Little AndrewHon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a third time. This bill will bring about the most significant changes to our abortion framework in 44 years. The main objective is to shift abortion out of the criminal legal framework that it sits in at the moment and make it a health issue for women who are now making this very difficult decision when they're confronting the decision about whether to continue with a pregnancy or not. The bill confirms the right of a woman to choose whether she proceeds with a pregnancy and respects her ability to do so. I want to acknowledge that this is an issue that is tempered with very deeply held views with great passions and we've heard that in all the debates in this House most recently during the committee stage. Members on all sides of the House members who I consider very good friends have taken very trenchant views. Some have been driven by their faith others driven by other motivating factors and I respect all of those. What I am thankful for is that the debate was largely conducted in a very respectful and I think very thoughtful manner and I know that the third reading debate will be conducted in that way as well. I know that many members of the public also share great passions about this particular issue. There are many people in New Zealand just as there are many members of this House who are opposed to the idea of abortions at all—I understand that—and that is driven by people's various values and their faith and various other factors. But the reality is that we have had since 1977 a legal framework by which the issue of abortions has been managed in a combination of our criminal law and our health system. But it is time to move that framework into the 21st century and to reflect modern values and the way most New Zealanders live their lives which is that they do want and women do want to be able to make that decision consult the health professional of their choice and not have to go through unnecessary barriers and most importantly not have to in a sense lie about their mental health state in order to make this decision. I know that there were many submissions to the Abortion Legislation Committee and many members have commented on the number of submissions and the proportion that were opposed to the bill. But the reality is that most of those submissions—and there were form submissions amongst them as well—were opposed to the idea of abortion at all and did not deal with the idea about how we make sure we have a legal framework for abortions that reflects 21st century New Zealand values reflects the status of women in our society today and the fact that they're quite capable of making health decisions for themselves and that it is an issue that no longer belongs in our Crimes Act.I think we have to bear in mind too that of the roughly 13000 abortions that are carried out in New Zealand each year now a very very small number are carried out at that post - 20 week time during the pregnancy. Abortions considered at that point in a pregnancy relate to wanted pregnancies but where the woman's health is severely compromised—and sometimes the fetus at the same time or alternatively—that is the context in which those decisions are taken and I think we have to respect the fact that when women are in a position to have to make that decision at that point in the pregnancy it is a very distressing time indeed. What we need to make sure is that the support services are there for them the treatment services the best professional medical advice they can get and that is an obligation I think we owe in this day and age. So as I said before the current framework requires women seeking an abortion to maintain a fiction about their mental health. They have to consult multiple practitioners multiple health professionals and what that has done in New Zealand is caused women who get an abortion to get it much later in the pregnancy than would otherwise be desirable. That means it is less safe for women on average and it means that more women miss out on the opportunity to have an abortion by way of the safest means which is the early medical abortion process done through oral medication. I think the more we have a framework that enables women making that decision to do so at a point in the pregnancy that is safer for them then that is good for those women and it's good for the community and for New Zealand as well. The changes in this bill will enable earlier access to services and will support the best health and wellbeing outcomes for women. The bill reflects the fact that women can and should be trusted to make an important health decision in consultation with their doctor. I will now just go briefly through the main features of the bill and these have been well traversed. I was very pleased with the work of the special committee that was set up by the House to examine the bill and the changes they came back with. I'm very pleased that they are by and large intact and one or two matters have been added on and I think that has improved the bill. And of course the issue of safe zones has been disposed of; it wouldn't have been my preference but it is not there. That is a matter if the need arises that I'm sure this House can come back to at a later stage. So the first thing the bill does is to shift the whole issue of abortions and the decision making around it and really the status of the decision by a woman to have an abortion from that criminal context now to a health context. Right now a woman making that decision is in the first instance committing a criminal act about which she has a defence if she follows the requirements of the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act. The bill repeals the grounds for lawfully aborting a pregnancy that are currently prescribed in the Crimes Act and the offences relating to abortions provided by health practitioners. It does retain a provision in the Crimes Act for abortions or the end of a pregnancy caused as a result of a criminal act such as an assault or a violent act on a woman that results in the loss of the pregnancy. That remains a crime on our statute book. The bill also retains an important criminal offence that relates to an abortion being carried out or attempted by a person who is not a health professional. We do not want to go back to the days of backstreet abortions. The bill also removes the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee—and to the extent that committee had a supervisory role and a data collection role that will transfer to the Ministry of Health who will be charged with setting up an appropriate office and means to do that. I know that for example the member Simeon Brown was very concerned about ongoing data collection. That is provided for. There is an interim measure in the bill but it is certainty my expectation that the Ministry of Health will continue and in fact it is required to consult over the future of data collection so that we can be well-informed about abortions and the status of abortions in New Zealand. The bill changes the grounds for abortion and improves access to abortion services so there is no longer the requirement for two certifying consultants. For women who are considering an abortion post - 20 weeks there is an added legal test: a requirement that their health practitioner consult another relevant health practitioner to assist in that decision. But in the end it is acknowledging that it is a decision in accordance with the appropriate conditions for a woman to make. To ensure that women can access services without unnecessary delay the bill allows a woman to self-refer directly to an abortion service provider removing the need for a referral from a GP. The bill also provides for situations where a health practitioner has a conscientious objection to providing advice on or administering an abortion and it seeks to ensure timely access for a person seeking these services. A conscientious objector must tell the person seeking the abortion sterilisation or contraceptive services how to access the contact details of the closest provider who can assist with that service. The objector must assess who the closest person would be in these conditions around that as well. Finally the bill includes provisions based on the Human Rights Act to balance that right of conscientious objection with the role of employers in providing health services. There are employment protections for those employed by services providing abortion services but who as an employee might have an objection too and there's a gradation of approaches for the employer in those sorts of circumstances. Getting the bill to this stage has been a major undertaking and I appreciate the input of all members of the House the many members of the public who have submitted and all of those who have expressed their view both for and against including out on the steps of Parliament in the last week. These are very difficult issues. I'm thankful for the work of the Law Commission. I'm thankful for the work of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and in particular Dr Linda Holloway who has led that group for some particular time. Their work will come to an end but they've had a difficult job to do and I'm very thankful for the work that they have done. I'm very thankful for the chair and deputy chair of the special committee that considered the legislation the Hon Ruth Dyson and the Hon Amy Adams. In the end I'm thankful that this House has been able to get to this point in a respectful and thoughtful way. I commend this bill to the House.