Andersen GinnyGINNY ANDERSEN (Labour—Hutt South): Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. Look what an interesting debate this has been given the passage of this bill and also the changes that have been recommended from select committee. The purpose of the bill is really a regulation-making power to set up those safe areas around specific abortion facilities on a case by case basis. It's a very interesting discussion as we've just heard from the previous speaker Chris Bishop around the balancing of rights. And look given the debate in the House last night regarding conversion practices and also the discussions going on regarding the current protest at Parliament the balancing of rights is a fascinating and important discussion that we have as a democracy. The question sort of goes to when do your rights impinge on those of others and how do we get that balance right? This bill is a really good example of Parliament working just the way it should—the select committee has taken on board advice and the view of the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in order to make appropriate amendments to this bill so it does not contravene the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It's heartening to hear that both parties—ACT and National—which are very quick to defend freedom of speech are supporting these amendments on the basis that it appears that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act will not be contravened if these amendments go forward. It draws me back to think of my time in university learning political theory. I think of those political theorists that have gone before such as John Stuart Mill who was an English politician and member of Parliament but also a political theorist. The very concept of utilitarianism which is about—in a nutshell—the greatest good to the greatest number and the actions are right in proportion if they tend to promote happiness but wrong if they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. So right back in 1870 democracy and classical liberalism has been debating these very questions: when does someone's rights impinge on others and how do we weigh that up? Of course these change in the context of the society that we're living in and the values that we have. It's important that we re-debate these issues time and time again in order to make sure that we get it right. So this is a good example in this bill where we didn't get it quite right—that balance wasn't quite in place. And that's debateable. People will have their views on that but it's good to hear that there seems to be unanimous agreement within the House that the way this bill will proceed will protect those rights of women who want to receive an abortion—a medical treatment that is legal—and they should have the right to do that without being filmed without being yelled at and without being abused. But at the same point people have a right to protest and people have a right to make their views known that they do not support it. I will note that in the submissions on this bill as well as my own member's bill in the previous Parliament around bereavement leave it's interesting how we always get a significant amount of submissions that are just against abortion. To be honest I do get frustrated with that because it would be really good to have engagement more on what the issue in front of is. It's right that people can have those views but I'd just like to note that we do hear those same arguments again that are just outright in opposition to abortion without trying to think about the issue at stake of balancing rights. The Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill was supported by the majority of members at the first reading. In fact it was 100 votes in favour 15 votes opposed and two abstained. I always find it interesting to see who votes for these bills and who doesn't. So now that it has been examined the amendment bill has been recommended by the majority to be passed with the following amendments. Just to go over the process in terms of how the Attorney-General has worked and how the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act is working in a healthy way in February the Attorney-General presented a report on the bill to the House which I have here in which he concluded that clause 5 of the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression as affirmed in section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He was concerned that the bill would in fact potentially criminalise communicating in a way that could be chilling or stopping freedom of speech. So members from the committee took on board that advice and had I understand a robust debate at select committee level and amended clause 5 by replacing the proposed new section 13A removing the definitions of prohibited behaviour and protected person and by specifically defining the types of behaviour that would be prohibited in that particular safe area—so giving it further clarity and drilling it down to make sure it was quite clear what the prohibited behaviour would be. So the proposed new section 13A(1)(b) would prohibit a person from visually recording another person in a safe area in a certain manner and they could not do so in a way that is likely to cause emotional distress to a person accessing providing or assisting with providing abortion services". So the proposed new section 13A(1)(c) would also prohibit a person from undertaking certain activities in that said safe area. The activities were clarified to be ones "that could easily be seen or heard by another person … who may be accessing providing or assisting with providing abortion services:". The prohibited actions are specifically carved out and I think it's important that that level of detail is gone into in order to make it very clear. So subparagraph (i) says that a person must not "advise or persuade A to refrain from accessing or providing abortion services"; secondly (ii) inform A about matters related to the provision of abortion services" unless it was when the services were being provided and finally "(iii) engage in protest about matters relating to the provision of abortion services". So it's important to note here that a person could carry out these activities while accompanying with consent. This would avoid it being an offence to have a private conversation in a safe area where the person receiving the abortion was being dissuaded by a person accompanying them from accessing or providing abortion services. I'd like to note that this is a highly contentious area. This is a view where people have very well-refined views and sharp views and it is a point where we have debate and we have discussion about how to get that balance of rights. I would just like to point out that there is no harm at all in having a very robust debate about these issues. There's no shame there's no point in reverting back to being offended or even caught name-calling in these issues. It's so good to be able to have a good debate across the House about where those lines should lie within New Zealand where someone's rights to receive a service and where someone's rights to protest sit. The fact that we have an Attorney-General that's able to provide feedback on the changes is fantastic and to see the conclusion where the Attorney-General has stated "I consider that while the revised draft of the Bill would limit freedom of expression within a safe area under section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act it would do so in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under section 5."So look I would like to commend Louisa Wall for championing this bill and taking it forward after we've already taken abortion out of the Crimes Act. To have this further measure in place is good for women's rights is good to access services that women need to and women have the right to do so in a way that they feel their personal privacy is respected and it's important to make sure these services remain accessible to all New Zealanders should they wish to. I would like to acknowledge those members opposite who are voting in support of the bill and I think it's a good day for women's rights in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House."