Thursday, 8 August 2019
Volume 740
Sitting date: 8 August 2019
THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 2019
THURSDAY, 8 AUGUST 2019
The Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): Today, the House adjourns until Tuesday, 20 August. On that day, the committee stage of the Appropriation (2019/20 Estimates) Bill will begin. This is the start of an 11-hour-long Estimates debate. Other legislation to be considered will include the remaining stages of the Financial Markets (Derivatives Margin and Benchmarking) Reform Amendment Bill, the second reading of the Conservation (Indigenous Freshwater Fish) Amendment Bill, and the third reading of the Contempt of Court Bill. Wednesday, 21 August will be a members’ day.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Could the Leader of the House give us some indication of when the House will be dealing with the backlog of Treaty settlements that now appear to be piling up on the Order Paper.
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Leader of the House): We’ve had feedback from those involved in Treaty settlements around the best timing for those. They’ve indicated that, in terms of travel to and from Wellington, Thursday afternoons work better for them than having them in the morning. So I’ve been working with the Minister for Treaty settlements to try and accommodate that time frame. It allows more people time to get here and to be here for an after-match function once the bill has been passed, which many people have indicated is important. In terms of the scheduling of the individual settlements, I do that based on the advice that I receive from the Minister responsible for the bills.
Oral Questions
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1—Prime Minister
1. Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by all her Government’s statements, policies, and actions?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.
Hon Paula Bennett: Has she or any member of her staff had conversations with Associate Minister of Transport Julie Anne Genter regarding the letter she sent to transport Minister Phil Twyford about the Let’s Get Wellington Moving transport plan?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, I can’t answer that question, but if the member would like to put it down in writing so we could get it prepared, we would be able to answer the question. But to imagine that 20-plus busy Cabinet Ministers are able to record all these conversations, whether they arose or not, is somewhat fanciful, but I’m happy to help the member out. If she puts the written question to us, we’ll find out for her.
Hon Paula Bennett: Did she, her office, or any of her other Ministers or staff advise Julie Anne Genter to refuse to release the letter under the Official Information Act?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: On behalf of the Prime Minister, it’s not my wont to behave in illegal behaviour, and we’d never think to do that.
Hon Paula Bennett: Does she agree with her Deputy Prime Minister that the abortion legislation “came out of left field”?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: With respect, on behalf of the Prime Minister, it came from the Law Commission, not from left field. It came from the Law Commission.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: No, it didn’t.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, it did, actually. It was a report from the Law Commission. I know that the amateur wouldn’t know, but every legally trained person here does know that fact. And, that being the case, it’s now before the Parliament, which it is quite entitled to be. But “out of left field”? No.
Hon Paula Bennett: Was Andrew Little correct when he said, in the media, that he discussed the possibility of different referenda with New Zealand First, their coalition partner, last year, and that, when the abortion issue came up, all the indications were that this wasn’t going to be called for by anybody?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: At the time Andrew Little said that, he was being precisely correct.
Hon Paula Bennett: Is she managing her relationships with confidence and supply partners now via the media?
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No. On behalf of the Prime Minister, I am handling these relationships with a great deal of assurance and aplomb, and everybody’s getting on just fine. We’re not a wrecking ball of diffidence and egotism, like the other side is.
SPEAKER: Again, I’m not sure that that’s the Prime Minister’s voice, but we’ll carry on.
Question No. 2—Education
2. JO LUXTON (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What response has he seen to the decisions about the Reform of Vocational Education that he announced on 1 August 2019?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS (Minister of Education): The response has been pragmatic and constructive. The building and construction industry, for example, has said that they are pleased that the Government has taken on sector and industry views on how to manage the transition. They also went on to say that “We are looking forward to working proactively with the Government to ensure a smooth transition.” They went on to say, “It is essential [that] employers and apprentices understand it is business as usual and they should not hold off entering into an apprenticeship for fear of not completing or [for] what the changes might mean.” That is a critical message that all employers and apprentices need to hear.
Jo Luxton: Is that consistent with responses from other industry training organisations?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Yes. For example, Careerforce called it “a generational change in vocational education”, but noted that “we should all continue with business as usual” in the meantime. Similarly, Connexus said, “We’ll continue to promote trainee enrolments and ensure industry do not stop training and gaining qualified people as we move through the transition to a new system.” Skills Active, who have been opposed to the reform, said they are looking at how to work within vocational pathways, to best serve the interests of our industries.
Jo Luxton: What have industry organisations had to say about the announcement?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There have been some very positive responses from industry organisations. To name just three, Horticulture New Zealand said that “We think it is great … the Government ‘is putting industry in charge’ through initiatives like … Workforce Development Councils and Centres of Vocational Excellence”, and congratulated the Government on having a bold vision and for listening to horticulture. DairyNZ said the announcement presents a unique opportunity to reshape the system, while the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) said it was pleased to hear of the focus on workplace learning and apprenticeships, and that the future of work has been considered.
Dr Liz Craig: What’s been the reaction to the announcement from Clutha-Southland?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I’m very pleased to say that the Clutha District Mayor, Bryan Cadogan, applauded it as a bold move to restructure a broken system. I will quote directly from him: “At the moment we should be working to discuss the positives and what we can do to position us for the future.” Mr Cadogan went on to say that the focus should centre on working with the establishment board for a positive outcome for the lower South Island. I completely agree with the mayor.
Jo Luxton: What has been feedback from staff and students?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: The feedback from staff and students has, again, been positive. For example, Otago Polytechnic Students’ Association President Nathan Laurie has said that he believes the reforms will change people’s lives for the better. Mr Laurie said he’d been in touch with his counterparts in areas like Nelson and the Hawke’s Bay, and said that the mood was completely positive. The New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations called it a positive step for students, the Tertiary Institutes Allied Staff Association called it a far-sighted, important change that preserves and expands the very best of our sector, while the Tertiary Education Union welcomed an end to a decade of uncertainty and underfunding.
Jo Luxton: How have institutes of technology and polytechnics reacted?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: Again, the reactions from the institutes of technology and polytechnics have been, by and large, very positive. The Western Institute of Technology in Taranaki said it is the most significant move in the sector for a generation and went on to say the Government had done what polytechs should’ve done years ago. Otago polytech said of the revamp proposals, “We are now in the first stages of moving into an entirely new vocational education system—and one that has picked up on the key points that [the] Otago Polytechnic put forward in [its] submission.” The Universal College of Learning called it a step forward for vocational education, Ara said the announcement holds a number of positives, and the Eastern Institute of Technology welcomed the Government’s commitment to ensuring strong and effective regional and local leadership.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the most frenetic, unreasonable, and idiotic submission he got on this matter, and where did it come from?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: It would be fair to say that there were a variety of submissions, some of which were not based on any fact whatsoever. I’ve seen reports in recent days of people claiming that this will be the end of their local polytechnics. Most of those claims have come from people who should know better.
Sarah Dowie: What did the Minister think of Mayor Sir Tim Shadbolt’s comments about the Southern Institute of Technology and the future of Invercargill’s polytechnic?
Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: I respectfully disagree with Mayor Shadbolt’s comments on the proposal and suggest that he talk to every other mayor in his region, who have urged him to work constructively with them for the best interests of the lower South Island.
Question No. 3—Finance
3. Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all of the Government’s policies, statements, and actions in relation to the economy?
Hon DAVID PARKER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, in the context they were delivered, made, and undertaken.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How does he reconcile a statement yesterday that “the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy remains strong” with the Reserve Bank’s key policy judgment yesterday that “Economic growth has slowed over the past year and is likely to remain soft in the near term.”?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Because unemployment is down to the lowest rate in many years; wages are up; exports are up; the Government Budget is in surplus; growth rates are higher than in Australia, Japan, Europe, the UK, USA, and Canada; and whilst the Governor of the Reserve Bank is right to say that heightened uncertainty and declining international trade have contributed to lower trading partner growth, it is also true that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: How can he say the Government is ramping up infrastructure spending, when Budget 2019 actually showed Government capital spending forecasts were trimmed back by $3.3 billion over the next five years?
Hon DAVID PARKER: In fact, the Wellbeing Budget announced a capital investment package of $10.4 billion over the next four years, including billions for schools, billions for hospitals, $1 billion into KiwiBuild, and a record land transport fund focused particularly on the regions.
Hon Chris Hipkins: Why does he stand by his statement that the fundamentals of the New Zealand economy are strong?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Because unlike the current Leader of the Opposition, who said one person’s misinformation is another person’s fact—
SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Is he concerned at all by the prospect of negative interest rates and the effect that they will have on New Zealanders who have worked hard their entire lives to build up savings for retirement?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Negative interest rates aren’t a prospect for New Zealand in the near future. I would also note that whilst the member decries a decrease in interest rates—which, of course, have reduced the cost of living for everyone with a floating mortgage rate—in 2016, the then Government claimed that interest rates coming down were a sign of a Government responsibly managing the country’s finances and that government by this side of the House would lead to rising interest rates and fewer jobs. The outcome has been the opposite: we’ve got more jobs, higher wages, and lower interest rates.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Did he not hear the Reserve Bank Governor’s mention of the possibility of negative interest rates being not far off?
Hon DAVID PARKER: No, I wasn’t there.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: What growth policies has he got in place to avoid such a thing coming to pass?
Hon DAVID PARKER: We have the stimulus provided by increased income supports to low-income people, we’ve got the massive increase in capital expenditure, and we’ve got the very increases in spending in the Government Budget that that member criticised when the Budget was passed.
Hon Paul Goldsmith: Does he agree with the Reserve Bank Governor’s assertion this morning that the banks are “scaring the public” about the possible effects of the Reserve Bank’s proposed capital requirements?
Hon DAVID PARKER: Again, I haven’t read those comments in detail, but I do have confidence in the Governor of the Reserve Bank.
Question No. 4—Health
4. Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: Was the $114.2 million increase in the Combined Pharmaceutical Budget in Budget 2018 a new appropriation, or was it a transfer of purchasing responsibility that did not constitute an increase in overall Crown funding for medicines?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): There is no appropriation for the Combined Pharmaceutical Budget (CPB) in Budget 2018; therefore, I cannot answer the first leg of the member’s question. In respect of the second part of the question, no.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, then, in light of that answer, did Pharmac issue a press release saying, “The Combined Pharmaceutical Budget will be increased to a record level of $985 million in 2018/19—an increase of just under $114.2 million on the 2017 … level.”?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Because the combined pharmaceutical budget increased.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: He just said it didn’t exist. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: Order! Everyone.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: By how much did medicines funding increase on an overall basis in Budget 2018?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: The Combined Pharmaceutical Budget increased from $870.8 million in 2017-18 to $985 million in 2018-19. I have always been clear that the CPB was expanded in Budget 2018 to take account of the expansion of Pharmac’s role to include the purchase of all district health board pharmaceuticals. I’m advised that of the $114.2 million uplift, $100.7 million related to the expansion of Pharmac’s role. The remaining $13.5 million was an increase to the funding available for medicines. That is reflected in the fact that in the most recent year we have figures for, an estimated 331,000 more people benefited from increased access to medicines, including drugs for cancer, HIV, and hepatitis.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: How can he take credit for the 331,000 extra patients he just referred to, when that is mentioned in the 2017-18 Pharmac annual report and was funded by the previous Government’s $60 million boost in medicines funding in Budget 2017?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I am celebrating the increase in access to medicines. I thought the member believed in the Pharmac model.
Hon Shane Jones: Hear, hear—negative.
SPEAKER: Order! Order! Can I just say to the Hon Shane Jones that quite a few of us have heard in the media recently about the discovery of a large parrot—extinct. I am a believer in de-extinction, but it’s a bit soon for that to occur here, and I would like him just to stop repeating words that other members are saying.
Hon Shane Jones: Speaking, sir, to your point of order, with the greatest spirit of comity, am I at a disadvantage because I’m close to your good ear?
SPEAKER: Well, actually, relatively, the member is advantaged since I’ve had hearing aids because I now, unfortunately, can hear far too much from my left as well.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Isn’t it the case that the $10 million increase in medicines funding this year is the only increase by this Government, comprising an average annual increase of just 0.5 percent?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Again, the member is incorrect. The last time there was no increase in funding was under his Government.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Does that answer the question?
SPEAKER: Well, I think the first few words did—
Hon Michael Woodhouse: It does?
SPEAKER: Yep.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: Why, in the face of such strong demand for proven new and innovative medicines, was his Government so miserly on medicines funding even this year?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: I think the member needs to look in the mirror on that one. We have had a significant increase in access to medicines in the last few years. Of course, as a Government, we are ambitious to do more—there is no question about that—and I am absolutely delighted that just yesterday, Pharmac announced that it is consulting on three new drugs to bring out for people suffering: Alectinib to treat non - small cell lung cancer, Ocrevus for multiple sclerosis, and Kadcyla for advanced breast cancer. This is the strength of the Pharmac model: it means more medicines for more New Zealanders. This Government is determined to invest more in healthcare because we’ve inherited nine years of neglect, and, as a Government, we are committed to making sure New Zealanders get the healthcare that they need and, I believe, deserve.
Question No. 5—Housing
5. MARAMA DAVIDSON (Co-Leader—Green) to the Associate Minister of Housing: How many complaints has the Tenancy Tribunal received from tenants in response to the new insulation laws that require landlords to install underfloor and ceiling insulation?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI (Associate Minister of Housing (Public Housing)): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. For the month of July 2019, I’m advised that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE) has received and assessed 119 Tenancy Tribunal applications claiming a breach in relation to insulation. During July, the tenancy compliance and investigation team at MBIE also received 77 emails on potential non-compliance issues related to insulation in rental properties. It is encouraging to see tenants so engaged in taking cases to the tribunal. Since 1 July, the Tenancy Services call centre has also received over 1,500 calls from landlords and tenants seeking advice on insulation.
Marama Davidson: Is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to prevent situations like that experienced by the Gamman family, whose youngest child was hospitalised with respiratory issues two years ago and had pneumonia this winter, and who had to take their landlord to court in order to get a warm home and keep their kids healthy?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: As the member noted in her general debate speech yesterday, a purely market-driven approach to rental housing has failed a great many New Zealanders, as it created a tolerance for unhealthy homes, leading to unnecessary hospitalisations of children and older people, and avoidable lost school and work days. The Government is very pleased to see that the Gamman family were aware of their rights and have successfully taken their landlord to the tribunal to ensure that their property meets the minimum standards for rental properties. The Healthy Homes Guarantee Act strengthens these standards by ensuring rental properties are heated, insulated, and ventilated.
Marama Davidson: What is being done to proactively work with tenants and landlords to get the estimated 100,000 rental properties that were not insulated by 1 July, when the new rules came into force?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. A number of advertising campaigns and a range of supporting activity and initiatives have been completed to ensure that both tenants and landlords were aware of the insulation requirements in advance of the 1 July deadline. These included nationwide seminars, working with sector and community groups, a range of ads on a number of platforms, regular communications with landlords on MBIE’s bond database, and communicating campaign materials in 15 different languages.
Marama Davidson: Ka pai. Does the Minister plan to introduce a warrant of fitness scheme to provide better enforcement of these law changes and take the burden off tenants themselves having to take their landlords to the Tenancy Tribunal?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. The Government considered several enforcement measures to limit non-compliance with the standards. Cabinet allocated $15.14 million in April 2018 to support the successful implementation of the standards. The approach that we agreed to in the first instance will focus on informing landlords and tenants about their rights and responsibilities. A comprehensive information and education campaign is currently being developed to raise awareness about the healthy homes standards that will assist compliance. Through this additional funding, we have built up both the capacity and powers of the Tenancy Compliance and Investigations Team. It has expanded its regional presence and now has offices in Manukau, Hamilton, Porirua, Christchurch, and Dunedin, and the team is funded to support the most vulnerable tenants who do not have the ability or resources to take action against non-compliance.
Marama Davidson: Does that Minister agree that people who are looking for a home to rent shouldn’t have to worry about whether or not it is warm, dry, and safe; and wouldn’t a warrant of fitness provide that guarantee?
Hon KRIS FAAFOI: Kia orana, Mr Speaker. The Government agrees tenants should not have to worry about whether their home is warm and dry. That’s why the Government has introduced the healthy homes standards, which provide minimum standards for heating, insulation, ventilation, draught stopping, moisture ingress, and drainage. Landlords need to be aware of their health and safety responsibilities under the legislation, and we will be monitoring compliance rates to see if the regime is working as intended and whether further changes are needed.
Question No. 6—Social Development
6. Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister for Social Development: What changes, if any, to sanctions and obligations for sole parents is she considering that were proposed by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group report?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI (Minister for Social Development): Reviewing key sanctions to improve child wellbeing is a priority for this Government. This is clearly outlined in the Cabinet paper Welfare Overhaul: Advice from the Welfare Expert Advisory Groups and Next Steps, available online. That’s why we’ve already passed legislation to repeal the sanction for not naming the other parent, in section 192 of the Social Security Act. We are also reviewing the subsequent child policy and seeking further advice on the other sanctions suggested by the Welfare Expert Advisory Group. It is important to note that recent research has highlighted that policies that reduce income—for example, through sanctions—are associated with negative child behavioural and developmental outcomes.
Hon Louise Upston: What is the cost to the Crown of the removal of the sanction where the liable parent is not named?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Removing section 192, which will mean that women and children are not bearing the cost or thrown further into hardship, is $113 million over four years. There are approximately 24,000 children living in those households. Those households will be better-off because of repealing that section 192 by $34 per week, and this Government is proud of the fact that we have made the decision to repeal section 192.
Hon Louise Upston: How much child support won’t now be collected from liable parents as a result of that change?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: The advice that I was given by the Ministry of Social Development, and the advice that the previous Government was given in 2016, was that there was no evidence to support that the intention of the policy had been reached. The estimates are out there, as is always the case. It really is a matter of making sure that these families are better-off.
Hon Louise Upston: Does she believe sole parents should have obligations to ensure their children are attending school?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under the previous Government, social obligations were implemented through the welfare system. In the Cabinet paper that I spoke about before, that is not something that we are initially looking at; however, I would like to mention that, actually, no sanctions have had to be imposed because of breaches of social obligations. I do think that the other side of the House and the previous Government underestimate the parents who are in the welfare system and the fact that they care for their children as well.
Hon Louise Upston: Will she be removing the subsequent child rule which means that sole parents have obligations to look for part-time work when a subsequent child is one?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: We are reviewing that policy because where children are punished through the welfare system, we have concerns, and our objective here is to make sure that child wellbeing is at the heart of everything that we do. We do want to review that policy to check that that is the case, and we have concerns that the previous Government didn’t have their best intention at heart.
Hon Louise Upston: How many more children does she think is acceptable for someone already on the sole parent benefit to have, or does she think there should be no limit?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: I never fail to be shocked by the judgment and the stigmatisation of women in the welfare system that the previous Government and the National Party continue to purport. We have a much more positive view of women in the welfare system. We’re investing in upskilling and training. We’re investing in opportunities for employment. We’ve put more money into front-line case managers to support work focus in Work and Income offices. We believe in the potential of these women. We want to support them into employment where they are able to work. We also want to be able to support them to care for their children.
Hon Louise Upston: How many more children living in benefit-dependent homes, and, therefore, hardship, is she projecting based on the changes she’s considering?
Hon CARMEL SEPULONI: Under this Government—and it’s not just through the welfare system; it’s across all of Government—we have an absolute focus on child wellbeing and child poverty reduction. Our absolute aspiration is that these children are able to reach their potential and that they’re supported to do so. That’s what we are focused on. We’re not going to be taken down the negative track that that side of the House would like us to go down.
Question No. 7—Health
7. Dr LIZ CRAIG (Labour) to the Minister of Health: How is the $40 million funding increase for Pharmac announced in Budget 2019 set to benefit New Zealanders?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK (Minister of Health): Pharmac is the reason New Zealanders pay some of the lowest prices in the world for pharmaceuticals, and every year, more people get access to more medicines. Yesterday, Pharmac announced it is looking to fund three new medicines: two for treating cancer and one for treating multiple sclerosis. I’m advised that, if approved, these new drugs will be paid for out of the extra funding we put into Pharmac in the Wellbeing Budget.
Dr Liz Craig: So which new medicines is Pharmac looking to make publicly funded?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Decisions on which medicines are publicly funded are made independently by Pharmac, based on expert advice and evidence. Pharmac is currently consulting on three new drugs: Alectinib to treat non - small cell lung cancer, Ocrevus for multiple sclerosis, and Kadcyla for advanced breast cancer. It is great to see Pharmac making the most of the Government’s investment in it by funding more new medicines for more people who need them.
Dr Liz Craig: When will these new medicines become available to the public?
Hon Dr DAVID CLARK: Pharmac is currently conducting a two-week consultation on funding the three new medicines, as well as widening access to an existing treatment for respiratory disease. Following that, the board of Pharmac will make its formal decision. If it approves their funding, these medicines will be fully publicly available from 1 December.
Question No. 8—Transport
8. CHRIS BISHOP (National—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Transport: Does she agree with the statement of Hon Phil Twyford regarding her 26 March 2019 letter, “She was writing as the associate minister but expressing a view on behalf of the Green Party so it’s not all that easy to separate those things out”; if not, why not?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER (Associate Minister of Transport): Yes.
Chris Bishop: Is she confident her conduct regarding her 26 March letter to the Hon Phil Twyford is consistent with the Cabinet Manual, particularly paragraph 8.25, that says, “Ministers should always be clear about the capacity in which they are creating or using information.”; if so, how?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: Yes. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: No. Members are absolutely aware, and all members are aware, that when two legs are asked in a supplementary question, there’s no obligation to answer both of them. Members should structure their questions appropriately. Chris Bishop.
Chris Bishop: How can she have adhered to paragraph 8.25 of the Cabinet Manual, when, by her own admission, she signed the letter as Associate Minister of Transport, wrote it on ministerial letterhead, but also now claims the letter expressed her view as the Green Party transport spokesperson?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As the member knows, the content of the letter detailed the views of the Green Party and political consultation, and that’s why I don’t consider it to be in the public interest to release the details of the letter. But as the Cabinet Manual also notes—and that member will be well aware of Cabinet Manual paragraph 2.55—“A Minister of the Crown, while holding a ministerial warrant, acts in a number of different capacities: (a) in a ministerial capacity, making decisions and determining and promoting policy within particular portfolios; (b) in a political capacity as [an MP], representing a constituency or particular community of interest;—
Matt King: Heard it all—I’ve heard it all.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: —and (c) in a personal capacity.”
SPEAKER: Mr King, zip it.
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: So it is not as inconsistent as the member is implying, and that’s the reason why I do not consider it to be in the public interest.
Nicola Willis: Is she concerned by reports that threats of her resignation were used by the Mayor of Wellington to leverage councillors into supporting the Let’s Get Wellington Moving package, and, if so, what steps has she taken to address those concerns?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: No, and I certainly can’t take responsibility for those councillors’ decision to vote unanimously in favour of the package.
Nicola Willis: Why won’t she end the swirl of speculation about her role in Let’s Get Wellington Moving by fronting up and releasing her 26 March letter?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: As I’ve said on numerous occasions, I do not consider it to be in the public interest, because it concerns political consultation. But what I can note, if the member is concerned—
SPEAKER: No. Order! Order! The member has answered the question.
Chris Bishop: Did a member of her staff assist her in any way with writing the 26 March 2019 letter to the Hon Phil Twyford; if so, were any of those staff members secondees to her office from the New Zealand Transport Agency or the Ministry of Transport?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: I can confirm that I wrote the letter; and no.
Chris Bishop: When she said in question time on 7 August 2019 “we have accepted advice that we should not release the letter”, who gave her that advice, and when?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: We were determining that on the basis of advice that had been released by the Ombudsman, which I quoted in the House at that time, and advice from my staff.
Hon Members: Staff?
Hon JULIE ANNE GENTER: My political staff.
Question No. 9—Justice
9. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Justice: What referenda will be held at the 2020 general election, and who will decide the wording of each of the referendum questions?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): To the first part of the question, one referendum is certain. I’ve already announced that there will be a referendum on the legalisation of cannabis. As the member will be aware, Parliament is currently considering the End of Life Choice Bill, and I understand that there is a Supplementary Order Paper (SOP) which will amend the commencement date to that bill, to make it subject to a referendum. It is, however, a matter for Parliament to decide whether or not that happens. I also understand there is a similar SOP seeking to amend the Abortion Legislation Bill, which is yet to have its first reading, but what happens there is also a matter for Parliament to decide. In respect of the second part of the question, there is an extensive process to set a referendum question, which concludes with a review by the Regulations Review Committee.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with the statement to the New Zealand Herald by the Deputy Prime Minister that he has not acted in good faith on the question of a referendum on abortion; if so—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, that member should know that the Minister being asked the question is not responsible for my comments.
SPEAKER: The member will repeat the question exactly as he asked it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I certainly will: does he agree with the statement to the New Zealand Herald by the Deputy Prime Minister that he has not acted in good faith on the question of a referendum on abortion; if so, will he apologise?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.
SPEAKER: No, well, I think I can anticipate the point of order. My understanding—and I’m prepared to have it corrected by the leader of New Zealand First and the Deputy Prime Minister—is that the comment was made by the leader of New Zealand First. Therefore, it is not something for which Andrew Little has responsibility.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I’ve noted many rulings from yourself on questions asking whether a Minister agrees with a statement on a matter for which he has responsibility. Would it satisfy the Speaker if I used the phrase “the leader of New Zealand First”, to enable the question?
SPEAKER: Well, let’s adjust it in that way, because it is a statement in an area for which the member has responsibility. We don’t need to repeat the question; Mr Little understands it.
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I regard the leader of the New Zealand First Party as always acting in good faith.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does he agree with his ministerial colleague Tracey Martin on the Government’s referendum bill that the reason for the legislation is that Parliament cannot be trusted on setting questions around referendum?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m not fully aware of the full context, though, of that statement that was made in the context of a 10-minute speech. Now, I’m familiar with the member who asked the question repeatedly taking things right out of context and making mountains out of molehills. I have no further comment to make on it.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise this matter now, at the first opportunity, because it is my belief, and, indeed, the belief of my colleague, that she never said that. We are asking that member over there, not today, but he better have been telling the House the truth, otherwise we’re going to make a serious claim against that sort of behaviour.
SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, Dr Nick Smith.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I know this is unusual, but I’ve been challenged. I seek leave to table the exact quote from Minister Tracey Martin.
SPEAKER: I think the member’s seeking leave to table a document, rather than a quote.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Would you like me to clarify?
SPEAKER: Yes. I want to know where it’s from and the date.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the parliamentary Hansard of the quote from Tracey Martin on her statement that Parliament could not be trusted on setting questions on referenda.
SPEAKER: This is most unusual, but because the veracity of a member has been challenged, I am going to put that to the House. Is there any objection?
Hon Shane Jones: No. Yes. We don’t want to see it. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: That sounded to me like a “Yeah, nah” which ended up “No”. Is that right?
Hon Shane Jones: Speaking to my remarks, sir, unless the member is going to place whatever he seeks to table in its rightful context, I object.
SPEAKER: Objection has been raised; it will not be tabled.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did the Minister ask at his meetings with New Zealand First Ministers whether they wanted a referendum on abortion, given their clearly, publicly stated position; if not, why not?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this member is offending—he’s imputing things as a fact. He used the word “Ministers”—plural. To the best of my knowledge, the Minister of Justice met with only one New Zealand First Minister, and that’s a fact that’s been confirmed by the Minister now. So he’s misleading the House again.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, it’s a matter of public record that there was more than one meeting, and with more than one Minister, on the question of the referendum legislation. It went to a Cabinet committee at which there were multiple Ministers, the Minister himself has said that there were multiple meetings, and it is also true that the paper went through Cabinet, at which there were multiple Ministers.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker, the facts are, as he put that question out, it was a meeting that was apposite to the presence of the Minister of Justice; not a meeting with the Minister of Justice who was at Cabinet—no, a meeting between the Minister of Justice and New Zealand First Ministers. In that sense, he’s again misleading the House. [Interruption]
SPEAKER: I’ve got about three people having a go, but before I do any of that the Hon Michael Woodhouse will stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Michael Woodhouse: I withdraw and apologise.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can I repeat the question, Mr Speaker?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
SPEAKER: No, because Mr Brownlee has a point of order.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do have a point of order, and that is: why are you entertaining the dancing on a pin being presented by the Deputy Prime Minister? If he had listened to the question, it is quite in order to have used the plural. If they’re upset by the use of plural Ministers, or plural for Minister, in this particular question, that’s inexplicable.
SPEAKER: The member’s made an assumption in his point of order that I’m—well, maybe I’m entertaining it by listening to it, but generally there’s an obligation to do that, especially when there are senior Ministers who generally know what they’re talking about to do with points of order. In this particular case, I think there’s an assertion that’s been made as part of the question, which can be dealt with by the Minister. What we’re going to do is we’re going to have the question read out, starting the same, and, hopefully, finishing.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Did he ask, at his meetings with New Zealand First Ministers, whether they wanted a referendum on abortion, given their publicly and clearly stated position; if not, why not?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I met consistently with one New Zealand First Minister, Tracey Martin, and we had a discussion on every aspect of the legislation. At one point, when we were having those discussions, it was in the context of public debate about multiple referendums happening in 2020, and the statement was made that no referendum was being sought in relation to abortion. In the end, the bill, as it is, has been introduced to the House. It was signed off by Cabinet—that is the bill that is up for debate this afternoon.
Ginny Andersen: What approaches is the Minister aware of that establish a referendum question?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: I’m aware of two pieces of legislation which set out options for referendum questions to be set: the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993 and the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act 2000. I’d like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Referenda (Postal Voting) Act sets out a referendum question to be set by Order in Council, therefore by Cabinet. Indeed, that legislation, which was introduced by a former member the Hon Tony Ryall, received the full support of the whole House, through every stage, even after a change of Government. No one raised any issue with it; no one even asked for a referendum about it.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why has the Government argued that decisions on referendum held at general elections should be made by Cabinet, and introduced a bill to do so, but then argued that the decision on a referendum on abortion should be made by Parliament?
Hon ANDREW LITTLE: No such argument has been mounted.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does he support a referendum on euthanasia, a sensitive issue, at the—
SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will ask his question without caveats or qualifications.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, I think saying it’s a sensitive issue is a matter of fact.
SPEAKER: Right. The member will resume his seat.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Mr Speaker, the question of whether we have—
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Covering for the Government again.
SPEAKER: Now, all I’m trying to decide is for how long and on what basis the member is going. He has already been named for a similar comment. To name him again now will remove him from a vote which many people think is very important. The member’s comment, because he is an experienced member, a member who acts deliberately, indicates to me that it is his wish to be named. I am not going to grant him his wish, but he will leave the Chamber and he will not return today.
Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You were very quick to engage with Dr Smith on the use of the words “very sensitive” in a question. We have had very long answers to questions today—
SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I’ve dealt with that matter.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is not about your decision around Dr Smith. It’s a request for consistency in the way in which the requirements—
SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Question No. 10—Employment
10. WILLOW-JEAN PRIME (Labour) to the Minister of Employment: What did the recent Household Labour Force Survey show regarding labour market outcomes for youth?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON (Minister of Employment): Kia orana. The household labour force survey shows that in the last quarter, the not in employment, education, or training (NEETs) rate for both young men and young women dropped to 9.5 percent and 11.1 percent respectively. This is reflected in more young men who are both now earning and learning, and more young women who have gone into paid employment.
Willow-Jean Prime: What is significant about the drop in the rates for those previously classified as not in education, employment, or training?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: This is significant as people always focus on the percentages, but I want to share with the House today the actual numbers that these percentages represent. In the June quarter, there are now 19,000 fewer young people classified as not in education, employment, or training. This Government is very proud of that fact. Despite all the predictions of doom and gloom, we’ve been able to reduce our NEETs.
Willow-Jean Prime: What other indicators did the recent household labour force survey reveal for youth?
Hon WILLIE JACKSON: I’d like to inform the House that of the 19,000 referred to in my previous answer, we are seeking increases in young people entering some form of training, education, or employment—specifically, around 14,000 more young people moving into employment and 5,000 into some form of training or education. This is 19,000 young people who are active and engaged in their future and contributing to their community. I’ve seen examples of this all across the country in communities that were not invested in before by the previous Government: Ōpōtiki, Whakatāne, Tolaga Bay, alongside Shane Jones’ Provincial Growth Fund—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Well, Mr Speaker, you can just hear, in the answer being given by Willie Jackson, the extensive amount of extraneous material relevant to the necessary answer that appears to be going completely unchecked.
SPEAKER: I think it is fair to say that the question had been adequately answered some time before the point of order. I don’t think the member was out of order with his extra material, but he had finished.
Question No. 11—Immigration
11. STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Immigration: Is Immigration New Zealand taking any steps to improve visa processing delays, and what impact is the fact more applications were made under the New Zealand Residency Programme than the current planning range allows having on delays?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Minister of Immigration): Thank you, Mr Speaker. In relation to the first part of the question, yes; in relation to the second part, we have seen an increase in the number of applicants under the New Zealand Residence Programme in the last few months. This is unsurprising, given that we have the lowest rate of unemployment in 10 years and our wage rates are growing strongly. This may mean that resident visa applications are queued for a longer period of time.
Stuart Smith: Can he confirm official advice which shows visa processing delays are expected to get worse?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.
Stuart Smith: Are visa applicants informed of the lengthy delays for processing times when they apply, and, if not, does he think that officials should be upfront about the delay, given that applicants are paying for that service?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Visa processing times are published on the Immigration New Zealand website.
Marja Lubeck: Can the Minister provide an example of the importance of Immigration New Zealand’s greater focus on risk management and verification?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes. An example is the case of 47 cases of fraudulent financial documentation relating to a number of Vietnamese visa applications, where Immigration New Zealand is currently taking action. In relation to Vietnam, Immigration New Zealand and Education New Zealand have agreed to an industry agent engagement programme to grow high-quality student enrolments and deter fraud.
Stuart Smith: Does the Minister think it’s satisfactory for essential skills visa processing times to have almost doubled, to 76 days, since the current Government took office, and, if so, how will he fix it?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: I am concerned at the increase in visa processing times, and I have asked Immigration New Zealand to keep me up to date on the work that they are doing to deal with those. Immigration New Zealand has advised me that they have embarked on a comprehensive project to reduce processing times, including significant staff recruitment; office expansions in Henderson, Hamilton, and Mumbai; and stakeholder engagement to explain the current state in how to provide visa applications that are decision-ready and, therefore, move much more quickly through the system. I am being regularly updated by officials, and significant progress has been made—members opposite may like to listen to this—with a 22 percent reduction in essential skills visa applications on hand in the past seven weeks, and a 10 percent reduction in student visa applications on hand over the same period of time.
Stuart Smith: Does the Minister consider that visa processing delays are negatively impacting businesses and the overall economy?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: As I have already said, I am concerned about current processing times, and I expect Immigration New Zealand to focus all their attention on reducing those times.
Stuart Smith: Can he confirm that Immigration New Zealand is actively seeking to recruit overseas workers to help with visa processing in New Zealand, and, if so, how long will it take to process their work visas?
Hon IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No.
Question No. 12—Pacific Peoples
12. JAN TINETTI (Labour) to the Minister for Pacific Peoples: What progress, if any, has been made regarding opportunities for Pacific people in the regions?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Kia orana, Mr Speaker. Recently, I announced that seven expert providers had been selected by the Ministry for Pacific Peoples for Tupu Aotearoa, a programme to help young Pacific people towards employment, education, and training pathways so that we can assist them to turn their potential into success and create prosperity in their local communities in the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, Whanganui, and Manawatū regions. Tupu Aotearoa is made possible with the support of my coalition partner the Hon Shane Jones, first citizen of the regions, and father of the Provincial Growth Fund.
Jan Tinetti: What is the point of difference with this new regional approach?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a bill can’t be described as “sensitive”, then I’m sure it’s not appropriate to describe a Minister, particularly Mr Jones, as being any sort of “champion”.
SPEAKER: Aupito William Sio.
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: Again, we’re looking ahead 30 years, and not just three. Tupu Aotearoa is a new name that young Pacific people can relate to as new beginnings or new opportunities, which will empower young Pacific people aged 15 to 39 years to grow new life skills, kick-start their career prospects, earn a good living, and provide employers with the skilled, motivated talent pool they need. Each of the seven providers brings with them local knowledge and experience that will enable them to tailor support to back the needs of young Pacific people, local communities, and businesses.
Angie Warren-Clark: What other regions will benefit from the Tupu Aotearoa programme?
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO: In addition to the providers announced for the Bay of Plenty, Waikato, and Whanganui-Manawatū areas, work is currently under way to identify providers for the Hawke’s Bay, Southland, and Otago regions. In addition to the focus on the regions, the Wellbeing Budget allocated another $14.5 million to extend Tupu Aotearoa further to cover wider Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch. This approach will allow us to look long term and tackle the long-term issues facing Pacific Aotearoa.
Bills
Abortion Legislation Bill
First Reading
Hon ANDREW LITTLE (Minister of Justice): I move, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a first time. The House has decided that the Abortion Legislation Committee will consider the bill.
Around 13,200 abortions are carried out in New Zealand each year under our current law. Under that law, when a woman seeks an abortion, she is in the first instance committing a criminal act. Women seeking an abortion have a defence to the crime if they comply with the requirements of the Crimes Act and the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977. Complying with the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act requires a woman to obtain the approval of two, or possibly three, certifying consultants, usually after consulting her GP. Those consultants must be satisfied, amongst other things, that continuing the pregnancy would result in serious danger to the physical or mental health of the woman. There are other grounds, but this is the most commonly relied upon ground. That is the test if the abortion is to happen in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. After 20 weeks, the test is that the abortion must be necessary to save the life of the woman or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health.
The requirements of the 1977 Act are onerous and bureaucratic, and, for most women, securing an abortion requires them to maintain a fiction about their mental health. In my view, it is wrong that our present law characterises a decision that a woman wishes to make about her own body and her reproductive choices as criminal, and it is wrong that, in making that decision, a woman has to go through a set of processes that no other person seeking a medical procedure has to go through. My Abortion Legislation Bill seeks to change this. The primary objective of the bill is to shift abortion out of the criminal law framework, in which it sits at the moment, and place it in a health framework, where it properly belongs. In the end, the bill is not only about confirming the right of a woman to choose whether she proceeds with a pregnancy but also about respecting her ability to do so.
Before I outline the specific measures in the bill, I want to acknowledge that I am acutely aware that this issue is freighted with deeply held personal, political, faith-based, and emotional views, which lead different people to different conclusions. I am aware that members right now are being inundated with messages from members of the public about this issue and about how to vote on it, but this is a conscience issue, and I will shortly set out how I arrive at my view. But, first, let us understand what is happening in New Zealand right now.
As I said at the beginning, around 13,200 abortions are carried out in New Zealand each year. That number has been falling over the last 10 years. Ninety percent of abortions in New Zealand occur in the first trimester of pregnancy; 98 percent occur in the first 16 weeks. Even under the laws in place today, there are abortions that are carried out after 20 weeks. In the 12 months to 30 June 2018, 57 abortions were carried out after 20 weeks. The evidence is that virtually all abortions carried out after 20 weeks are because of severe foetal abnormality or because there is a severe risk to the woman’s life or physical health. And, for the record, let me state there is no such thing as “full-term abortion”.
Much of the contribution to the public debate about abortion will come from people who, because of their faith or other deeply held views, are opposed to abortion at all. Some regard it as a denial of life or a breach of human rights, and we will hear extravagant language in the public debate about this referring to “killing” and “murder”. I reject those notions. I accept on legal and moral grounds the established jurisprudence in New Zealand that human rights do not accrue until human life is possible, and that the widely accepted human rights that we all understand apply when they are capable of being exercised, which is to say I accept the “born alive” principle that guides our courts today. But it is for these reasons also, however, that I believe foetal viability is a relevant consideration in setting up a legal framework for abortions and that a gestational threshold at which different considerations apply is appropriate as a matter of public policy.
The principal features of the bill are these: firstly, the bill shifts the law about abortion from the criminal context to a health context. Next, it says that for abortions up to 20 weeks of pregnancy, the decision on whether or not to have an abortion is for the woman concerned, in consultation with her health professional. After 20 weeks, a health professional carrying out an abortion must be satisfied that it is appropriate in light of the woman’s physical and mental health and her wellbeing. Next, there will be no need for certifying consultants. One benefit of this is that whereas at the moment abortions in New Zealand are on average later in the pregnancy than other comparable countries, this will mean that New Zealand women can get access to services earlier and that will be safer for them.
Next, it will continue to be mandatory for health professionals to offer counselling for women, but it will not be mandatory for a woman seeking an abortion to have counselling. Next, women will be able to self-refer to abortion services. Next, health practitioners who have a conscientious objection to providing advice on abortion or administering an abortion must refer a woman to the Ministry of Health, who will provide advice to that woman on how relevant services can be obtained.
Next, there will be a regulation-making power for the Minister of Health to establish safe zones around clinics if there is a need to do so. Members will be aware that the Law Commission report on which this bill is based was somewhat indifferent about whether or not safe zones needed to be established, but I, through correspondence, have seen evidence that suggests that at least in some places, it may well be a device that needs to be called upon.
Finally in this regard, the Abortion Supervisory Committee will go, and oversight of the abortion regime will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and also the professional bodies to which health professionals belong. It should be remembered, too, that we have health legislation, such as the New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act and the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act, that did not exist in 1977 when the last abortion law was created.
What crimes do remain on our statute book will relate to abortions being carried out by unauthorised health professionals or those who claim to be health professionals but are not authorised to carry out abortions. The other crime that will remain on the statute book effectively deals with assaults on pregnant women who as a result of that assault lose their pregnancy.
In putting together the bill, I have been assisted by a large number of people, people who have been working on this issue, in some cases, for many, many years. I’ve also been assisted by members, former members of this House and current members today, as well. I don’t want to go into a long list, but I do want to acknowledge two people. The first is the Prime Minister, who, early in the life of this Government, discussed this issue with me and pointed out how she had made or given assurances on the campaign trail in 2017 that she would strive to get abortion as an issue out of a criminal framework and into a health framework. I am very thankful for the support and wisdom of the Prime Minister in developing the bill as it is today.
I also want to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition, Simon Bridges. Mr Bridges has a well-articulated and well-known view about abortion, and as the leader of a conservative party, in any country his view is unremarkable, but earlier this week he indicated that he was prepared to support this bill for first reading. Now, I acknowledge very quickly that does not bind him to any other vote in any other way later in the development or the votes on this particular bill, but his indication paves the way, possibly, for this House to consider and examine this bill and for good public debate to be held across New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Deputy Leader—National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity—
SPEAKER: For five minutes.
Hon PAULA BENNETT: —yeah, thank you; for five minutes—to speak in this debate and have an opportunity to just put myself on record. I will be supporting this bill, and I want to acknowledge Andrew Little for bringing it to the House. I want to acknowledge him for talking to others about it and for his contribution just then, which I think did fill in quite a few of the details that we want to do.
I was thinking it is a little bit of a week for decriminalisation in this House. We had the drugs amendment bill, and now we’re decriminalising abortions, which, in that one, I certainly do support. A woman choosing not to carry out a pregnancy should not be a criminal act, in my opinion, and that’s pretty much how I’ve come to my conclusion of supporting this. When we have the kinds of numbers that we’re talking about, which at the moment are around 13,200—the highest it got to was over 18,000 abortions in 2003—when we’ve seen that the number of teen pregnancies literally reduced by half—by half—which I think is something we should be incredibly proud of as a country, and when we’ve seen that happening, I think it says to us, actually, that there wouldn’t be many of us that don’t know someone or care for someone or love someone who has been through an experience of an unwanted pregnancy.
Some have chosen to follow that through and some have chosen the road of abortion. None of those decisions have been in any way, shape, or form taken lightly, done without considerable pain and thought and acknowledgment of all that they are going through. To then have to sit there and make a call, that, actually, they have to then perhaps go through what could be a mental health issue or try and come up with an excuse that is beyond the actual trauma that they are already going through, in my mind isn’t right, and it is for that reason that I believe it should be taken out of the Crimes Act and be considered as a health issue.
No matter what this House does, it will not stop abortions happening. If the most right-wing conservative who doesn’t agree stepped in here next week and said, “This is the law.”, they would be happening illegally and women would be going through what we’ve seen in past decades, some of the most horrific health treatment. So in my opinion we have a role to do it with compassion, to do it with the right checks and balances in place. Like anyone, I always worry about coercion, and particularly with some of our younger girls that find themselves in a position of unwanted pregnancies. I want to see them getting the right counselling. I want to see them having the right, sort of, backup so that they can make the best choices for them. For some, actually, they will need a longer time of help, and I think you acknowledge that in this as well, which I cry out for, but we should not be telling them that they have to lie to the medical practitioner that they’re in front of so that they can get the medical help that they want. They would probably be doing it anyway, but it would be in a back street and it would be incredibly dangerous, and that’s not the country we live in.
So I imagine there’s going to be a lot of people that are going to have personal call-outs. I do want to see us discuss further in committee stage around the post-20 weeks. That does still concern me, and I hear that you’re saying it’s such a small proportion—let’s really allay those assurances with the public, because that’s what they’re looking for. So let’s make sure that we seriously give them that.
But in my mind, I do believe in a woman’s right to choose. I do believe that we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to make that as safe as it possibly can be for those that are in a situation where they are making some of the most traumatic and extreme decisions that they will have to make in their lifetime. We should be supporting them with legislation that does support them. Thank you.
JAN LOGIE (Green): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m really pleased and really feel the privilege of getting to rise and speak on behalf of all of the Green Party MPs to restate our long-held position in support of the decriminalisation of abortion and to offer our unanimous support for this piece of legislation at this stage. For the Green Party, all of us—we’re voting on our conscience, but that happens to take a shared position, and that is a position of wanting pregnant people to be able to access the best possible medical care that, of course, trusts them to know what’s best for them and their families.
On one level, I recognise the profound importance of this day for many New Zealanders. Around 30 percent of New Zealand women have had to jump through multiple hoops, created by our abortion laws, to be able to access fundamental healthcare services. Some women in this country have been denied abortions when that was their preference for their life. Too many women and people live with a sense of quiet—often—stigma created not by their choices but by the sense of social opprobrium created by our laws. Women have at times been made to feel like criminals. And there is a reason abortion rights have been so central to campaigns for women’s equality.
But in some ways, actually today it’s not such a big deal. In some ways, this is really a long-delayed catch-up to ensure our legislation finally reflects the dominant values of our society and the jurisprudence. We haven’t updated these laws since the 1970s—the 1970s, when “God Defend New Zealand” was made our second national anthem alongside “God Save the Queen”, a time when almost every household got milk in a glass bottle at the end of their drive, a time when it was OK to refer to people as “seriously handicapped” and “severely subnormal”, as the original legislation does before the Human Rights Act, before medical abortion was even available. It was a time when the law supported a man’s right to sex with his wife regardless of whether she wanted it or not, a time when men were also legally sanctioned to administer moderate physical correction to their wives.
Despite women being able to be members of Parliament, it was clear by our laws that women were not considered equal or fully trustworthy. So a law that listed conditions on when and how a woman could access healthcare made sense in that legal context. Yet the 1970s was also a time when, despite that legal context, polls consistently showed over 65 percent of New Zealanders favoured either the woman alone or the woman and her doctor having the right to choose—in the 1970s. The will of the people, however, was undermined by conservative forces in this House, which only had four women present at the time.
This law reform that’s being, I hope, started rolling today will not profoundly change our society except to the extent it removes significant disparities in access to healthcare between rural and urban areas, between low- and high - socio-economic communities, and it may enable good medical practice. We don’t expect there to be a significant—if any—increase in the number of abortions to arise from this legislation. So it’s not about whether we support abortion or not. Remember that about 30 percent of women in this country have had an abortion and the numbers are tracking down as contraception options improve. When the Green Party announced our policy to decriminalise abortion over five years ago, the main response we got before the Family First misinformation campaign kicked in was “What, haven’t we done that already?”, and we’re seeing that same response again.
This is an issue I feel passionately about. I find the idea personally of forcing somebody to continue a pregnancy against their will actually shocking. A law that treats pregnant people and health professionals as if they’re not to be trusted or are unable to make ethical decisions is anathema to me. However, I want to acknowledge though that I’m really well aware that others feel differently and that there is a significant group of New Zealanders who believe that life begins at conception and they oppose the use of the emergency contraception pill. And there’s a smaller group again who oppose the use of contraception altogether for similar reasons. Other New Zealanders hold different views again.
I respect these people’s right to hold those views, although they differ profoundly from mine, and I would fight strongly to protect those people against any attempt to force them to have an abortion or to take contraception against their will. And I do want to acknowledge that for some people, their association with this debate reminds them of a traumatic time in their life and they associate this with their poor mental health. The evidence across the population tells us that any trauma and mental health consequences come from either the stigma or the unwanted pregnancy, not the abortion itself.
But I want to acknowledge that there are some deeply held feelings in this debate for many people and they are valid, but the right to my belief and other people’s right to their views and my willingness to fight for them to be protected from any forced action is the same instinct that has me fight to protect the bodily autonomy of pregnant people who want to end their pregnancy. I don’t believe in this House I can have any sense of what is going on in their lives and the consequences of bearing a pregnancy to term against their will. It is not for me to make that decision; I believe we need in this House to trust them to do it.
All the Green Party MPs, while we’re supporting this legislation, our preference is for legislation to reflect option A as proposed by the Law Commission. We believe this would be the best way to demonstrate our trust in pregnant people to make the best decision for themselves and their families.
We also believe it is an odd proposition to suggest that Parliament has a better idea of what’s right for anybody in this context than they know themselves or has better medical judgment than the health professionals themselves. I would note that that option is supported by Family Planning, the National Council of Women, the UN Human Rights Council, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the New Zealand College of Midwives, the Abortion Supervisory Committee—from the medical establishment—because they want to be able to exercise their support for pregnant people according to best medical practice, and that really is what option A would deliver.
So, in my last moments, I really would ask every member to reflect on the history of this House’s decision and to ask themselves whether they believe they know better than pregnant people what is best for them.
MAUREEN 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.
AGNES LOHENI (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Abortion Legislation Bill is before us. It will be contentious, as this issue always is, and it will be strongly and robustly debated.
No matter which way one tries to dress this up, we are discussing the termination of a life. We can play tug of war and quibble over whether we are talking viable life, six weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks, actual life, or a life not until it’s born, but at least we are talking about the life of a baby facing termination. So to dress this bill in euphemistic language that talks of health issues is disingenuous.
The vast majority of abortions are performed as a result of unintended pregnancies. The most common reasons cited are that pregnancy would interfere with education, work, or an ability to care for existing children. Financial stress also plays a part, as does the realisation that a mother felt her family was already complete. I understand that. I was shocked to find out that I was pregnant with my fifth child after my husband and I agreed we would stop at four. You go through a range of emotions with a shock unexpected pregnancy. But for most of us mothers, we very quickly get over it and proceed with our lives and our pregnancies, and I ended up with a beautiful son after having four gorgeous daughters.
In one of the very early media interviews that I did prior to being sworn in, I was asked about my views on abortion, and my response was that I value life, from the unborn child through to the elderly, sick, and vulnerable. The value I have on life, on human lives, is core to who I am and a fundamental pillar of the principles that I stand for. It should shock no one that I stand here today to advocate for the life of the unborn child.
So, back to the issue of abortion being about women’s health. As the statistics show, abortion is overwhelmingly not about a mother’s health, particularly in the first trimester; it is about a decision to terminate a life for lifestyle reasons. We should, as a society, have the courage to admit that. As for those families and mothers facing real health issues with continuing a pregnancy, I get it. This is an awful position to be in, and the provisions within the Crimes Act were designed to recognise this and allow for abortions in limited circumstances. Whether for the rare instances of health-related pregnancies or for the more common reasons for terminating a life, I don’t condemn women faced with this decision. I truly sympathise and empathise with a mother who has made the decision to end the life of her unborn child, because for so many mothers, this can be a shattering decision that leads to guilt and regret, and the health services in place to assist grieving mothers are thin, to say the least. The problem with mothers who do grieve their decision is that it doesn’t fit the narrative that a woman’s choice is easy and that it’s just like any other medical procedure. It is not. These are individuals swept under the carpet by the pro-abortion movement as an inconvenience to the narrative the movement has sought to create.
So I stand today to call out the hypocrisy of the proposed changes as being about women’s health. This is a euphemism to justify the proposed changes and to make it more palatable. The reality is that for the vast majority of mothers who choose to terminate the life of their unborn child, the impact on their material lives is the overwhelming reason.
But there is a health issue that does need addressing, and that is post-abortion support for mothers who have undergone the procedure. I am a strong advocate for increased health resources in this area. It is a rare mother who takes the decision to terminate their unborn child’s life lightly. It is a hefty decision that can have lifelong consequences. I stand in support of greater healthcare for these mothers who experience a natural trauma post their termination decision.
I stand to support vulnerable children, whether inside or outside the womb. The provisions of the Crimes Act protect unborn children and they protect vulnerable mothers from abusive situations they may find themselves in. So section 182(1) must stay and not be watered down. It must continue to be against the law to kill an unborn child. Equally, section 182(2) of the Crimes Act clearly anticipates that a mother who has gone through the mandated process to get an abortion is exempt from the provisions of the Crimes Act.
I continue to struggle with how this can be interpreted as making a mother feel like a criminal for lawfully terminating her unborn child’s life, because at the end of the day, our society values life to the extent that in all but exceptional cases, it’s against the law to end a life. The exceptions generally relate to self-defence, war, capital punishment, and abortion. Society places a high value on life both born and unborn, and we should be weary of watering that down or losing that fundamental, innate human drive to protect human life, whether born or unborn.
If there’s one thing I’m clear on, abortion is overwhelmingly not about a health issue; it is about impact on life. Our society has deemed it allowable to end an unborn life for those reasons, but has also recognised the gravity of its decision to allow lawful abortion. Hence, we women are asked to consider carefully our decision, and yes, to go through a focused process to ensure our decision to end the life of our unborn child is done with all the information at hand and with the full knowledge of what we are doing.
To medicalise abortion is to deceive ourselves as to what we are deciding to do. This is not a cancer we are cutting out of our bodies. It is not a collection of cells akin to those, say, in our finger, that a quick cut will eradicate. It is a distinct human life with its own DNA, heartbeat, and brain function. The child is both part of us and distinct from us, and it needs us to help he or she into the world and requires us to be ongoing in the child’s care once it arrives. All mothers know that moment we find we are pregnant, and our hand goes instinctively and protectively to our stomachs—that we have a life inside of us. So I take exception to the idea that wanting to protect the unborn child somehow is archaic, medieval, uncaring, or old-fashioned. It is not progressive to want to speed up the process of termination; it is regressive and anti the value we place on life both unborn and born.
Good laws serve to protect the vulnerable in our society. How could it ever be out of date to want to protect the life of an unborn child? What little protections the unborn child currently has must not be let go. The act of aborting a child is a serious act. It should be treated with the utmost gravity. It should ordinarily be the path least taken. It should ordinarily be rare, and it should be subject to an informed process that requires each and every one of us to question our decision before we choose a path that is permanent and may lead to lifelong consequences. I am clear that the law as it stands serves mothers and their unborn children. I oppose this bill.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): Can I acknowledge the speech from Agnes Loheni and the very clever way, I think, in which she outlined an argument. Can I also acknowledge Andrew Little, on the other hand, for the way in which he went through the way that he got to his position. Although I was very young at the time, I do remember the debates of 1977, and particularly the fervour in those debates. I also remember that they occurred largely because there was a lot of carnage from people, effectively, dying or being maimed irreparably in the seeking of, effectively, backstreet abortions. So while I don’t support abortion, I think that there are a number of things that we have to look at in this debate that give respect to life but also recognise that there will be circumstances where people—women—will find themselves faced with that choice.
When she spoke earlier, the Greens speaker whose name, sorry, immediately—
Hon Members: Jan Logie.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Jan. When Jan Logie spoke earlier, she spoke about the social opprobrium that was often associated with women who had abortions. Well, equally I think there has been far too much social opprobrium for women who have carried out or gone full term, as used to be the term “unmarried mothers”. I would like to make it clear that there would be no Hansard record in this House where I’ve ever had anything other than respectful comments for women who have brought up their children on their own. In that, I’m trying to say that perhaps if there was a better attitude toward the young women, generally, who find themselves pregnant, who are faced with that dilemma, and that attitude was one of full support, then perhaps we wouldn’t be in a situation where we’re looking at a bill like this.
The other call that’s been made is about fairness—about removing it from the Crimes Act. Well, this bill does a lot more than just remove abortion from the Crimes Act. I don’t think it is reasonable to class people who’ve had an abortion as potentially being criminals who have a defence against the crime. That is what the current Act does. But I do have concerns about the extremely liberal nature of this particular bill.
Those concerns go, for example, to the possibility of gender selection, which for a lot of cultures in New Zealand will be a reasonable thing to do. It goes to the concerns about genetic selection, which for a lot of people will be something that they’re keen to investigate. And then there is the issue of there being virtually no question at all up to the 20-week mark, and then a strong suggestion from the Minister that the regime beyond that point won’t present any particular difficulty either. I think the concepts that have just been outlined by Agnes Loheni in her speech about the respect for life, whether it is at any point on the human spectrum from conception to death, is something that we should not take lightly. We should not just put aside and should not sort of categorise as being valuable at one point and less valuable in another.
Throughout all my years in this House, I have always voted on the side of the conservative approach to these types of bills. What I would like to see is a select committee take this bill—given I think I know where it’s all heading—and do the work that’s necessary to put it into a shape that might deal with some of those problems that I outlined earlier. I don’t think this bill should go to the select committee almost unchallenged, as could have been deduced from some of the earlier speeches in this debate this afternoon.
So I am open to what the select committee might come up with, recognising that we do not want to go back to the pre-1977 days, where just about in every town people could point to an arrangement that could be made but could never guarantee any safety in that arrangement. But I think this liberalisation here does not protect enough against the things that would be simply bad for humanity: genetic selection, gender selection, and then a much lessening value of almost full-term pregnancy.
So I will not be voting for this bill this evening, but as I say, I hope the select committee do a good job in getting it into a position that makes it more reasonable law—does not criminalise people who have to make that dreadful decision. I think for most people it would be a pretty awful decision to have to make. With those comments, I’m sorry I’ve taken a little longer than my five minutes.
JO HAYES (National): Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a three weeks we’ve had in this House. Who would have thought that this Parliament would be debating who should live and who should die. Like the End of Life Choice Bill that I voted against, I stand again in opposition to this abortion legislation.
My contribution is actually focused on me as a Māori woman and the way that I was raised. I was brought up with values that a woman’s body is tapu and should be respected that way always, where her body is referred to as whare tangata—the sacred house where we are conceived, where we are nurtured, and where we are born from—where generations of whānau stem from whare tangata, and when we grow too old to be able to carry on with having children, that our sons and our daughters will be able to carry on our blood, our name, our whakapapa through our mokopuna; where the hongi tells of the act where the god Tāne breathed life into his clay-moulded woman Hineahuone, and she came to life and became his wife and bore his children—the sanctity of life immemorial.
All of these acts preserve the tapu of women, yet today that seems irrelevant and it’s sad. We have heard and will continue to hear that women have a choice. Believe me, I’m all for choice. But, for me, the most dangerous part of choice in this proposed legislation is a woman’s choice to self-referral for an abortion. To me, it is a slippery slope, and one we need to be very, very careful of, should this bill go through.
The concerns that I have heard from women who have had abortions, post-abortions, is that there have been concerns of “Who’s going to look after me—my post-traumatic stress after the fact? Who will be there to pick up the pieces after the abortion?” Certainly not a counsellor pre, certainly not the doctor, and if they’re there without whānau support, it won’t be whānau either. Who will be there to work through these issues if counselling becomes an option but women opt not to take it? Who will take care of the woman’s choice when she is coerced into having an abortion? I sat through interviews with women when we were doing the child marriage bill who told me about their coercion to have an abortion by their husband. When the father says to the woman, “Get rid of that bloody kid or you can kiss us goodbye.”, that’s coercion, and this bill does not include coercion of abortion.
So whilst it’s true that under the current law women can access abortion up to 20 weeks of pregnancy, there are strict criteria in place. After the 20 weeks, the criteria are based on saving the life of the woman or preventing permanent injury physically and mentally, as the Minister laid out.
The changes in this bill mean that abortion, for me, will be on demand for 20 weeks, and after 20 weeks the abortion can be performed on the foetus up until it has been fully born. That’s terrible. So what about the rights of the unborn? It seems in this debate they have none. So I, like some of my colleagues, advocate for the unborn child and for children to give them the voice.
Under section 182 of the Crimes Act, it is an offence to kill an unborn child, the maximum penalty being 14 years. Under the proposed changes in this bill, it amends section 182 where abortions, whether performed before or during the birth of the child, are exempt. That’s not good enough.
I’m concerned that it’s being proposed that abortion be no longer in the Crimes Act, which I don’t support, because there are very little safeguards if it is not there, for the unborn child, in this proposed bill. I’m concerned about the proposed referendum on abortion, because this, I believe, is our role. This is why members of Parliament are put here: to make those decisions. To be honest, to put it out to the public takes our responsibility away.
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Minister for Pacific Peoples): Kia orana tatou katoatoa to the House. Earlier this week when Mr Little announced the abortion law reforms, I had to smile at the coverage by the parliamentary press gallery, where a few of us brown MPs were singled out in there, providing our different views on the matter. The coverage invoked in me the thought that while we all live together in this beautiful country of ours, while we might work alongside one another or attend the same functions or travel together, we really don’t understand one another. Those of us who are bilingual live in two different worlds. It’s been my experience that when someone is vehemently monolingual, I fear there is no understanding, no empathy, no connection between their world and mine.
So let me now speak plainly on the position I hold on abortion. I will speak plainly knowing full well that the media will cover this debate from the personal perspective of each of those reporters based on their own world view and understanding. I speak plainly knowing full well that each member of this House is fully and completely entitled to their own views, and I will defend their view whichever way they choose to vote on this subject matter. I speak plainly for the sake of the community that I represent, both who oppose and support this issue—not just the people of Māngere but I include the Pacific community in the regions of Aotearoa and throughout the wider Pacific region.
When the media refers to Pacific culture as the basis of my decision, there is an element of truth to that, but really the question should be: what do I value? What value do I rely upon to base my decision on abortion? I value life. From my earliest memory, all the children in our extended family were taught through one question: o ai na faia oe—who created you? O le Atua—the Creator. Samoan beliefs of old valued life. It values the power of men and women to create life. It values the power of the matai as a power derived from Tangaloa, the Creator—the power to create or take life. Many of us matais have fallen short in the use of this power.
When Christianity and old Samoa came together, Samoans fused old religion with new religion, but the values stayed the same. We valued life and the creation of life and buried our power to take life. Why do we value life? Because we need the next generation. In the days of old, in the village social structure, we needed strong warriors. In peacetime, we needed more planters, fishermen, builders, and hunters to feed, build, and serve the wider community. Is that any different from New Zealand society? Farmers need the next crop of farmers to grow our food supply, to inherit the land. We need the next group of our workforce to take up jobs and businesses, to pay their taxes, to continue providing public services for the public good. We value our families and the next generation for the role they must play in future years. They will carry our names and our history.
When our families, the basic foundations of our societies, are strong and confident, our beautiful country of Aotearoa and all its peoples will thrive and prosper. So do we live up to these values? Of course not. We have failed and continue to fail to uphold, protect, and promote these fundamental values. Our society today is riddled with examples of the contradictions of the belief in these fundamental values and our individual actions. I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say that throughout Aotearoa and in the Pacific region, there are many examples of the abusive and violent behaviours we inflict on the very people we value. My heart goes out to the women who have abandoned babies in parks, in toilets, in rubbish bins. Society is so quick to point the finger and condemn these women, but where were their partners or husbands? Where were their families? Why would a pregnant woman not feel safe to confide or secure the support from the person that helped her create that life, or support from her family?
We might profess to value life, to value our families, and to value the next generation, but we have all failed to live it. No one is perfect, and when anyone says they are, they lie. The integrity of our traditional institutions that promoted these values have over time eroded because of the shortcomings of our leaders, but do we then cast these values aside? I don’t believe so. We need our institutions to continue to promote these values to the next generation. The roles of religious organisations and our individual families is the fundamental basis to safeguard and promote these values. Life is to be valued. Families are to be protected. The next generation is to be supported. But whose role should it be to uphold and promote these values? Is it Parliament? Society is divided on this. Fundamentally, I believe it must lie with families and strong institutions with good moral compasses—which then brings me to my position on abortion.
The morals of abortion are too complex to debate in the political environment. We all have different world views and experiences we bring to the debate. I will leave the morality of this issue with families and our moral institutions to lead and promote this matter. I am looking at abortion from the perspective of a father who does not support abortion. It is a father’s perspective and that of a matai that presides over an extended family, who has love and compassion for his family. I want my daughters, my sisters—all the women in my extended family—to feel safe, to be supported. I want them to aspire to uphold the value of life, but they should also know they have the freedom and my support to make those decisions about abortion freely, in accordance with their own conscience and their freedom of choice, knowing full well we are not perfect.
In 1980, there were close to 6,000 abortions. It climbed and peaked in 2003 with more than 18,500 abortions, and then it declined until 2017. There were still 13,285 abortions carried out. The number of Pacific women that had an abortion in 2018 is 1,354. This has been declining steadily since 2009, when it peaked at 2,360 abortions. My position on this issue of abortion is a matter of public record. I do not support abortion, but I am on record that I recognise that a woman has a right to abortion, especially when she has to make a decision regarding a child conceived through sexual violence, rape, or incest, or the choice of life of the mother versus the life of an unborn child.
I will vote in support of this bill at the first reading. I ask all of our communities to take the opportunity to engage with the select committee in a respectful manner. Tell the committee how we can help and support our women who have not been supported by their partners or families in their time of need with a pregnancy. Tell the committee how to improve this bill. Do you agree that we remove abortion being treated under the Crimes Act, as we’ve always done before, or do we want to treat the women who seek an abortion with love, care, and support?
Meitaki maʻata no teia tikaʻanga. Kia manuia tātou i tēnei ra. Meitaki maʻata, Mr Speaker.
DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I must say, I hesitated to take a call, because there are those who say that if you are a man, you should not have an opinion on this issue. I respectfully reject that. I think we’re all thinking and valuing individuals, and we should focus more on the quality of the arguments people are making than their identity in this debate and in many others.
Having said that, what I’m about to say is the result of many conversations over the years with a great many people, mostly women, and particularly those in the Epsom electorate and those who support the ACT Party. I want to say to opponents of this bill that it is easy to make a major category error in having this debate. There are those who will stand up and wring their hands with great enthusiasm to say that it is they who have placed the greatest value on life, they who love babies more, and they who are somehow more morally fit to have a view on this issue, but that is not the issue at hand. What is at hand is not whether or not people like abortion, because I don’t know anybody that does. The issue at hand is what laws this Parliament should make, and should it support a legal prohibition on abortion?
My answer to that is that like so many other prohibitions, this Parliament should oppose it because it is a failure. Morally, to prohibit abortion in law is tantamount to saying that women who are pregnant are untrustworthy chattels who must be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, on pain of punishment by the State. It shouldn’t take a great deal of thought and examination to see how morally bankrupt that position is. But if somebody does equivocate, they only need to ask themselves about the practical reality of back-street atrocities that have plagued this and many other countries—wherever abortion has been prohibited. Yet I say to the opponents that, actually, even that’s not what’s at issue here, because they have to decide—they can’t lament that we already have abortion on demand, then say that these changes are great and that these changes will give us abortion on demand. Logically, those three things cannot be true.
The real truth is that these changes are designed to remove the subterfuge under which people must currently labour to access abortion under the current law. That is something that all of us should welcome. To support the status quo and oppose this bill is to champion not only a subterfuge but one that creates great inequity—inequity between those New Zealanders who live in major metropolitan centres, and those who live in rural and provincial centres where they have so much less choice.
Morally and practically, this bill is the right thing to do. There are a few areas where one might quibble—I think that there needs to be a proper examination of the interface between free expression on the one hand, and the limitation proposed to be placed on it with anti-protest zones. I’m not saying one or the other is right, but there is an obvious tension there that thinking people will want to think about. I think the Government may have made a mistake in rejecting option A. I’m not sure that it is right to have an arbitrary threshold at 20 weeks. I think if you believe in the principle that this is healthcare and a decision between a woman and her doctor, then the right thing to do was to have that all the way through as option A proposed, because arbitrary thresholds in politics and in policy are always difficult to promote and defend. Nevertheless, it is a crucial step forward that this bill will take abortion out of the Crimes Act, and for that alone it is deserving of our support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on the first reading of this bill. I’ll say at the outset that I am supporting it through to the select committee.
I do have two concerns, and those have been enunciated by a couple of the speakers, particularly around the 20-plus weeks. When you talk about the viability of a foetus—I’m not a medical person, but I understand that 22 to 24 weeks is about the time that a foetus can survive once it’s been delivered. So I do hope that the select committee will look very carefully at that timing and, perhaps, strengthen what needs to happen to protect that foetus. The second concern I have is around the exclusion zone, because, when you talk about setting up an exclusion zone, I get the image of an abortion clinic that is quite isolated in the community—that you put a ring around it and no one can come in or can go out. I will come back to this, because that’s my main concern: about how this actually happens out in our communities. Can I also acknowledge the Minister, Andrew Little, who’s brought this to the House, for the very thoughtful way that he’s brought this through and the consultative manner in which I know he has been working with people across the House, and I thank him for bringing the bill to the House.
I welcome the recognition that a decision to terminate a pregnancy is a tragedy. It’s traumatic, but it’s not criminal. It’s not a criminal act. Nobody makes that decision without agonising over it, and nobody escapes from the trauma that making that decision causes, and the procedures. Nobody escapes that trauma. So that’s why, as the House focuses on the legislative processes, I would like to see us work across the House to ensure that, should this bill succeed, there will be accessible community-based health services available for women and their families. That’s why I don’t feel comfortable with that exclusion zone, because I believe that terminations should be an integral part of sexual and reproductive health services, alongside family planning, contraception, dealing with miscarriages, pre- and post-natal care. They are all a part of a woman’s reproductive cycle. They should be dealt with together, and they should all be provided locally and in a community setting.
Currently, in rural provincial New Zealand too many women are sent away for a termination. That could mean two or three days away from home. Many of them, of course, are seeking a termination because of what’s happening in their home that makes it impossible for them to continue with that pregnancy. So the actual idea of leaving their home for two or three days is totally impractical. Many of the drugs that are used during that termination mean they can’t drive. It’s not safe for them to drive, so they have to take a taxi or they have to take a driver with them. Again, impractical; not working for rural provincial women. Expensive—the cost of staying in a motel and taking a taxi to and from the clinic; unachievable for too many of the women that are seeking terminations. Then there’s no follow-up service by the clinic, and there’s no follow-up by any counselling.
I think, should this bill proceed, and I hope it does, that we should be looking to ensure that if you can have a baby practically anywhere—in the back of a taxi; we had them on the side of a road in Lumsden—then you should be able to have a first trimester termination in a community setting. That’s what we should expect for all our women. Terminating a pregnancy is traumatic, and some will carry the guilt of that for the rest of their lives. They shouldn’t have to circumvent an archaic law—and I do believe it is an archaic law—that makes them criminals, that makes them find ways to get around the law in order to achieve good health for themselves and their families.
My conscience vote always goes to my electorate. This is my only opportunity to express personal views. I commend this bill to the House.
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Thank you, sir. I’d like to just acknowledge my colleague Anne Tolley’s comments. Certainly, our thoughts and compassion ought to go to women who have faced the agony and the trauma of an abortion procedure. Certainly, it is very important that our laws do not stigmatise those women. It’s very important that the law doesn’t criminalise women as well.
I’d like to just speak on, perhaps, an issue that has been touched by some of my other colleagues here in the House that, essentially, undergirds the Abortion Legislation Bill. The point being that it does not recognise any right of the unborn, because in the Crimes Act the unborn is not considered a human being. Section 159 of the Crimes Act says, “A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not, whether it has an independent circulation or not, and whether the navel string is severed or not”.
Many of us have received emails over these last 24 to 48 hours—particularly a large number from communities of faith in this country. Those that have a spiritual framework for their thinking, their living, they are diverse, they are large, they are hundreds of thousands, and they most often believe that the point of recognising the humanness of a foetus is at the time of conception; which is why this is a difficult debate for this country. No matter what you believe, whether from a sacred or secular point of view, it is at the point of humanness that human rights are accorded.
If I can just make a few points: that nowhere in our legislation, in this country, that underpins our democracy and our freedoms, should the rights of one person undermine or extinguish the rights of another. This is, I think, one of the issues that we grapple with. This is why the foreshore and seabed hīkoi was one of the largest events, because some felt that their rights were being extinguished. We don’t allow the rights of parents to extinguish the rights of children. We don’t see, in our tenancy laws, the rights of the landlord extinguishing the rights of tenants. So we have this tension and this battle between rights.
In March 2017, this Parliament passed a historic bill to provide for the Whanganui River’s long-term protection by making it a person in the eyes of the law. This is why the faith communities struggle, because—as my colleague across the House made the comment—they perceive that life is given by a creator, and they perceive that the seed of that life has the potential to become fully human. This is one of the vexed issues indeed.
So I put it to this Parliament, in these concluding thoughts, that the foundation of our society is the recognition of the rights of the person, and when and where we determine that the humanness is accorded to the living entity that is carried in a woman’s womb is, as I think the other member said, something that families discuss and support, that individual community groups—whether they be churches, whether they be synagogues, whether they be Islamic centres, or whether they be maraes—that you can’t legislate those sorts of determinations and decisions, but they contribute to the complexity that this Parliament has to face.
This bill goes further than removing the regulations and laws of abortion from the Crimes Act; it begins to take away nearly any and every limitation, which I think people do struggle with. It uses very loose criteria for abortions after 20 weeks, using terms such as “wellbeing” as a test, without a strong definition of what that may be. [Time expired]
SPEAKER: Order!
JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you, sir, for this opportunity to speak.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Attorney-General): Thank you, Mr Speaker. When I listen to the arguments of those who are objecting to this legislation on the basis of the right to life, it seems to me that they’re not arguing against this bill; they’re actually arguing against abortion. They assert human rights to an unborn foetus, and I disagree with that.
I was born in 1960. In the 1970s, I was a member of a church youth group. My mother was at the same time active in the Abortion Law Reform Association movement in New Zealand. I had these issues fiercely debated at home and through those church groups that I was active in. At the end of that debate, I came to a view that I still hold: that it is a woman’s right to choose. That it is a woman’s right to choose not to have an abortion and it is a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion—that it is not the right of other women or other men to choose for that woman not to have an abortion.
But that’s not the debate we’re having today, either. We’re not having a debate about the woman’s right to choose or whether the right to life view—which is anti all abortion—should prevail; we’re actually having a debate as to whether the regulation of abortions in New Zealand should have this criminal overlay. That’s the debate we’re having today. It’s not the right to life debate compared with abortion; it’s actually this question as to whether the criminal code should create this presumption of criminality in respect of a woman who is exercising what, in my view, is her right to choose.
I thought that the Hon Andrew Little made a fair point, which I think I would like to repeat: I don’t like fiction in law. At the moment, women have to pretend in order to get an abortion; they should not have to. I don’t like a law that forces that pretence upon women. I don’t like them to have to maintain a fiction as to their mental health. That is not to say that the decision—the difficult decision—that a woman takes as to whether or not to have an abortion is not a traumatic decision, but it’s a different thing to say that they should have to prove that this will cause injury to her physical or mental health.
In the 1970s, when teenage pregnancy rates were so much higher, when these debates were going on, the law also prevented me and every other child in a State school from getting advice or education about contraception. It happened for a period when I was at school. Also I recall that, in those days—as today—if there were any impediments that affected poor people or people in rural communities, they sure as hell didn’t, back then, affect rich people, because they could just go to Australia, and they did.
I’ve heard reference to the question of 22 or 20 weeks. The date for that period is, to some people, arbitrary; I would caution against reopening that, for partly political reasons, but I also ask people to think forward as medical technology changes: do you really want to tie the abortion period to viability of a foetus? I’m not sure that we do. I believe that we’ve got it about right at the moment: that it should be a woman’s right to choose, which is, essentially, what it is, subject to this criminal overlay at the moment.
I think we should do away with this fiction as to mental health—traumatic though the decision is. I think we should keep it at 20 weeks. I also agree with comments that have been made by Anne Tolley: that we need to have a look at this exclusion zone. I think what we’re trying to do is stop people being bullied as they go into a medical clinic to have an abortion, which is their right to do. I want to protect women from being bullied in that way, because I don’t think other people’s freedom of expression extends to the right to what are very close to assaults of people—they’re verbal assaults, anyway—as people go in to have an abortion. But I’m sure the select committee is willing to have a look at it.
So the final point I would make is that not only have abortion rates decreased in absolute terms, they’ve decreased at a far greater rate as the portion of the growing population.
Hon TRACEY MARTIN (Minister for Children): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I had a very different speech written for this bill as of Tuesday morning. In my original speech, I would have opened by acknowledging that there were a variety of views in our caucus—which is true. I was going to make it very, very clear that I was speaking for myself. I was going to speak to my personal reasons about why I would have been voting in favour of this legislation.
I was going to speak about Beverley Williams, my mother’s birth mother. I’ve talked about Beverley in this House before. We never knew Beverley. My mother doesn’t really remember Beverley. Beverley left her two-year-old daughter and five-year-old son in 1943. It took well into the 1980s for us to find out what happened to her. But that story will have to wait, because, as often happens in this place, events have moved on, and so this speech must change.
Today, I rise as the New Zealand First spokesperson for women to speak on the Abortion Legislation Bill. For close to a decade now, my New Zealand First colleagues have been happy with my representing them around issues that affect predominantly women or women only, things from forced marriage to pay equity. So, despite their diversity of views on this issue, my colleagues delegated me to work with the Hon Andrew Little to produce a Cabinet paper and the bill that has come into this House. However, I also need to make it clear that this topic is not part and was never part of New Zealand First and Labour’s coalition agreement. There was no negotiation prior to the formation of Government on this issue.
I want to thank the Hon Andrew Little, his staff, and officials for the respectful and dedicated way they worked with me to do our best to incorporate the instructions I received from the New Zealand First caucus and to remain as close as possible to our often articulated position on this topic that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. I also want to thank the New Zealand First leader’s office staff, who, for close to nine months, worked with myself and Minister Little’s office to get us to this point.
In recent days, there have been some questions in the public domain around the time frames of New Zealand First’s actions and who knew what and when, and I would like to provide some clarity around that now. I first met with Minister Little to discuss abortion law reform in December 2018. In the months that followed, the Minister and I, with our advisers, met on several occasions to get to a place of comfort that we had a Cabinet paper and then a bill that reflected a desire by some to shift a woman’s voluntary choice to terminate a pregnancy out of the Crimes Act and into the health Act. I did my best to ensure that I removed my personal view and followed the instructions of my caucus.
I reported back to the New Zealand First caucus a number of times over those months around progress. At no time during those negotiations did the New Zealand First caucus raise the issue of a referendum clause or instruct me to raise that topic with Minister Little, and so at no time over those months did I raise it with him.
On the afternoon of Monday, 5 August, I did a pre-recorded interview with Jo Moir of RNZ. Ms Moir asked several questions around the process followed by myself and the New Zealand First caucus. She posed a question regarding a referendum clause, and I answered honestly, as I am wont to do. That interview was played the following morning, Tuesday, 6 August, and it included my comments regarding a referendum clause.
There are some who believe I work in a dictatorship. They could not be further from the truth. Any New Zealand First MP can raise an issue at our caucus and seek majority support for a position on that issue. At the New Zealand First caucus meeting which began at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 6 August, a member of the New Zealand First caucus requested that they put forward a Supplementary Order Paper to insert a referendum clause into the legislation, in line with the New Zealand First historical position on this issue. He received majority support from the caucus. This is how democracy works: the majority prevails, while the minority have the right to their views without persecution.
At that meeting, the New Zealand First caucus resolved that they would cast nine votes in favour of the Abortion Legislation Bill at both the first reading and the second reading and introduce a Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Darroch Ball for consideration at the committee of the whole House.
At the conclusion of the caucus, approximately midday on Tuesday the 6th, I informed the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, and the Minister of Finance of the New Zealand First caucus position. At approximately 1 p.m. on Tuesday, 6 August, I personally informed Minister Little and his advisers of the New Zealand First caucus decision and apologised to him for the lateness of this development.
I want to again acknowledge their respect for the independence of not only another political party but also for the ability of any member of this House to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper in their name to be voted on by the Parliament.
I will also be the New Zealand First representative on the specially convened select committee. I encourage the public to look carefully at the existing law and that which is proposed under this bill. We welcome any submissions that will get us to a place that this House will pass legislation that is best for the women of New Zealand.
Already today, I have heard incredibly constructive suggestions come from members from both sides of this debate that I believe should be considered by that select committee to make sure that if and when we come to a final place on this legislation, it is the best we can do for New Zealand women. Many Governments have not been brave enough to take this topic on. This Government is. This Parliament is. The law relating to abortion is over 40 years old. It is time for it to be discussed and to be reviewed.
As I finish, I repeat: New Zealand First will be casting nine votes in favour of this legislation today and at second reading, and there is a Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Darroch Ball for the committee of the whole House.
Hon AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have listened with interest to the debate on the Abortion Legislation Bill throughout the afternoon, and I found it one of the better and more useful debates in my time in Parliament. I’m in the interesting position where there hasn’t been a speech, I don’t think, this afternoon that I haven’t found aspects of that I agree with. I concur with the member who’s just resumed her seat, the Hon Tracey Martin, that I think the select committee has a wide range already of valuable and valid issues to address as this law works its way through.
There’s no doubt that abortion law reform is probably one of the most difficult, the most emotional, and the most divisive issues that we as a Parliament and as parliamentarians will have to address. Yet I have a strong view that we should not, for one minute, shy away from that. I think we have an obligation to the people who elect us to embrace and deal with these issues, to give them our open hearts and open minds, and to work our way through them, notwithstanding the difficulty that we will face, notwithstanding the vitriol, the attacks, the spam, the criticism, and the often very emotional responses we’ll get—on both sides of the debate, I’m sure—from people in our electorates and across the country. But we do have a duty to do what is the right thing for New Zealanders and to deal with hard issues.
We’ve heard in this House this afternoon already that this law has been in place since the 1970s, untouched. When the law was put in place, there were only four women members of Parliament. We have a very different understanding of the rights of women in our society today. We have a very different view about the autonomy of women to make decisions for themselves and their own bodies. I will always stand strongly for the rights of women to control their own reproductive system.
We have a long history in the world of States, predominantly male-led, over history—it’s certainly not the case now, and I support David Seymour’s position that this is certainly not an issue that only women can have a voice on. But we have a long history of women’s reproductive systems being subject to the control of the State, of laws, and of men. We do have to say that women should be trusted to make the decisions that are right for them, for their families, and for their bodies. I do not accept laws which work on the fallacy that somehow women are these fickle creatures who won’t make good, careful, thoughtful decisions, and I do not accept the argument that, somehow, if we change the abortion laws, women are going to be waiting till much later in their pregnancies, using this as some form of contraceptive, and treating this with anything less than the incredibly fulsome attention in recognising it as one of the most difficult decisions they will make in their life, as they do now.
Not only do I not think this bill will lead to a flurry of late-term abortions; I think this bill will lead to women getting the help they need sooner, with less trauma, and in a way that is far less difficult for them to go through. I think women are not served well by the current law. I don’t agree with the comments we’ve heard in the House today that there’s no problem to solve and that this is just a process tidy-up. Women are missing out on the support and the help that they need—not in every case, but I certainly have heard enough stories, both from constituents, from emails, and from people I know, to know that the law has been failing some women. I agree with the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General when they said women currently are put into the position of having to lie and create fictions and rely on some issue of mental instability to get the help they need, and that is not okay. No woman should be compelled to continue with a pregnancy that isn’t right for her, and I don’t believe as lawmakers it’s our job to set out exactly what medical assistance is right for which women, in which time. I think we have to trust women. I think we have to respect that women know very well how difficult these issues are and that they know what is right for them.
I don’t accept the argument that women, in the majority, go on to regret these decisions, and, in fact, the studies done from the Turnaway Study tell us that that’s not the case. If you want to talk about supporting women, you don’t force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that isn’t right for her. So I will absolutely support this legislation today but, having said that, I do acknowledge that there are issues that have been validly raised today that I think the select committee can and should look properly at, and I will go into the process with a commitment to do everything I can to make this the best law I can for New Zealand women.
CHRIS PENK (National—Helensville): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this, the Abortion Legislation Bill. I do so acknowledging strong views held on all sides of the House—and, indeed, throughout this land of ours—and I’d like to start by thanking all those who have been in touch with me these past several days from both sides of the debate, some sharing very personal stories of having access to abortion services, and among those a division of those who support the bill and those who don’t. But I thank them all for it; I’m not dismissive of our citizens being engaged in a democracy. It’s important to me, and it should be important to every member of this House, to hear the perspectives that are out there and so strongly held.
Let our starting point be to consider the current law that is sought to be changed. The various pieces of correspondence that have lobbied me, essentially, in support of the proposed changes often cite instances where it’s contended that an abortion would be appropriate. In all of those cases so far, of the emails—some hundreds of emails—that I’ve read, all of these situations are already covered under the current law. So then we turn our minds to what the provisions of the proposed law might be. Within that, we have a couple of different scenarios—one a situation of conception up to 20 weeks’ gestation, which is relatively similar to the current practice, albeit not the current law, and then, again, the situation of a period beyond 20 weeks’ gestation, to the point at which birth would otherwise have been due to take place.
Before I discuss some of those proposed changes with the House, I’d just like to touch on the crucial aspect that must guide our consideration, whichever side of the debate we come from, which is how we regard that being that is in the womb. Whether an unborn child—or “foetus”, as one might refer to it variously—that being has a beating heart, unique DNA, independent movement, and is capable of feeling pain, increasingly as time goes on. It seems to me clear, and the science is clear, that this is some manner of human life and independent from her mother in many different ways. If anyone can convince me that such a being is not worthy of at least some protection, then I will support the proposed changes that we have before us. But it seems to me obvious that if the being in the womb, which for the sake of shorthand I’ll henceforth refer to as “an unborn child”, is merely a collection of cells, then I put it to you that we are all merely a collection of cells.
Looking at the criteria for abortion in the proposed law beyond the 20-week period, we have broad and unrestrictive terms for that—a “qualified health practitioner”, which needn’t be a medical doctor—and we have no safeguards to prevent abortions on the grounds of sex selection, disability, or coercion of the mother, or the would-be mother. Also, in relation to late-term abortions, again another move in the direction of liberalisation. There is no restriction or regulation on the method of abortion that may be used. No parental input or notification is required in the case of a would-be mother under the age of 16 years. If we’re going to make evidence-based policy in this place, it’s important that we do give regard to the evidence, including the historical record, which is that, as far as I’m aware, there have never been any criminal convictions under the current law for a woman seeking, and indeed obtaining, an abortion under the current Act.
I’ll conclude my remarks on that aspect of the current versus the proposed, because, of course, the detail does matter, and I would urge all MPs on both sides of the House—or, more to the point, the issue—to engage meaningfully with that detail when it comes before the select committee, if it should pass first reading of course today. Let me conclude with a short quote from one of the many pieces of correspondence I’ve received, from a woman who has had an abortion, and it is as follows: “I don’t believe the abortion laws need more reform in the liberal direction but should rather include other support services for women considering abortion.” I strongly agree with that, but I also put forward, too, the radical notion to the House that if you don’t like a bill, if you disagree with its provisions, you should vote against it. And, with that, I have no hesitation in opposing this bill.
HARETE HIPANGO (National—Whanganui): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, ā, tēnā tātou katoa. I stand to take a call and I reflect as to the reason why I am taking a call. I share with my colleagues in the House and those members of the public listening now that I do so because, for the 30 years I practised as a lawyer, I was a voice for the children. I was appointed counsel and lawyer for children, advocating for their care and protection, and I stand to address the House today in that capacity and continue to do so.
I also stand because I believe—and again I stand to be corrected—that, as a Member of Parliament, I will be one of the few in this House who has advocated in the specialty area of child welfare protection, domestic violence, and law. I stood before the Family Court to be a voice for my child clients, for my women clients, for my men clients, and also for my family clients, and I was a voice to challenge and also to remedy some of the wrongs and a voice and a presence to protect and advocate, and I continue to do that now. I think it’s become abundantly clear that I oppose the law that is proposed in terms of the reform around abortion.
There were three symbols that struck me today in the course of my life. The first of that was in terms of my role of advocacy. The front page of the Dominion Post—regrettably, a grandmother appearing in the Whanganui District Court yesterday, being sentenced for the taking of her mokopuna’s life. I was counsel for the child, for that little one, and I was also an advocate and representative for the grandmother and the family at some stage, and here I stand before the House speaking in terms of child welfare protection and advocacy. The other tohu, or symbol, is that I saw today for the first time here in Parliament a pregnant woman who is full term—and, I believe, is a member of staff for New Zealand First. The third tohu, or symbol, was when I went to dress today. This heitiki that I’m wearing is a Māori symbol of the embryo of life. So those were three signs to me that it was appropriate that I stand to seek a call.
I am going to continue, in the brief time I have following on from my colleague Christopher Penk, in terms of the legal advocacy. The law as it’s proposed—and my colleague Jonathan Young spoke about section 159 of the Crimes Act—and I am hearing quite clearly, in my view, the misrepresentation of abortion law being taken out of the Crimes Act: that it be decriminalised. It’s always been positioned there because the whole point of abortion is that it’s not been illegal; it has been legal where the procedures—and it’s been treated as a health issue—have been complied with and adhered to under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act. It’s only when there’s been non-compliance—that there has been the illegal taking of a child’s life—that it has become a criminal matter, and nothing changes. All that does change is that the conditions for what is acceptable in form of termination of the unborn child.
Section 159 talks about the definition of a child as only becoming a human being when it has completely left its mother’s body. As a specialist legal practitioner in child care, welfare, and protection, there is a real anomaly, and I challenge this Parliament—and this, I am predicting, will get past the first reading to select committee—to look at all the child welfare legislation. Our Minister for Children addressed this House. Oranga Tamariki—the definition of a child and the variations of that under the Care of Children Act. Oranga Tamariki—formerly Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act. Guardianship act—is the child ranging from “under the age of 14” or “under the age of 25 through” in the definition of a child. I advocated and represented and applied to the Family Court for ex parte applications for custody status of an unborn child. That custody status was granted, and I again hearken to my colleague Jonathan Young talking about the legal personification of the Whanganui River.
In the very brief time that I have, I challenge my colleagues and the members in this House to very carefully reflect on and look at the laws around child welfare, care, and protection, and I quote our Prime Minister—and I agree—“I feel a huge duty of care to our most vulnerable and genuinely believe our success as leaders should be judged on no less a standard than the wellbeing of children.”
Rt Hon JACINDA ARDERN (Prime Minister): I am reflecting now, as we enter into this debate, on how long a journey it will have felt for many in this House, and for many outside of this House, to reach this day. In fact, I’ve been in this Parliament for 10 years and even I have memory, as a brand-new MP, of sitting in a room with other female members of Parliament from the Labour Party discussing whether or not we thought the time was finally right for this debate. I reflect on how many other women from all over this Parliament will, at various times, have questioned whether or not the time was finally right. Well, to those women who may not be in this House this day to see this debate finally arrive, or, indeed, to those advocates who have been outside of this House studiously working and seeking support for there just to be the chance to have this vote, I want to commit this debate today to your work and your advocacy.
Now, there are many here who it would be only right to name and acknowledge, but today you’ll forgive me for wanting to at least mention the name Steve Chadwick, because, in the time that I’ve been in this Parliament, she was one of the staunchest and most consistent of advocates. Steve, I want to acknowledge you. I also want to acknowledge the Minister, sitting to my left on this occasion, Andrew Little. During the election campaign, I was asked the simple question on the hustings as to whether or not I believed there needed to be abortion law reform. At that point, for me it was a simple, intuitive reaction: yes. Abortion should not be a crime in this country. Did I think for a moment about the person who would then be given the task of drafting the legislation, negotiating the text, and bringing it before this Parliament? I did not. But that person and that role has fallen upon the shoulders of Andrew Little, and he has done an exceptional job. Andrew, I want to acknowledge you not only for the job you’ve done to bring this bill to where it is today but for the job that I know you will continue to do, because you are at your heart, of course, someone who believes strongly in the rights of every individual, but the rights of women in particular. You’ve been an excellent advocate, and I thank you for that.
Why has it taken us so long, though, to be in this Chamber this day? Well, this is an issue that people feel deeply about, they feel strongly about. Many hold personal views; many have personal experiences. I am one who takes a very simple perspective: that, in spite of those personal views, who am I, who is this House, to determine anyone else’s reproductive rights? So, in my view, you can have a deeply held personal view—and, in fact, it can be deeply entrenched and religious; I myself grew up in a religious household—and I will defend always your right to hold that view, but I will draw a line when holding that view then impedes on the rights of others. Currently, it does impede on the rights of others. It is not a legal act for women to tell the truth when they seek an abortion in New Zealand. I’ll say that again: women feel like they have to lie to legally access an abortion in New Zealand. I don’t think we should be dismissive of that. If they do tell the truth, then technically, under our law, they are a criminal, and I don’t believe that that is right. I fundamentally disagree with that.
But why take my word for it? Enough of us have heard enough stories, and, indeed, some of the letters that I’ve received since this debate has started I have found completely compelling, including the woman who wrote this to me: “Everyone in the process was lovely, but the process was not lovely. I had to tell my story over and over. All I wanted was for it to be over, but I had to go through multiple appointments, rounds of judgment and justifications from strangers. It made a hard time considerably harder. I had no doubts, no second thoughts, but plenty of guilt and a lot of shame.” Of course, Margaret Sparrow put it best when she said, after her own abortion in 1956, “I was a criminal. I’d committed a crime, and if I’d been charged, I would’ve faced up to seven years in jail.” The time is right for this debate. The time is right for us to finally put women’s dignity and their rights at the centre of this discussion, and I ask as we do so that we do so with dignity.
I finish with, again, the words of someone who wrote to me only recently: “It’s time to change New Zealand’s outdated abortion laws. Please show us your respect for women. Show us you recognise we’re capable of deciding what’s right for us. Give us our dignity back.”
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It’s an interesting topic and a very interesting discussion this afternoon, and I’ve listened with great interest to a lot of the comments. I just want to go back to the very first meeting that I ever attended as a candidate for this Parliament. The very first question I was asked in a public meeting in the Taihape Area School—which you’ll know well, Mr Speaker, and which is going to be rebuilt again already—was what’s my view on abortion, and I’m going to answer that today in exactly the same manner that I answered it then. We are privileged in life as politicians, as people who represent our communities. We see all sorts of things—some very sad, some very good. Some of the saddest things I’ve seen in life have related to this very topic and the reason that I support this piece of legislation and anything we can do to make it easier for women to make choices in their own lives.
You see many sad things in life. Some of the saddest I’ve seen result from incest, from women being raped, some even by their fathers. Those women particularly, as Mrs Tolley said, who live in isolated parts of New Zealand struggle seriously to get any kind of service. Those children who are then born as a result of that action often in life become statistics. I think you can see nothing sadder than that in life. So those reasons are the reasons that I support this legislation. I also strongly support the better provision of health services to those women who require abortion and this type of treatment. I think their safety and wellbeing is paramount. I listened with interest to Joanne Hayes when she talked about the welfare of those women who receive these services, and I think it’s most important that, as the select committee works its way through this bill, it looks at that question.
The other question I would very much like the select committee to visit—and I’m sure it will—is the 20-week period and whether that’s the right time or not. As David Parker said, it may not be the place of this Parliament to prescribe a time, because the world changes so quickly. I think it probably is our role to prescribe a time, but I also think that it’s very important that we get the discussion during the course of that select committee right and that we do our very best for those people who require this type of service.
I respect the people who oppose this bill. They have their right to oppose that, but I also think that many people who require this type of service have no choice in life, and we are going to provide that choice. Many of us have a choice in life. We have a free choice. We are very fortunate, but there are many, many people—and a lot of them live in my electorate—who have no choice in life unless we provide that choice for them. This bill will make that choice easier, and, hopefully, the services that wrap around as a result of the bill will also make that choice much easier for them. Again, Anne Tolley spoke about the difficulty of accessing service in remote, rural New Zealand. It is hugely difficult, and there are often families that can’t afford any of those services, and that’s the reason they get to the point they get to.
So, with those few words, I think that we should move on. I congratulate the Minister of Justice on bringing this very difficult issue to the House. It’s interesting that there’ll be a number of people in this House who weren’t born when this was last discussed seriously in this House, and I think that’s a challenge for us all. As I said, I respect all of those who have replied to us and the massive amount of mail that we’ve had in the last few weeks about this topic, but I also think that those people who are opposed to this should remember that those people who support this have the same rights in life. They have a right to choose not to access these services; the other people must have a right to access these services. I respect the debate we’ve had in this House. I think it’s amazingly practical and constructive, and I support this bill as it moves to the select committee. Thank you.
LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. Firstly, can I acknowledge Dame Margaret Sparrow. I’m not sure if she’s here today, but she has been a pioneer in this field, and I want to acknowledge the book that she wrote, Abortion Then and Now: New Zealand Abortion Stories from 1940 to 1980. I also want to acknowledge the leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and congratulate Ministers Little and Martin and the New Zealand Green Party for bringing this kaupapa to the House. It is a long time coming.
I want to acknowledge all of the contributions this afternoon; they’ve actually been outstanding, but I particularly want to focus on the contributions from Minister Sio, Jonathan Young, and Agnes Loheni. The reason I’ve chosen those three is because they focused on life and the celebration of pregnancy, which actually is the outcome of love. It’s about children and how children add to family. That’s a fundamental, and that’s the ideal. I wish we lived in that world, but therein begs the question about why people have sex. Let’s get real now. Not everyone has sex for procreation. People have sex for recreation; it’s pleasurable.
But I just want to highlight something that Ian McKelvie just said, because, unfortunately, and as espoused in our Crimes Act, sex also occurs because of incest, sexual relations with a guardian, or rape and sexual violation, which is the abuse of women and, unfortunately, girls, which is why there is no age limit about who can have an abortion. So pregnancy actually is a concrete outcome for the pregnant person only, and what I respect about this piece of legislation is that it defines abortion as a medical procedure to end pregnancy. Just like any other health service that we provide, if you are the person who is pregnant, it should be your choice about whether you have an abortion.
So how many abortions do we have in New Zealand? Based on the 2018 statistics, we had 13,282 abortions; 60 percent were performed before 10 weeks; 57, or 0.4 percent, were post 20 weeks; and, on average, over the last 10 years, 250 women have been denied the right to access an abortion. Why? Because they were deemed to be not justified—that is, that continuing with the pregnancy would cause serious danger to the women’s mental health. So I guess my contention is that there’s serious danger to the women’s mental health if they want to access a service—that is abortion—and they’re denied it.
A lot of people have spoken today about why 20 weeks. Well, 20 weeks actually is relevant because in our Births, Deaths, Marriages, and Relationships Registration Act 1995, by definition, if you have a miscarriage—and I quote—“the issue from its mother before the 21st week of pregnancy, of a dead foetus weighing less than 400 g.” In that same piece of legislation, from the 21st week, the issue from its mother is actually classified as a stillbirth, and we are legally required, if you have a stillbirth, to register that child within 42 days. So the State actually has an interest from the 21st week of that child, and I think that it’s not arbitrary; actually, our law’s been very clear.
In my last minute, I just want to highlight what the Law Commission recommended in terms of the law aligning with a health approach to abortion: that we must repeal the current grounds for abortion in the Crimes Act, which is what this piece of legislation does; remove the requirement for abortions to be authorised by two specifically appropriate doctors, called certifying consultants; and allow women to access abortion services directly under 20 weeks. It is a woman’s right—actually, it’s a pregnant person’s right to access abortion as a health service. Then I can understand from the 21st week why you would need a health practitioner to determine whether the abortion is appropriate. That is when the State has an interest in whether or not someone who is pregnant should have access to the health service of abortion. Kia ora.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’m sad and disappointed, but not surprised, to have to take a call today. Topics of death have a strange thrall, if you will, for humans, and as a Parliament, in as many weeks we’re here talking about issues of life and death again, last week around the sick, the elderly, and the disabled and this week we talk about unborn children. I oppose this bill—that’s no surprise to the House—and I always will, but the fundamental reason I oppose this bill is I believe in human rights, and human rights are for all. They’re for mums and they’re for babies, and where rights start to occur for some and not for others, we no longer have human rights. Across history, we as humans have a very sad legacy of where regimes have sought—often when they’re in positions of power—to remove the rights of others. These regimes of the past, and certainly in recent centuries, always start by defining a category of people as non-human, as not the same as us. Once that change of definition is done, that denial of human rights is done, the abuses start.
So for me this debate is simply really a question of whether the unborn child is a human or not, and I stand with those who say that it is, for it can be none other. Consequently, the unborn child has human rights. In fact, it has the most fundamental of all human rights, and that is the right to life. My wife said to me that every pregnant woman gives birth to a human, nothing else. She is pregnant with a human being, and this is incontrovertible. Those in favour of terminating the unborn work exhaustively to avoid this fact, but, as I say, what develops at conception is simply each and every one of us—just a little bit younger. As some have said, they’re just cells in the womb. Oddly, too, we are cells—just a little older.
The sad irony of this debate is those who proclaim their love of human rights are actively seeking to remove it from some. It has been said, “I’ve noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” I think the sort of statement of those born and advocating abortion would be what progressives call the position of privilege, where those with power exercise it over those without. I think those who call themselves progressives in this Parliament will find themselves in the uncomfortable position in the debate of the unborn of actually being the privileged, the people of power and those who can dominate others. They already have rights, but they are open and willing to remove them from others. The unborn child is, arguably, the most vulnerable of all human beings, those with disabilities and those who are unborn girls even more so. For us to say we believe in human rights, then the truth of what is said comes down to whether such rights apply to those who need them most, and I would argue, in this case, the unborn.
As a colleague of mine in Australia has said recently, the best chapters in our history have been when we have recognised the innate dignity of others, but our worst have been when people with rights have decided that others should not have them. I always have and always will stand and speak for those who promote human rights for all. I’ll always stand with those who speak without a voice. I’ll always stand and always will with the unborn and those who are becoming mothers. I’ll always stand with the most vulnerable in our community and challenge those who use their power against them. I will always stand with those who struggle to be themselves in a society that demands able uniformity. And I’ll always stand behind those hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders working every day to promote the rights of all human beings—mothers and babies; not just those deemed worthy.
And so I turn my final comments to those on the side of right—of full human rights, of those who long for the best chapters of history. I cannot use the term “you”, so excuse my talking in the third person. But these people are amazing who fight for the most vulnerable, who use their voice to speak for those who have none, who sacrifice their time to help others, and fight every day to promote human rights—not for themselves but for those who have none; those who fight not for themselves but against those who seek to deny the rights of others. They suffer much abuse and, with increasing complicity of the media, have their voices and stories ignored and silenced. But I can offer some hope in what may seem another day of darkness in this Parliament for I’ve spoken of history and right. That which is right will always win for the light will never be extinguished. And history shows that just when those who promote and celebrate death think they have won, life triumphs.
PRIYANCA RADHAKRISHNAN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. To say that this particular legislation—or the abortion law reform—is out of date is an understatement. I think it was the honourable Ian McKelvie who mentioned that the last time this was discussed some weren’t even born. I’m one of those. This discussion hasn’t come up for longer than I’ve been alive and I think it’s absolutely a moment in history that we’re here discussing this and voting on it today.
I too just want to add my voice to thank those who have been fighting for decades for us to reach the point that we’re at today. Just last week, I had the absolute honour of meeting Dame Margaret Sparrow and having a chat with her and I want to thank her for being a pioneer in pushing for the rights of women and particularly in terms of our sexual and reproductive health and rights. There are many individuals and organisations who’ve been part of this advocacy, part of this movement—too many to name—but I just want to name a couple that I’ve been personally in contact with and that include the Abortion Law Reform Association of New Zealand and New Zealand Family Planning. I also want to thank and commend the Minister of Justice, the Hon Andrew Little, for his leadership alongside that of the Prime Minister on this issue and thank all those who have been part of getting us to where we are at today.
At the heart of this debate, though, it’s not about whether we think abortion is right or wrong, it’s not about the morals that surround this; as other speakers have said as well, it’s about the deception and the subterfuge that so many women—too many women—have had to be party to, to get something that is a health issue. This issue of abortion should never be within the criminal framework. Women should not be criminalised for choosing to exert their autonomy over their own reproductive rights. It’s our body and our choice and I will absolutely continue to stand on the side of supporting women to have that autonomy—autonomy that’s actually been taken away from them for so long through the laws that we have.
I just also want to touch on an issue that others have talked about. Other speakers have said today, “What’s the problem? There is no real need to change this legislation because there are 13,000-odd women who have actually had abortions.” The issue is the stigma that women are subjected to. The issue is the time delay where women have spoken out and said that they’ve had to wait so long that it adds to the trauma and the emotional abuse, as it were, that they’re put through as they have to wait. There are many who have had to then go through the surgical route rather than the less invasive medical abortions as well because of the delays that they’ve been subjected to. And that’s what we’ve got to change. Apart from the fact that this is absolutely a human rights issue: women’s rights are human rights. There are also about 200 women who have been denied abortions as well each year.
I also just want to quickly touch on the fact that—and the Minister mentioned this—98 percent of abortions actually happen in the period up to 16 weeks. So the percentage that we’re talking about for the number of abortions that happen after the 20-week period is actually very low. There is this misconception out there that if we were to change the abortion laws abortions are suddenly going to be on demand, women are going to go out there fast and furious to get abortions. That’s just absolutely not the case. That denies the fact that every woman, I suspect—I believe—goes through a huge amount of thought, a huge amount of trauma before they reach the point where they feel that choosing an abortion is right for them, and I believe we must respect that.
So as lawmakers here we’re not here to talk about whether we think it’s right or wrong but whether we actually support the right of women to choose what happens to their own bodies. There’ve been arguments against—that we shouldn’t change the law because we should protect women. Frankly, I find that patronising. People have said that there are no prosecutions so this is not an issue. It’s absolutely an issue. It’s an issue of rights and it’s an issue of access.
Very quickly, I just want to say around safe zones that this is an issue that I’ve done a lot of work on. I was actually considering it as a member’s bill before the Minister took it on as well. Just to clarify, it’s not about access; it’s about preventing intimidation and harassment of women who are trying to access abortion facilities and I’d like to see where we get to in select committee on extending that.
Hon LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō): Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I rise in this House, it’s been quite amazing really the number of statements that have been made by people on both sides of this argument that I clearly agree with. And when Jan Logie talked about the times in 1977 when the initial Act was written, clearly we’ve significantly moved on from there. And when Minister Little talked about the fact that this legislation absolutely needs updating, I totally agree. I agree with the fact that abortion should be removed from the Crimes Act. And I agree that actually earlier abortions will be better for all involved. And I agree with the fact that better access to counselling must be available for any woman who has an abortion.
But what I don’t agree with is that it should be on demand with no consideration. And the comment and the key element in this debate has been that abortion is a medical procedure. And I’ve been thinking long and hard about what is a similar medical procedure. So absolutely—it should be dealt with from a health perspective rather than the Crimes Act, but to have absolutely no requirements, no tests, nothing up to the age of 20 weeks I think is problematic. And part of that is because the Ministry of Health themselves say that a fully formed baby is at 12 weeks of pregnancy—so at the end of a first trimester is what the Ministry of Health says.
And I want to use an example to explain why I’ve wrestled with why this is just being considered a medical procedure. I was told in my 20s that I’d probably never have children. I had some fairly major health issues so I was on fairly heavy-duty drugs that required me to take contraceptives at the same time. I then found at 11 weeks that I was pregnant and told that I absolutely must terminate because of the drugs I’d been taking. And I wasn’t sure. So I was then told by the specialists if I was carrying a boy then absolutely I must terminate—the risk of serious abnormalities and disabilities was so great. So I carried on with chorionic villus sampling, was told I was carrying a boy, and, in addition, they had identified genetic abnormalities.
So now it seemed to me in terms of what the medical profession was telling me I had no choice. But actually—and with a genetic abnormality; it’s similar to Down’s syndrome—they told me that they would perform the abortion up to 24 weeks. So I thought, “I’ll go through the process. I’ll go through exactly the same process that any other woman in that situation who’s deciding whether or not to end a pregnancy would go through.”, and, at the end of the day, I made my decision and decided not to terminate.
I have a 21-year-old son who is a gorgeous, strapping, healthy boy who is 6 foot 5. So, yes, when we talk about it being a medical procedure, it’s actually a bit more than that, and if I had trusted and fully put my faith in the medical professionals, I wouldn’t have had 21 years with the most adorable boy that ever has been.
So I agree that absolutely it’s a traumatic decision when someone is weighing up those options, and so many in the House have agreed with that.
My next pregnancy was planned, and it was so exciting going through all those phases, studying in detail—particularly up to the 12 weeks, because I had missed that in the first pregnancy—only to have a miscarriage at 17 weeks. Anyone in this House who’s listening to this debate who has had a miscarriage will understand how devastating that is to lose a baby, and it was under 20 weeks—17 weeks. No, that baby, in medical science today, can’t survive and wouldn’t be considered viable, but for those that lose babies through miscarriage, that’s exactly what you’re losing.
So I struggle with the medical procedure and I struggle with 20 weeks, and that’s why I won’t be supporting this bill.
SIMEON BROWN (National—Pakuranga): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is with heavy heart that I rise to speak to the Abortion Legislation Bill. While I know that this is a contentious issue with strong opinions and perhaps emotions on both sides, I make no apology in expressing my opposition to this bill and in urging my fellow MPs across this House to oppose it. In the brief time I have this afternoon, I want to outline why I cannot in good conscience support this bill.
Before I begin, I’ll put on the record that I am someone who has a pro-life conviction, a view that I’m not ashamed of. I do believe that all lives matter: old or young, male or female, black or white, born or unborn. I do not approach this issue with any judgment for the difficult situations that many women find themselves in every day where they consider ending their pregnancy, whether that be an unplanned pregnancy, a violent relationship, or financial difficulties. I can understand why they would want to end their pregnancy. However, the question we must ask ourselves as legislators is how we can care for both the mother and the child, particularly when the child becomes viable to life outside the mother’s womb, and I’d like to acknowledge Minister Andrew Little, who referenced this in his opening statement in regards to this bill.
I know that this is not a view taken by all, but it is my personal conviction, and is one that I know many New Zealanders hold to, by the vast amount of correspondence I have received this week on this issue. I also know that many New Zealanders do support safe, legal, and rare abortion. However, they also hold concerns over late-term abortions. Polling indicates that only a small percentage of New Zealanders support liberalising abortion post - 20 weeks of pregnancy—something that this bill does.
Some have said it is scaremongering to suggest that this bill will allow late-term abortion, and they are very rare and only required for serious medical need. I contend that if that is what is intended, then that is what should be reflected in this piece of legislation. This bill will allow for abortion at the late stages of pregnancy in circumstances where there is no medical need other than the loose and what I think are undefined parameters in clause 7. This is very different from the current law, which states that abortion after 20 weeks is only available if necessary to save the life of the woman or to prevent serious permanent injury to her physical or mental health, a position which I believe remains much more in step with the views of New Zealanders.
Some would argue that these late-term abortions are extremely rare, so are not worth talking about. But how does that follow? MPs must answer the question themselves: is a child, born or unborn, at 24 weeks deserving of some form of legal protection due to its viability outside the mother’s womb? If yes, then they should be protected by law. Regardless of how rare such abortions are, it is our job as legislators to provide legal protection for these vulnerable New Zealanders.
This child can respond to stimuli. It can recognise sounds, especially the sound of his or her own mother’s voice. Developmentally, there is no difference between the born and unborn 24-week child; it is simply a question of position.
The question also needs to be answered whether this bill will allow for abortion of disabled children, such as with Down’s syndrome, or for sex selection—concerning questions which I hope will be answered.
To be a parent is one of the most common things in our world. It is also a very strange and unique position. A child makes demands, not just from a mother’s body but on her emotions, time, and life in a way that is simply incomparable to any other human relationship. This is not just true in pregnancy; it’s also true after the child is born. Four months ago, my wife and I brought a beautiful little daughter into the world, and these truths have been brought home to me more than ever. I’m so grateful for all the support for Rebecca and for our child.
To have a child is an overwhelming and, for some people, a distressing time, but it’s our responsibility as legislators to care for both the mother and the child. I cannot in good conscience support this bill. However, I respect every member’s views on this issue. I hope that we will see amendments made in this bill to ensure some legal protection for children post - 20 weeks. Thank you.
SPEAKER: Members, can you resume your seats for a second. I have been taking careful note of members who have been repeatedly going for the call. There are four members in that category. That would take us slightly over the time, but only by about five minutes, and what I would like to do is seek the leave of the House for this debate to be extended so we have another four speeches. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.
GINNY ANDERSEN (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on this most important piece of legislation. I stand to speak in support of this bill, and I don’t take it lightly to stand here today. I am incredibly grateful to be a voice for women and the women who for years before in New Zealand have gone through a lot of pain and a lot of trauma in terms of their own sexual health, reproductive rights, and general wellbeing.
I believe strongly that this is a health issue and that our legislation is out of date. We have moved beyond what our legislation allows us, and this piece of legislation—this bill—quite simply brings us up to date with where we need to be by removing abortion from the Crimes Act. I feel that it is wrong that women are forced to lie to general practitioners in order to access an abortion, when they feel and they know that it is their right to access it.
I would like to acknowledge all of those people who have taken the time to write to all the members of Parliament, whether it be in support of or against this bill. We have all received a great number of heartfelt and very emotive pieces of writing from the general public, and I think that speaks to the point that this is an incredibly important issue for New Zealand.
I’ve read a lot of them, and one of the ones that has stuck with me was appealing to me as a mother. They said, “Ms Andersen, you are a mother. How can you support such a bill?” It’s funny, because my immediate thought was that it is as a mother, you know the importance of bringing a child into this world and being able to provide for it all those important things that you know your baby will need, whether that be a warm, dry home and a loving partner who cares and respects you and your family, or whether that be the financial wellbeing to provide for those around you and the child, and those are the decisions that only a mother can make.
I believe it is a woman’s body and woman’s choice to make this decision. We’ve heard many stories today of occasions where there’s been difficult decisions to make, and there can be no greater, no more difficult, decision than this one. My mother was admitted to hospital about two months before my brother was born, with high blood pressure, and was advised strongly to have an abortion because she had such high blood pressure that she would lose so much blood that she was likely to not survive the birth. It was a really difficult time. My father was still a teacher on Great Barrier Island. We had to move to Nelson and live with my grandparents in order to support her. I’d only just started school. It was an incredibly fraught decision for her to make, and she decided to go ahead and have my brother. He turned out OK. The point is that it was her choice—she made that decision, and that’s fine. If you want to make that choice and have your child, that is completely your choice, but it is only the person who has that child within them that can make that decision. No other person can tell me to have a baby or not to have a baby. That’s my right and that’s my choice.
I’m really proud to have a Prime Minister who supports forward-thinking legislation, and I’m really proud that we are moving towards, as a country, where there is more open discussion, more opening of the windows, and a greater ability for counselling and talking to our young people so we encourage better sexual health, so we encourage open discussions in our homes, and we enable the light to be shone in those areas where currently it is not. I’m proud to be a member in this House today to witness a bill that means so much to women in New Zealand.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura): Thank you, Mr Speaker. These conscience votes are incredibly hard on us—really hard—but it does bring out the best in our very personal debates that we have on it. I’d like to acknowledge all the contributions today. To single out anybody would be unfair to everybody. I will be supporting this bill, and I will be supporting it not because I am pro-abortion but because I understand the reality of life for many women. I also understand that if I was an 18-year-old kid going off to university and became pregnant, then I would be, exactly, thinking about that. I think that that is something that I should—when I approach conscience votes, I try to say, like many of us do, “How would I behave?” And I think that I would want to know that I had options in life.
I was never placed in that position—I was never in that position—and so I do speak from a position of privilege when it comes to this debate. My mother, though, obviously like Ginny Andersen’s mother, like me, had pre-eclampsia and was, you know, almost dead from my sister before me, and when she was pregnant with me at the age of 39, and I was her sixth child, the doctors recommended an abortion. Many years later, people have thought that they should have gone with that option. But I am still here and they’re not going to get me yet. But she had an incredibly different situation from many people. Although she was in extremely difficult and precarious health, she had tremendous support from the medical profession and she had great support from my father and her sisters and her children. I think one of the things that—she was able to make a decision partly because of that, and also because one of my sisters had died at the age of six days old, and my mother wasn’t going to let anyone else go, and that was me. So I do owe my life very much to my mother, and my sister, who had died.
This is the reality: abortion has been around for ever. Abortion’s been around since whenever women have been pregnant with either unwanted pregnancies or pregnancies that were going to kill them. It is not a new phenomenon. What is more of a new phenomenon is that we speak about it. I grew up in the country, many people know: not Morrinsville, like the Prime Minister, but Matamata—lovely town, Matamata. So is Morrinsville, of course, but anyway, my sister is buried in Morrinsville cemetery, which is why Matamata became our town; it had too many nasty thoughts for my parents. So I grew up there. There were girls who got pregnant. There were girls who were sent away to have adoptions—have their babies and have adoptions. I can think of some who were much older than me, because I’m really quite young—well, they were my sister’s generation; they were older than me, lots older than me—who were sent away, had babies, adopted out, and then they came back and married the boy who was the father of the child. What in God’s name was anyone thinking? What they were thinking was “We have to have our daughter dressed up in a white dress so everyone has their family pride and there’s no shame.” How can there be shame in a child? And yet that happened. It also happened for girls that they were sent away for an abortion—they went to Australia—or else there was somebody that people talked about who performed abortions in the town, and I heard the Hon Gerry Brownlee mentioning something like that before.
So this is not a pro-abortion move, in my opinion. This is about a reality check. I would personally rather that abortions, if they must occur, occur very early on in a pregnancy. I would much rather have that happen. Like the Hon Louise Upston, my first pregnancy—well, my first pregnancy was a miscarriage. I miscarried during a court case. Can you imagine what that was like? I had to go back the next day to finish the court case—and people think this place is tough. These things happen. We women have dealt with it for generations, for hundreds of years. It is not a nice place for anyone to be with any pregnancy that is unwanted. But I do think we have to understand the reality. We have to support women when they’re going through this, and we have to have abortions, if they must be, early—as early as possible—and with less trauma as possible. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
PAULO GARCIA (National): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Everybody knows in this House that I am a Christian and I am Catholic, and this is part of my life. This is how I live and how I think and how I make decisions. I stand now to say this: that my being, my faith, my religion does not make me stand in judgment. It does not make me stand in disdain. It makes me stand because I am saddened. The most number of abortions happen when women find themselves with unwanted pregnancies. For me, every time I hear the words “unwanted pregnancy”, it is a saddening combination of words. When this is said, it mirrors an absolute absence of love from a mother to her child. That absolute absence of love is a reflection of the circumstances that this mother finds herself in. It is a reflection of the absolute lack of love in her circumstances, in her environment, that prevents her from feeling love for her child—thus, the unwanted pregnancy.
I am amazed at what everyone has said, and I see so many positions so well defended and supported. I must stand in plea for the understanding that people with faith and religion do not, especially in this situation—it’s not an imposition of our faith. It is part of our life that life is sacred, that it is a product of a creative process where mother and father are involved. It is to be treasured.
I know that this is all sounding ideal. In ideal circumstances the love would be there. In the absence of love, the difficulties arise. But as we speak as members of a House of a Parliament that is focused on caring for the most vulnerable, then in a situation where mother and child are the most vulnerable, I stand and plea that both be recognised.
The bill, as it is written, carries a number of areas that need attention. Treating conscientious objection in a way that there is reference to it, but in a way penalises it needs to be looked at again. There was mention of the safe spaces. I have stood with others in such situations, and every single time there has not been intimidation but, in my sense, love. So I stand opposed to the bill, and I will continue to be opposed to the bill for reasons like this. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
MARJA LUBECK (Labour): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I’ve been up and down so much since 3 o’clock that I don’t think I have to go to the gym for another week. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to be able to take a call on the Abortion Legislation Bill.
The word, I think, that has really been featuring a lot this afternoon is the word “choice”. For me that really comes down to the crux of it. This is a procedure that, at the moment, sits in the Crimes Act. As such, it restricts access. Restricting access doesn’t actually stop abortions happening, but what actually does happen is it stigmatises and it shames the women. It was mentioned by a previous speaker in the debate that it also results in unsafe abortions—47,000 women die globally every year from unsafe abortions. Another 5 million women suffer disability. So that means that 12 women would have died in the time that we had this debate today, and another 1,000 women will suffer lifelong effects of the unsafe abortions.
I acknowledge that for many people, seeing abortion as healthcare rather than a criminal issue is requiring a fundamental shift in thinking. I acknowledge all the deep-held beliefs that we’ve heard and of the people that write to us. But it isn’t a slippery slope, and this is not a moral hazard. This is about people receiving the healthcare because they need it. I’m absolutely proud of a Government that is actually engaging on these difficult issues such as abortion law, because it has been far too long since we’ve had meaningful debate and discussion from Parliament on this issue.
Our current law on abortion is more than 40 years old—outdated. But it’s more than that; it’s offensive. It’s offensive because it starts from the premise that abortion is a crime. It removes our ability to control our decisions about whether and when we become parents. It takes away control over our bodies and our destinies. So we need to ask ourselves in this House as we talk about debate issues like equal rights for women: can we actually talk about these topics when we have this kind of outdated and offensive anti-choice legislation still in place? Legislation that makes women seeking an abortion feel like they’re committing a crime.
No woman wants an abortion—it has been mentioned today. Every single one would like to magically be un-pregnant, but that’s not going to happen. Instead, they’re being made to feel like a criminal when they’re deciding whether to go ahead with this unplanned and unwanted pregnancy or to have an abortion. It’s that stigma that some people have mentioned today surrounding abortion that means that many women will never talk about their abortion. They feel they need to keep it hidden and they need to keep it a secret, because they fear judgment from their communities and from their family.
The current law is failing women, as people have mentioned. Women sometimes publicly acknowledge that they’ve had an abortion and that makes other women actually realise abortion does not need to be a shameful secret. It doesn’t need to be associated with feelings of guilt. Now, I’ve never made it a public fact—but I guess it will be different after today—that I had an abortion at the age of 18 years old. I was still living in the Netherlands, and I was lucky, because in the Netherlands abortion was legalised in 1984. So I was given choice. I was given the dignity and freedom to decide for myself whether to continue my unwanted and unplanned pregnancy or to get an abortion. I was not made to go through weeks and weeks of referrals, consultations, appointments, tests, scans, and counselling. I didn’t have to say I was at risk of mental health. I didn’t have to be dishonest to get an abortion. I wasn’t forced to continue a pregnancy I didn’t want.
In the 35 years since, there has not been one day where I have regretted that decision. It was the right decision and it was mine to make. Because I had that respect and dignity and freedom that every human being should have to make that decision—choose their own path in life—I had other choices in life: the choice to move to New Zealand at 24, the choice about jobs. At 34 I had the choice to start a family, and I have a beautiful son as a result. At 44 I started a law degree. I ended up in Parliament. Very likely those choices would not have been mine had I not had the choice at 18. So therefore the choice should be women’s, because most duties that come with finalising that pregnancy primarily fall on women.
So we need this law reform. It gives women the choice. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. Let’s not make the difficult lives of women seeking an abortion even more difficult. Thank you.
SPEAKER: Members, I have determined that the subject of this vote will be treated as a conscience issue. In this case, I know that there are members who will want a personal vote and I am prepared to accept one. This is the process we’re going to follow: I’m going to put the question; I’m going to announce a result. At any stage after that, a member can ask for a personal vote.
A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Abortion Legislation Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 94
| Allan (P) | Falloon (P) | Mark (P) | Simpson |
| Andersen | Genter | Martin | Sio |
| Ardern | Ghahraman | McAnulty (P) | Smith S |
| Ball (P) | Goldsmith (P) | McClay (P) | Stanford |
| Barry (P) | Guy (P) | McKelvie | Strange (P) |
| Bayly (P) | Henare (P) | Mitchell C (P) | Swarbrick (P) |
| Bennett D | Hipkins (P) | Mitchell M (P) | Tabuteau (P) |
| Bennett P (P) | Hudson | Muller (P) | Tinetti (P) |
| Bidois | Hughes | Nash (P) | Tolley |
| Bishop | Huo (P) | O’Connor D (P) | Twyford |
| Bridges (P) | Jackson (P) | O’Connor G | van de Molen |
| Carter | Jones (P) | Parker (P) | Wagner (P) |
| Clark (P) | Kaye | Patterson | Wall |
| Coffey (P) | King | Peters (P) | Warren-Clark |
| Collins | Kuriger | Prime (P) | Webb (P) |
| Craig (P) | Lee D (P) | Radhakrishnan | Whaitiri (P) |
| Curran | Lees-Galloway (P) | Robertson | Williams |
| Davidson (P) | Little | Ross | Willis |
| Davis (P) | Logie | Russell | Wood |
| Doocey (P) | Lubeck | Sage | Woods (P) |
| Dowie (P) | Luxton (P) | Scott (P) | Yule |
| Dyson | Mahuta (P) | Sepuloni (P) | |
| Eagle | Mallard | Seymour (P) | Teller: |
| Faafoi (P) | Marcroft | Shaw | Adams |
Noes 23
| Bakshi (P) | Kanongata’a-Suisuiki | Pugh (P) | Young (P) |
| Brown | Lee M | Reti | |
| Brownlee | Loheni | Rurawhe | |
| Dean (P) | Macindoe | Salesa (P) | |
| Garcia | O’Connor S | Smith N (P) | |
| Hayes (P) | Parmar (P) | Tirikatene (P) | Teller: |
| Hipango | Penk | Woodhouse (P) | Upston |
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Abortion Legislation Committee.
SPEAKER: Members, I do want to remind members that when there is a personal vote, one may not vote and then leave the Chamber. If that happens, the vote does not count.
Bills
Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4)
First Reading
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the Subordinate Legislation Confirmation Bill (No 4) be now read a first time. I intend to move that the bill be reported by 9 December 2019.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Regulations Review Committee.
Hon PHIL TWYFORD (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Leader of the House: I move, That the bill be reported by 9 December 2019.
Motion agreed to.
Bills
Statutes Amendment Bill
Second Reading
Hon AUPITO WILLIAM SIO (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Statutes Amendment Bill be now read a second time.
The bill, as reported back, amends 46 Acts administered by various Government agencies. Each of the amendments in the bill have received unanimous cross-party support. The bill and the process undertaken is a good demonstration of all parties working together.
The bill was reported back by the Governance and Administration Committee on 24 May 2019. I thank the committee and the chair, Brett Hudson, for the careful consideration of the bill. The committee received and considered eight submissions on the bill, with seven submissions supporting the intent of the respective amendments. One submission was received from an interested member of the public, which did not relate to any part of the bill. The committee did not recommend making any changes to the bill, following the submission. The committee’s report recommended a number of changes to amendments in the bill as it was introduced. I support these recommendations, and will now detail some of the changes to the bill.
Many of the recommendations were designed to correct drafting errors and incorrect references—for example, the recommendations made to the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 and the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 will correct their cross-reference errors. Some recommendations reflect the legislative programme as a whole—for example, the recommendations the committee made to remove Part 9, relating to the Coroners Act 2006, and clause 50, relating to the District Court Act 2016, of the bill—reflect the provisions contained in the Contempt of Court Bill, which is currently before the House and will, when passed, restore the full power of coroners to punish for contempt occurring in the courtroom and replace the old contempt provisions for judicial officers with new ones.
Some recommendations make non-controversial and supported improvements to the way some Acts work in practice, such as the recommended change to the Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The Act currently requires infringement fees to be paid at a specified address. The recommended change would clarify that the requirement that payment of an infringement fee may be made at a specified address need not involve payment in person at a physical address. It means that legislating governing infringement regimes can explicitly authorise payment by any method the agency offers.
The committee also recommended inserting a new provision to clarify that infringement and reminder notices can specify more than one method of payment. This would reflect modern methods of payment such as online banking and legitimise the wide range of payment methods currently being used.
Another example is the recommended amendment to the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, which would replace the reference to “28 days” with “20 working days”. Different time frames have inadvertently been prescribed for applying for a rehearing of a disputes tribunal decision: the Disputes Tribunal Rules 1989 prescribe the time frame as “20 working days” while the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 still prescribes the time frame as “28 days”. The recommendations will replace the reference of “28 days” with “20 working days”.
These examples mentioned demonstrate the value of a statutes amendment bill as a vehicle for advancing minor technical non-controversial legislation. I endorse the recommendation of the committee, thank the committee for their work, and commend this bill to the House.
Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill, second reading. As we know, the Statutes Amendment Bill is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend various statutes. It is not designed to make policy changes, but to provide a legislative vehicle for technical, short, and also non-controversial amendments to existing legislation.
Now, this particular bill, as introduced, seeks to amend 42 Acts administered by various Government agencies. This bill was referred to the Governance and Administration Committee on 20 September 2018, and the closing date for submissions was 8 November 2018. The committee considered eight submissions from interested groups or individuals. None of them wanted to be heard in the committee. But, nevertheless, we received advice from Government officials, particularly Ministry of Justice officials. Now, the Ministry of Justice officials consulted with various departments including the Department of Internal Affairs, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Ministry for the Environment, Ministry of Health, Ministry for Primary Industries, and also, the New Zealand Defence Force, State Services Commission, Treasury, Parliamentary Counsel Office, and Parliamentary Services. So the bill itself covers a range of departments because it does cover 42 Acts. For that reason, we do need to consult a wide range of departments.
Then the Governance and Administration Committee made numerous amendments; some are major, some are minor. So those main amendments are listed in the committee’s report. The main amendments are related to about 10 Acts. Now, these Acts include the Burial and Cremation Act, Coroners Act, Criminal Procedure Act, Disputes Tribunal Act, District Court Act, Food Act, Immigration Act, Parliamentary Service Act, and the Public Finance Act.
Debate interrupted.
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.