-
CONTRACEPTION, STERILISATION, AND ABORTION (SAFE AREAS) AMENDMENT BILL
First Reading
SPEAKER: We now come to the next bill, which is the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill in the name of Louisa Wall. I want to indicate that I have been approached and have declared this bill a conscience vote, and therefore there will be personal votes on this and, as a result of that, the normal arrangements for order of calls do not stand.
-
LOUISA WALL (Labour): I move, That the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Health Committee to consider the bill.
Tēnā koutou katoa, tēnā koe e te Mangai o te Whare. Tēnā koe, Dame Margaret Sparrow. Tēnā koe, Terry Bellamak. So why do we need safe areas, or 150-metre zones around abortion facilities? I want to quote Shaniqua. Shaniqua participated in the Stuff 2019 investigation into the Abortion Legislation Bill, and she said: "On the day of the procedure, there were Christians lining the entrance to the hospital protesting against abortions. The Crimes Act was a favourite for them to throw at us young women having to go past them. The 'hallway of shame', as I would learn it was dubbed by the nurses inside. They were harassed as well … I remember being so scared. It was tough enough having to make this decision … and spent weeks in absolute terror, crying, thinking about life and what it would look like if I had a baby, then crying again because I couldn't even keep a goldfish alive for three weeks … For years I really did believe I was a murderer. I can see everything for what it is now, and I do hope for young women going through this that their experience is vastly different from mine."
I also asked the library to look at the history of what I want to term "condoned violence against women". It was very interesting, because they provided me with quite a few quotes from a woman called Alison McCulloch, who wrote a book called Fighting to Choose: The Abortion Rights Struggle in New Zealand. In the 1980s, McCulloch notes, "Although in the early 1970s there had been harassment of doctors, arson attacks, threats and pickets, particularly around the Auckland Medical Aid Centre in Auckland and often by unknown perpetrators, it wasn't until the late 80s that direct action to shut clinics and physically prevent women from accessing them moved to the forefront." And during the 1980s and 1990s, she noted that the Women's National Abortion Action Campaign wrote of patients being photographed as they went into clinics, having their number plates taken down, and subsequently seeing placards bearing their names. The Sunday Star-Times reported several cases of harassment, including that of a 26-year-old patient who was recognised by a protester and who returned from the clinic to find her mother waiting with a Catholic priest. Some women were subjected to phone calls, visits to their homes by anti-abortion activists, and threats that their families would be told.
Why do we need safe areas? Well, actually, the game's changed. Abortion is not a crime. It was in the Crimes Act; it's not any more. Abortion is a health issue between a woman and her doctor. So women have rights, actually, as patients. So if we look at the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers' Rights—the code applies to both public and private facilities and to paid and unpaid services. So if you look at those rights. Right number one: you must always be treated with respect. Right number two: you should never be discriminated against or harassed. Right number three: the services you receive should respect your dignity.
So within the context of this bill, there are, obviously, New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 considerations about civil and political rights that we as New Zealanders have. I want to focus on section 9, and that's the "Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment". I guess by definition, can you say that women are being re-traumatised because they've made a decision and have to run the gauntlet with people calling them murderers and showing them pictures of dead fetuses? Is that cruel and degrading? Well, actually, I say it is. So ensuring economic, social, and cultural rights, we should look at—and this is the definition; it include the rights to adequate food, housing, education, and health. I think that, if you look at section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA), there is, I believe, a case to be made about dignified access to health, which is not listed in NZBORA. But it's relevant, because, from a social and cultural rights perspective, reproductive rights absolutely have been reinforced by the United Nations and also by the World Health Organization, which defines reproductive rights as, the "rights … on the recognition of the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly … the number, spacing and timing of their children." They also include the right of all "to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence." And women's reproductive rights may include the right to legal and safe abortion.
I also think, if you look at what Shaniqua said, that, actually, the rights of workers have been completely nullified. They've not even been considered within the context of workers every day at those abortion facilities having to go into those facilities and do their job. I found it really interesting on WorkSafe's website that they have Violence at work: customer service areas, and I like their definition, because it says, "Violence can take many forms – ranging from physical assault and verbal abuse to intimidation and low-level threatening behaviour. Violence or threats of violence are never acceptable." So I think there are two dimensions to this bill: one is, obviously, the woman or the pregnant person who's trying to access a health service; and the other, actually, is the workers at those facilities. And I know through talking to Jill Ovens, who is involved with the midwives and also other representatives of our New Zealand Council of Trade Unions women's caucus, and particularly the New Zealand Public Service Association Inc., that they have huge concerns for their workers, and they will be making submissions on this bill.
I just finally want to highlight that the Australians have dealt with this issue. They have safe areas in their bills, and there was a case that went to the Australian High Court, and it was about the justified limitation of that 150-metre safe area. And this is what they noted: "To force a political message upon another person is inconsistent with the human dignity of that person. While there is an interest to be protected in fostering free expression and political comment by members of the community, the Court argued that this is not to be interpreted as putting an obligation on anyone else in the community to receive such messages. Moreover, the court ruled, a safe zone does not unfairly and unequally put at a disadvantage the views of the anti-abortion movement. In terms of content, the Court pointed out the safe zone is completely viewpoint neutral. No views about abortion, pro or con, can be expressed within them." And therein lies the issue. We're not limiting people's ability to express themselves. This isn't a freedom of expression issue. What we're saying is within a 150-metre zone of accessing a health service, nobody has the right—nobody has the right—to question a woman's right to choose abortion as a health service, or a pregnant person's right to choose abortion as a health service. Fundamentally, it's our bodies—women's bodies; it's our choice—women's choice. Kia ora.
-
NICOLA GRIGG (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise to speak in support of this Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. I commend the member Louisa Wall for bringing this important issue before the House. Kia ora, Louisa. I want to preface my views firstly by saying, "Yes, I do understand people who take a certain viewpoint have the right to express those views." But I would counter that right with the need to ensure respect, safety, and dignity towards women who have chosen this medical procedure. In my view, it is not for the people outside of that woman's decision-making process to foist their views and beliefs on that woman.
To choose to terminate a pregnancy, for whatever reason, is absolutely nobody else's choice but the woman who chooses to make it. Further to that, it is one of the most enormously difficult decisions a woman may make in her lifetime.
I have been, frankly, disgusted in the past, running around Hagley Park, where I have seen large groups of, at times, vocal, intimidating protestors shouting, chanting, and waving placards outside the Christchurch Women's Hospital. To make matters worse, they had children with them—little kids holding up signs saying, "Abortion is murder."
That is why I feel so strongly in favour of this bill. If done right, it will create legislation that will create safe zones outside clinics and hospitals. If these safe zones can reduce harassment, hate speech, and intimidation that these kinds of protestors aim at these extremely vulnerable women, then that is the right thing to do.
I'm the National Party spokesperson for women, and I do see it as my role to advance the rights and protections of women. In my view, if we as legislators can do that, then that's what we should do. I commend this bill to the House.
-
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also thank the member Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House and thank the National Party spokesperson for women, Nicola Grigg, for her contribution. I was at secondary school in the 1970s, when these events were very, very fraught. I was educated at a time when not only was abortion a fraught issue but so was contraception education—in fact, I was at school at a time when we couldn't be taught about contraception. I, luckily, lived in a household where my mother was active in the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand, and I'm well-grounded in these issues. I believe it is a woman's right to choose as to whether she has a child or whether she terminates a pregnancy. I am pro-abortion; I have been all of my adult life. I was one of the first people in the Labour Party—actually, it was a time when I was unsuccessfully standing for the leadership of the party—to publicly advocate for the removal of criminal sanctions on abortion in the Crimes Act. I mention all of these things because I don't want to be positioned as anti-abortion. But I do want to say that, whilst I'm supporting this bill at first reading, I do think there is a proper question to be asked as to whether the provisions of this bill go too far in their limitations on freedom of expression.
In my role as Attorney-General, I am the guardian of civil liberties. I exercise that role largely through reflecting the advice that is given to me by very careful consideration of those issues that comes through the Ministry of Justice, who service this House, through me in respect of New Zealand Bill of Rights Act assessments with respect of every piece of legislation. Now, I abhor the intimidation of women—I abhor the intimidation of women, particularly when they're in a vulnerable situation, or staff that, as Louisa Wall has said, are legitimately going about their duties to perform what is a very valuable albeit difficult social service that we need in society. None the less, the advice that I have received, which I reflect in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that I have tabled in the House, suggests that the drafting of this limitation of freedom of expression goes further than is necessary to achieve the purpose which it seeks to achieve. I agree with the purpose which it seeks to achieve. I have made some suggestions that have been worked up as according to the advice that I have received from the department as to how it might be limited in a way that meets the purpose of the bill whilst not infringing the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protections that are all so important.
I haven't made a decision as to how I'm going to vote in the second and subsequent stages on this bill, but I do invite the select committee to listen seriously to the issues that will be available to the select committee from officials and to see whether there is a way in which the purpose of this legislation can be achieved without infringing the principles of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
-
Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Some years ago, I was asked by a group of young people what issue would cause me to cross the floor and vote against my own party, and the answer was easy. It was if my party took steps to undermine New Zealanders' freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Now, we are in a conscience situation, so that's not going to happen, and I'm very confident that in the future it wouldn't, either.
But for the record, I just want to say how much compassion and concern and sympathy I have for any woman who is going to have to go through a termination, and the idea of running a gauntlet, however peaceful and quiet, of people holding signs, often with the most distasteful and disgusting images on them—I absolutely condemn that behaviour. But should it be a crime?
Freedom of expression is deeply enshrined. I respectfully disagree with the sponsor of the bill—Louisa Wall—and I congratulate her. I do think this is a freedom of expression issue. So the question for me is: does this bill go too far in curtailing the rights of people, however objectionable their views are, to express them? And on the face of it, I believe it does.
Now, some provisions I think are fine. The questions of intimidation, interference, and obstruction are probably unlawful anyway, and to the degree that that could be a belt and braces approach, I think I could support that. But communicating with or even standing silently, expressing a view with imagery, even if it causes emotional distress, could go too far. Does simply standing in a safe zone expressing those views constitute a breach of this legislation, and who decides what constitutes that breach?
The Attorney-General has quite rightly said that he has a New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet that says that this isn't consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, albeit it's a bit of a flip-flop, because when the previous bill came in, the Attorney-General's advice was that it didn't. Now, I'm particularly concerned about the term "objectively" in clauses 9.1 and 9.2 of his vet. It's almost an oxymoron—objectively causing distress—and who is to say what causes distress? What causes me distress may not cause someone else distress, and so by its very nature that's going to be subjective.
So this is a considerable conundrum for me, and the conundrum is this: if I feel so strongly about the rights of people to have their views and express those views, should I then oppose this bill at first reading and prevent members of the public from coming to a select committee and doing just that? On balance, I have decided that the answer to that question is no, and, therefore, I will be supporting this bill at first reading and encouraging it to go to select committee. Now, that support will end at the end of the process if my concerns are confirmed and those infringements on behaviour, however distasteful, do breach section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and if the committee isn't able to make sufficient improvements to it, I think that would be the end of my support.
But I think there's another reason why this is actually an important conversation that we should have. Later this year, we are going to be considering other legislation in the wake of the royal commission report into the Christchurch terror attacks. There are 44 recommendations and the Minister responsible for that—Andrew Little—has said that two of those recommendations are on hate crime and hate speech. I think this is going to be a test of the attitude that will be introduced, the Government's response in that regard, and the degree to which freedom of expression is going to be curtailed. So I see this as an important, early sojourn into a very difficult conversation that this House is going to have to have over the next year to 18 months.
So, with that, I do have a series of concerns about it, but if I am to be truthful to those principles of freedom of speech, I need to let New Zealanders speak. Therefore, at first reading, I'll be supporting this bill.
-
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Firstly, I want to offer my congratulations to the member Louisa Wall, and I hope that a little bit of your ballot mojo rubs off on me sometime in the future. It's a real pleasure to rise and, hopefully, sort out some unfinished business in this House tonight. I will be voting alongside all of my Green Party colleagues in support of this bill.
From my perspective, we're not debating this bill because people disagree with abortion. Possibly even more pertinently, we're not debating this bill because people express their opposition to abortion. If this passes, people will still be able to bait me and infuriate me on social media. They'll still be able to hold protests and public meetings or prayer sessions to express their opposition to the bodily autonomy of women and pregnant people. They'll even be able to hand out baby dolls and display wildly misrepresentative photos of abortions in public and call pregnant people murderers. It's just that these activities might have to be 150 metres down the road away from the pregnant people, at a time of crisis, needing to access a health service.
The rights of anti-abortion activists, from my perspective, are absolutely not being curtailed; they're just being moved along a bit. What is being limited is their ability to target people trying to access, or working in, abortion services. These are private medical decisions, and we should all be able to make them, as the High Court in Australia put it, "without haranguing".
I really just want to recognise that for some pregnant people, having an abortion is not a stressful experience. For them, going through that gauntlet will probably be the most stressful part of the process. But that is not universal, and there is no way of predicting that.
I have supported people through abortions under general anaesthetic where they were pregnant as a result of rape when they were unconscious. The degree of trauma in that moment, through that period of time, was extreme. We heard in the select committee of people where it was a deeply, deeply wanted pregnancy but they had to choose to end it to be able to prevent further pain. Do we really, in this House, want to sanction the targeting of people in those moments of their life with messages of hate, messages that misrepresent them as murderers, and those that convey a message from society saying they are judged? I do not believe that is consistent with freedom of speech or a decent society. I absolutely hold the right for people to hold those views but not to target them at people at a time of really personal need.
I also just want to take a second to say: imagine if we changed the context of this away from an abortion. Imagine if this was about someone having anxiety and their therapist's location was known and regularly surrounded by a group of people who believe anxiety was a sign of possession by the Devil and that that view was once, pre-science, generally accepted by society. So that person with anxiety probably had a degree of ambivalence around their own experience of that illness. Those people targeting them would be drawing attention to them and the fact that they had anxiety—making that public; undermining their right to privacy. They might be offering to cast out their demons—surely a peaceful act; an expression of a world view. But, really, can we consider it that when it is targeted at that individual? I say no.
-
BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am a proponent of free speech and freedom of speech, but I support this bill, because I draw the line at targeted protest against individuals. You know, would anyone get away with this sort of behaviour anywhere else, targeting individual people? There is a place for protests at Parliament. There is a place for protests in the street. But, in my view, there is no place for targeted protests against individuals, particularly when they are in a vulnerable situation.
I understand that there are some questions with this bill around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I was really pleased to see David Parker before putting his concerns out on the table and saying but he's going to support this bill through the first reading, because what I hope—and I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination around the bill of rights Act, but some people in this House are, and there's an opportunity to make this absolutely right.
We talked before, and I think Michael Woodhouse mentioned that we are going to start perhaps going through some of the things around freedom of speech around the Christchurch situation. Now, already in front of my committee are submissions coming in on a bill around live streaming of objectionable material. So we're already going to start to get people coming in talking about freedom of speech in that area. Of course that was an abhorrent event, but freedom of speech is going to be really large when we talk about that bill as well. So it's a big thing that we are going to be doing.
I'm no fan of the latest cancel culture that's around. There are a lot of people around that would cancel a whole range of things and there are a lot of things that are quite—what offends one person doesn't offend another person.
Look, I know that there's people in this country that are anti-abortion; I know there's people in this country that are pro-abortion. And it's already been said that everyone's got a right to express their views, but abortion—the law has been passed, it is no longer a criminal act under the law, and, on that basis, I think that people will still hold their views, but to target somebody when they're in a stressful state, when they've already probably been in a stressful state—for many of them—for a long period of time, and they are going in for a private appointment is targeting a particular individual. Even if we've got concerns around the bill of rights Act, ethically and morally, that's not something that I perceive, as a human being, that other human beings should be doing.
So I'm not going to draw out the length of this speech tonight, but just to say let's take this to select committee. Let's go through those bill of rights issues. Let's see if we can tidy up any concerns that people have under that bill around this one, and, yeah, let's sort this out, because it's not appropriate to be targeting individuals.
-
SARAH PALLETT (Labour—Ilam): Thank you, Mr Speaker—thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. Once again, we find ourselves discussing a bill by my wonderful colleague Louisa Wall, and I congratulate her on all her work bringing it forward to this place. As Jan Logie just said, this isn't a discussion about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but, I would go on to say, about the fundamental right of people to access lawful healthcare or to provide lawful healthcare without being harassed, intimidated, or threatened, or feeling fearful.
This House has completed many debates on abortion. It was a long, thorough, and challenging process, and abortion is now sitting firmly as lawful healthcare and no longer in the Crimes Act. Accessing abortion care and providing abortion care as a health practitioner are lawful activities. Now, I do understand fully that people disagree that it should be lawful healthcare or even be provided at all, but it is, and the matter is settled.
People do have very strong feelings on this issue, and I fully acknowledge this. Some of these strong feelings find expression in protests outside abortion clinics, and these protests can take a number of forms. They can involve posters or models of questionable accuracy and varying levels of gore. The provision of information can be distributed that is, in my experience, often fact-bereft and upsetting, and there can be louder protests with high emotions—chanting, singing, sometimes hymns, abuse, and sometimes upsetting language of a vile and abusive nature. Many of the protesters would argue, perhaps, that they are only there to peacefully express their objection. Others might perhaps argue that their purpose is to change the minds of the people accessing healthcare that they themselves disapprove of. Some might say that they only wish to pray for the folk accessing healthcare or for the providers of healthcare.
I speak here as an ex-convent girl of many years, and someone whose mother was a Sunday school teacher: to pray for someone can be an act of enormous kindness, but can I refer to Matthew 6, I believe, where they say, "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to pray standing in the street corners to be seen, but go to your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen." You don't need to pray directly in front of me, or the person—and I apologise; I am not referring to you, Mr Speaker. One does not need to pray directly in front of another person that they wish to pray for for their prayers to be effective. They can be effective silent and far away from the person that they are directed towards. If you consider that you need to pray loudly in front of the person for whom you are praying or one is praying for, especially if it's because they are committing actions that you disapprove of, perhaps one might want to consider whether the intention is prayer or performance.
If your intention as a protester was to change the mind of the person on the way to accessing healthcare, I have some news: it doesn't work. We know that sidewalk counselling serves only to traumatise already vulnerable people whose medical and social history can't be known and shouldn't be known by a bystander. As for the people who claim to be peaceful protesters and who would disagree that fear and intimidation experienced by women and healthcare providers is a reality, I would refer them, perhaps, to incidents such as that experienced by the Hon James Shaw, who was assaulted violently on the street by someone who had strong feelings about abortion care provision. In 2000, in Christchurch, a man was found to have tunnelled underneath the abortion clinic at Lyndhurst with the intent of burning it down. Anonymous threats have been made to people who work at Southland clinic saying people who work at the clinic are legitimate targets. And the rangatahi who were actually mounting a counter-protest to the protests that you mentioned, Nicola Grigg, at Hagley Park were threatened with death only last week. I quote: "I'm going to bring a gun and blow you up." It's not OK.
I do understand that some would argue vehemently that we are limiting—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has expired. Before I call the next contribution to this debate, I am aware of the fact that I have not heard from anyone who is opposing—while I'm on my feet, everyone else sits down—the bill. I'm going to call a member. If there are members who oppose the bill, could they please give me a note to indicate that, so if there is to be some balance in the debate, we get it.
-
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on this conscience vote, on behalf of myself, to support the first reading of this bill, but I note that all ACT MPs have adopted the same position of supporting this bill at the first reading. I want to also make a preliminary comment that I doubt there are many members in this House who can claim to have given as full-throated support for a woman's right to choose on this issue as I have. I was one of very few members of Parliament who voted for model A as recommended by the Law Commission. I believe that the law that this Parliament passed is actually too restrictive. I believe that not because I am pro-abortion, as some people who email me seem to think, but because I am pro-choice, and, more specifically, I do not believe it is practical for the State to improve matters around abortion—in fact, it is probably one of the most evil and futile and actually counter-productive things the Government can do, to deploy its apparatus to try and force women to take pregnancies to term against their will. It's completely nuts. So that is why I oppose prohibitions on abortion and I'm very happy to support this legislation today.
But it is also true that I have had a bit of a role in ensuring that safe zones are not part of the legislation as passed, just as the Law Commission originally recommended that there be no safe zones in this legislation, because they said that it was futile. And, actually, the principle of opposing prohibitions on abortion is exactly the same as the principle for opposing prohibitions on free speech. It's not that we like the bad things that some people say; I detest the odious ogres that have been described standing outside abortion clinics. I'm not sure what else I can do to ensure that none of them are very likely to ever vote for me. However, I do believe that while they shouldn't be saying it, it is a greater evil—and the Attorney-General alluded to it—to have a Government that is allowed to decide what you can and can't say. There are people who have stood up in this debate and said, "Oh, but this is an exception." The difficulty with standing for a principle like free speech is that it is a principle. Once you say, "We're prepared to make some exceptions", the challenge is to actually explain where someone in that position would stop making exceptions. Nobody has got up and explained where they would stop making exceptions—that's what people can never do once they abandon principles such as free speech.
So where does that leave us on this legislation? Well, the ACT Party has looked very carefully at the drafting that is here. There are parts that we agree with. We agree that a prohibited behaviour should be intimidating, interfering with, or obstructing a woman going to seek an abortion. Now, arguably, that's redundant—and the Law Commission said it was redundant because we already have laws against doing all those things—but we agree there should be a law, and we don't mind if this law reinforces that with safe zones. But we take the same position as the Attorney-General who spoke earlier that the word "communicating" is a step too far. A ban on communication, even in a small area, is an erosion of the principle of free speech, that we will all regret eventually having admitted it.
So my position, and that position of ACT MPs, is that we want to see this debate happen. We want to see this bill go to select committee and be properly examined. We're prepared to continue supporting it so long as we have that word "communicate" removed. That's in line with the Law Commission. That's in line with the section 7 report from the Attorney-General. That's in line with the principles of this country that is built on free speech. And it's also in line with having safe areas that stop intimidation, interference, and obstruction of women who are seeking what is perfectly legal healthcare.
If the later stages of this legislation do not remove that prohibition on communication, then we will argue that a prohibition on free speech is no better than the prohibition on abortion that we, thankfully, removed in this House last year. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
-
ANAHILA KANONGATA'A-SUISUIKI (Labour): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā. Thank you for the call to speak on this, the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill. Obviously, we have to acknowledge the sponsor of this bill—Louisa Wall—for her courage in always bringing issues of contention to the House. And then I stop there.
I think this bill is problematic, and the speaker who has just finished, David Seymour, shepherded a thing that is now an Act, the End of Life Choice Act, and somebody chooses to end their life, but there's no places that say "This is where the end-of-life people go." So the problem is that this is a health issue and it should remain in the health area where the health Minister or the chief executive provide areas that don't say "Abortion clinic here", because it then says that this is a target for the erosion of their freedom of expression of rights.
So that's the point where I come from, and I want to acknowledge Ronji Tanielu, who is the social policy and Parliament person in the Salvation Army New Zealand, Fiji, Tonga, and Samoa territory, because he and I have had conversations about this. I know, I was here last year when—this bill is trying to rectify a mistake that this didn't pass last year; so it's trying to rectify that. But I challenge the House, why don't we rectify it somewhere else, where there is no big target bullseye to come and protest. So, I think, I don't know whether my maths is right, what is the length of the debating chamber, 60 metres? Multiply that by three, why don't you just go the whole hog and say—I want to go back to the general policy statement where the member said "All New Zealanders deserve to have the right to access health services with their safety, privacy, and dignity protected." Why not? Why not do that? We can end our life, there's no place that says, "Ending life here, come and protest, stay 150 metres away from the door."
I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General who spoke today, and the bit that I got from his speech was that his role is to protect civil liberty. Well, I encourage you to continue to do that, because I know, earlier, that you have concluded that clause 5 of the bill appears to be inconsistent with the right to freedom of expression affirmed in Section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and I want to encourage you to that point, Attorney-General.
I've heard speakers today in the House say, "This is not an abortion issue." Well, if it's not an abortion issue, why is it in the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill? We should not have a place where people protest if somebody makes a choice to have an abortion. I'm a woman. I've had three children. I'm a mother of five in total—to five children. And I don't like those pictures that get sent to us. It's actually traumatising and it has a lasting effect. Once you open it, you can't unsee it—once you open it, you can't unsee it. And nobody can say that doesn't affect them.
But my point is that we should be providing all New Zealanders a right to access to health services with safety, privacy, and dignity protected. This bill, I firmly believe, is the erosion of the freedom of expression. Someone across the road from the House had just said a member just said, "When will it stop?" I think it should stop today, I think we should look at providing safe places for every New Zealander, woman, child, man, every gender there is. I think we have the fundamental right to do that, but not at the expense of the erosion of our freedom of expression.
Therefore, I know I speak for very few in this House, this bill will go through into select committee, and I will challenge everybody out there to come and talk from that point of view, that we should provide safe places for every New Zealander, whether you're getting your leg chopped off, you're ending your life—
SPEAKER: Order! The member's time has concluded. I call the gallant member, Chris Penk.
-
CHRIS 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.
-
LOUISA WALL (Labour): Tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, I just want to thank people for the engagement tonight. It was thoughtful, obviously, and it was principled. And I do think that we, as a Parliament, need to have these discussions in ways where dialogue can happen. So I want to acknowledge all the contributors to the kōrero in the House tonight.
The select committee is going to have full rein and scope to assess all the information that comes before it. And, as I did with marriage equality, I won't sit on that committee; I'll make my submission. But, in fact, I think the process will take care of itself, and New Zealanders will make submissions, and we will hear from them.
Freedom of speech is interesting because if you look at it by definitions, and there may be others, it says, "The power to express one's opinions without restraint." And, for me, therein lies the issue, because we've had recent issues. Stuff have decided that actually, no, there are some things that they've said historically that were racist. There are other contexts where we may say, "This is a form of historical violence against women, which is sexist." So there's a history about these activities that needs to be considered, because I do consider this historical violence against women, and I don't consent to receiving information you may want to receive, or you may want to communicate to me.
I mean, I think that has been the theme tonight as well, about women's consent, people's consent, to posting digital images which may compromise them. Well, I think if you asked a lot of women who were having an abortion whether they consented to receiving information that could be an interesting pathway forward, because therein lies, I guess, the balance of different rights and different interests, and who are the powerful in different situations and who are the vulnerable—who do we as a society, as parliamentarians have to protect.
We're actually not limiting the expression of people's opinions about abortion, but what we're doing is trying to create a safe zone, a safe area, where after all those deliberations have been made, and women with their husbands, families, have made the decision, they don't need any more information, they've made it. You can input information as they're navigating through that process, that's fine, but I don't think anyone has the right, once that decision has been made, to try and change that person's mind. And there, for me, is the heart of the debate here tonight.
So I look forward to the select committee deliberations. I want to wish the Health Committee all the best in that deliberation. And, obviously, there may be some members of Parliament who choose to make submissions.
But finally, can I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson, the Hon Tracey Martin, the Hon Amy Adams, Barbara Kuriger, and Jan Logie. There are some heroes in this House and there are some heroes who have left us. But, actually, this is about a legacy of women across this Parliament working together to eliminate violence and the oppression of women that has happened for far too long. Kia ora.
-
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 100
Allan Genter (P) Menéndez March (P) Smith S (P) Andersen (P) Ghahraman (P) Mitchell (P) Stanford Ardern (P) Goldsmith (P) Muller (P) Swarbrick (P) Baillie Grigg Nash (P) Tinetti Bayly (P) Halbert (P) Ngobi Tuiono (P) Belich (P) Henare (P) O'Connor D Twyford (P) Bennett G Henderson O'Connor G Utikere Bishop Hipkins Omer (P) van Velden Boyack (P) Jackson (P) Pallett Verrall (P) Bridges (P) Kerekere Parker (P) Wall Brooking (P) Kuriger Prime Walters Brownlee (P) Leary Radhakrishnan Warren-Clark Cameron Leavasa (P) Reti (P) Watts Chen Lewis Roberts Webb Chhour Little (P) Robertson (P) Whaitiri (P) Clark (P) Lorck Rurawhe White Coffey Lubeck Russell Williams A Collins (P) Luxton (P) Sage (P) Williams P (P) Court Mahuta (P) Salesa Willis Craig Mallard Sepuloni (P) Woodhouse (P) Davidson (P) McAnulty Severin Woods Davis McClay (P) Seymour Doocey McDowall Sharma Eagle (P) McKee Shaw Edmonds (P) McKelvie (P) Sio Teller: Faafoi (P) McLellan Smith D Logie Noes 15
Bennett D (P) Luxon (P) Simpson (P) Upston (P) Brown Mooney Smith N van de Molen Dean (P) O'Connor S (P) Strange Teller: Kanongata'a-Suisuiki Simmonds (P) Tirikatene Penk Abstentions 2
Lee Pugh Motion agreed to.
Bill read a first time.
SPEAKER: The question is, That the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill be considered by the Health Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill referred to the Health Committee.
SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.
Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion (Safe Areas) Amendment Bill — First Reading
Sitting date: 10 Pou 2021This page displays your selected transcript. You may view the recorded PTV video using the "Video" tab. Please note that the video tab displays all available video for the sitting day of the transcript. A filter will be available to find the specific debate / speech you wish to view.