Pugh Maureen; Rurawhe AdrianMAUREEN PUGH (National): Thank you very much Mr Speaker. I take this opportunity today to voice my concern at the introduction of this bill. Firstly even though I have read the bill I still struggle to understand what it is we are trying to fix and I know we will hear in the debates in this House about the criminality of the current Crimes Act and the concern that some people have about abortion sitting under that Act. But I think that if we consider why it actually sits there it is actually to ensure the safety of women who are receiving abortions by making it illegal to supply drugs and implements for aborting a child. This legislation that it currently sits under is here to protect women now. No one has ever been convicted of a crime under the Crimes Act for unlawfully having an abortion. It does not make a woman a criminal for procuring one. In fact it specifically excludes women from criminal liability. But we also need to consider this along with the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act of 1977 which currently provides safeguards for women by ensuring that the procedure is only done in a licensed institution and it does make it unlawful for procedures to be done unless they have been certified by two certifying consultants. So again there are no records of any successful prosecutions under that Act. If the issues that we are trying to fix are actually procedural why don't we fix the procedures? I hope that as this debate continues in this House we will see some change to this legislation that actually does address that but don't open the door to such liberalisation that turns abortion into a quasi-contraceptive on demand. Now I completely understand that things happen—contraception can fail; life can throw a curveball—but the current legal framework that we now operate under does support women who find themselves in those predicaments. We need to focus more on doing a better job of protecting women and babies by focusing on contraception and the prevention of unwanted or unplanned pregnancies rather than focusing on changing laws. More education and easier safer and cheaper access to contraception is a far better use of this Parliament's time in my humble opinion. I now turn to the issue of discrimination that I believe that this bill actually does propose. We have heard many times in this debating chamber about discrimination: discrimination on the basis of religion on the basis of gender or even on the basis of race. But this bill will condone discrimination based on a doctor's conscientious objection to performing abortions. It does that by creating a provision that institutions such as the hospitals that employ those doctors can choose not to employ that doctor and not only that but this bill insists that that doctor directs a woman to an official site. Where are the rights of that conscientious objector? So this isn't World War I or World War II but if it was there would be some people in this House marching in the streets to protect their right to object. I believe that we've got to be careful about this particular piece of legislation when we combine it with other bills before this House: euthanasia the decriminalisation of marijuana and now abortion. This is huge social change and it's rapid social change. I believe we risk the social structure of New Zealand by considering so much of this type of legislation in this House. I have valued the opportunity to voice my opinion. ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): I call Agnes Loheni—10 minutes.