is made in his report regarding the fact that the bill goes further than is necessary to achieve its stated purpose is I think a very good one. His report is intellectually honest on this point and it's rigorous in examining freedom of speech or freedom of expression issues. His particular point I think has not only theoretical weight but actually one very important practical implication that I do wish to bring before the House.He raises in his report the question of the word communicating" being a very broad one. So just to be clear the definition of "prohibited behaviour" includes communicating with among other things a person "in a manner that an ordinary reasonable person would know would cause emotional distress to a protected person". There is no exemption in this provision for the father of the child—there's no exemption. I would like to believe that that's an oversight in the drafting and I would urge respectfully the member who is the sponsor of the bill to understand that she is whether she knows it or not moving in a direction to criminalise a conversation that would be had for example in a car outside an abortion clinic by the father of the child. I think the male population of New Zealand has much to answer for. We do not as a general rule or certainly not consistently provide good behaviour oftentimes as fathers and prospective fathers. I am ashamed of my sex's role in some of the societal problems that we face as a nation and I make no bones about that. That's been a line that a previous politician in this House has used in slightly different form and it didn't go well for him. But nevertheless I think it's important to acknowledge that and to place on record that as I say fathers in this country have not always been anything like impressive in relation to the role that they see themselves playing and indeed do play in relation to the upbringing of children. I think this bill does nothing helpful in that regard and I respectfully but very seriously urge the member to make or endorse a change that would take place at select committee to rectify that very serious error."