SpeechJAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you Madam Speaker. First of all I too would like to acknowledge and thank Louisa Wall for this bill and for shepherding it through the House so adeptly. I also want to acknowledge the committee which I have the privilege of sitting on and the chair Liz Craig for what I felt was a really thoughtful and constructive interrogation of the issues. We worked really hard on the committee to make sure that we would provide protection for pregnant people who needed to access information about abortion or abortions themselves while protecting the rights of people through our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. According to the Attorney-General we achieved that balance I'm really pleased to say.In the Green Party and as a member of the Green Party we believe that all people have the right to access healthcare in safety with their privacy protected. It's pretty foundational. This right is protected for most people through our code of health and disability rights which guarantees all consumers the specific rights of privacy respect and the right to freedom from discrimination coercion harassment and exploitation. But sadly there's a whole lot of people who do care that some pregnant people have abortions and we heard from many of these people through the select committee process. We read hundreds of submissions from people who believe it's their right and actually their duty to intervene in a way to try and prevent people having abortions.Despite so many testimonies of peacefulness the committee was presented with a recent survey of abortion service providers that found over half of them are currently dealing with protests. That protest action is increasing not decreasing. We heard evidence of patients being chased into clinics. We heard of pamphleting loud hymn singing blockading of doors protesters approaching and speaking to patients and calling individual staff by name to intimidate photographing of staff and patients and refusing to leave when asked. This is why some who previously had indicated they didn't support safe zones have indicated that they now do because they are seeing an escalation an escalation that the Green Party have felt in a physical way where our co-leader James Shaw was assaulted by somebody who said a reason for that assault was our position on abortion rights. Providers reported that protests make patients tearful distressed angry or defensive. They have also known women who are attending services to also become abusive to protesters because of the sense of escalation and fight. One woman spoke of trying to access an abortion during the so-called 40 Days for Life and there being a counter-protest at the time. She commented that she had no issues about getting an abortion but having to walk through that gauntlet of pros and antis was incredibly anxiety-inducing and it's not conducive or appropriate in the context of accessing healthcare. She believes safe zones will stop any escalation. There won't be a voice for or against in these areas. I've been on those protests I've got to say. I've been part of that environment she was describing and I happily give up my right to protest out there in support of people's right to access abortions to ensure that that is a zone with absolute privacy and respect and none of that stress.We also heard from women concerned that people especially young women accessing other services from Family Planning as an example also lose their right to privacy when these protests happen. This is of real concern for clinics like Family Planning where many women in particular go for added specialisation but also privacy away from people that they know and we do not want to create a situation where people are deterred from getting good healthcare. So I will continue to admittedly begrudgingly defend the right of those who oppose abortion to express their views to campaign and to organise for law change. I will say what I think about that and it will be a free contest of ideas. But I do not believe they have the right or that any interpretation of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives them a right let alone a duty that many feel to do whatever they can to stop pregnant people from having abortions. That is an interference in the right of people to privacy dignity and impedes their right to access healthcare.This bill is not about whether abortion is OK or not. This bill has very little to do with the freedom of expression. Say what you like just not within 150 metres of a service. This bill is about ensuring all people have the right to access healthcare in safety with their privacy protected. Those opposing the legislation will say many of these behaviours are already covered by existing legislation and it's completely unnecessary. What they're actually saying is the status quo of abuse that I've described earlier in this speech is acceptable because we know that's happening under the current legal framework. I don't agree with that. That is why I am supporting this bill.It is true that many but absolutely not all of the behaviours described and affected are covered by the Summary Offences Act the Trespass Act and the Harassment Act but what we heard from providers and women who were accessing services was that these laws aren't stopping abortion harassment largely because they rely on that person going for an abortion or abortion advice to provide evidence to be the complainant for a case to succeed and that is the last thing that they want to be dealing with when they are going for an abortion. That is a further breach of their right to privacy—to try and get in and have your healthcare and then stand up in front of court and potentially have somebody report on it is not a practical solution for their safety and protection of right to healthcare.So that's why the committee made some amendments to the bill as well. The bill as introduced would have required the prosecution to demonstrate that the person subjected to the prohibited behaviour was a protected person and that would have relied probably on them being required to give evidence. So we removed that so complaints could be laid by people other than those accessing or providing abortion services. We also removed the requirement to prove specific intent or knowledge. While now this could be considered a strict liability offence we were advised this aligns with similar offences—so it's not out of the ordinary at all—while noting the accused would still avoid liability if they could show the existence of a defence or absence of fault. We did not manage to get to the same place for visually recording another person but we believe this is probably a good first run of it and if it proves to be a problem we'll be able to fix it later. I understand that visual recordings if shared would not require the person accessing the service to give evidence.Many submitters in support of the legislation wanted automatic safe areas and I shared that desire. That was my starting point too just like Let's make this really simple and just do it." What we were given evidence of in the committee process was that actually in terms of balancing rights and ensuring that the safe zone did not go too far you need to design it specific to each site. Now that abortions are not just happening in hospitals or the very few Family Planning clinics that they were able to be in before—some of them are in mobile situations some of them are in community areas—actually they need to be named to be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and good legislative guidelines. So we just couldn't work out a way to make it automatic but we did put a provision in there to encourage the Minister to streamline this process. It will probably take three or four months and if anybody could come up with a solution to that before the committee stage I'm sure we'd be interested. But we did really look into this in great detail and it is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it will protect people's right to healthcare."