Bills

Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Debate resumed.

Dr HARVEY (Newland) (11:29): Today, I rise to speak in support of the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill. I will speak only briefly as I believe it is important that, on a matter of conscience, my reasons for voting in a particular manner are set out as clearly as possible for my community.

From the outset, I think it is important to acknowledge that, although the particular matter this bill is seeking to address is often included as part of a broader debate in respect of the practice of abortion, this debate is not about whether or not abortion should occur. The fact is that abortion has been legal practice in South Australia since 1969. This debate is about whether, given that abortions are legally permissible in this state, women seeking to access this service should be able to do so without any additional distress being caused by others.

My role in this place is to represent to the best of my ability the wishes and interests of my community. My community is a peaceful and caring community, a community that looks out for one another and shudders at the thought of contributing to a person feeling distress, anxiety or shame. This bill, if passed, will prevent people from behaving in a manner that is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety in a person who is or has accessed an abortion service, within 150 metres from the location of that service. I speak with complete confidence when I say that my community would not want others to be permitted to cause distress or anxiety to a woman who is accessing an abortion, regardless of their views on the practice of abortion.

As a Liberal, I am instinctively concerned about any attempt by the state to restrict the ability of individuals to express themselves. There is no doubt that the effect of this bill will be to limit the ability of individuals to express themselves. Under a previous iteration of this bill, individuals would have been restricted from any communication within the health access zone on the subject of abortion. I could not have voted for that restriction. To my mind, it is too broad.

I know that the Attorney-General worked to tighten these restrictions so that we now have a restriction on communication in relation to abortion that is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety. This is an important distinction that I believe strikes the right balance. It prevents women accessing abortions from being in any way hassled but also does not prohibit, for example, a person praying silently. I would like to acknowledge the foreshadowed amendments in this area and indicate that I would be happy to support that.

However, it has been argued that this is an unreasonable restriction. This argument contends that the restrictions in this bill are so severe that it represents an affront to the implied freedom of political communication that we have in Australia. I do not agree with this argument. I understand that the High Court has considered this issue in the context of similar Victorian and Tasmanian laws and ruled that the restrictions that these laws contain are not impermissible. Whilst I am not a lawyer, so I will not comment on the judgement from a legal or constitutional viewpoint, the reasoning, particularly in the plurality judgement in the Victorian case, appeals to me in the sense that it considers two conflicting rights and applies a balance to them.

The first point from the High Court that I think is worth highlighting is that there is a difference between political communication and a communication about moral choices. Political communication, for which we enjoy an implied right, seeks to affect the elections or policy debates. Communication about moral choices seeks to affect a personal decision of an individual. This bill does not restrict the ability of South Australians to participate in political debate. South Australians can still gather on the steps of this parliament and express their views; indeed, they can still gather 151 metres away from protected premises.

What this bill does restrict is the ability of people to behave in a manner that may affect a moral decision of an individual. Importantly, it only places this restriction on a limited spatial area: 150 metres from a location at which abortions are legally permissible. This bill is ensuring the right of a person to access a legal service free from unsolicited obstruction or distress.

In summary, I believe that this bill strikes the right balance between the implied rights of political communication and respect for the dignity of individuals. It restricts speech only in a very limited area and for a very particular reason. The speech it is restricting is more likely than not to be attempting to affect a moral decision of an individual rather than political communication. But above all I am voting in favour of this bill because its ultimate purpose is to ensure that women accessing a legal health service can do so free of any additional distress or anxiety. I believe this is what my goodhearted and peaceful community would want.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN (Lee) (11:34): I rise to also speak about the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill. I wish to place on the record my perspective and my views on this bill going forward. It seems to me that this bill is being moved in the midst of a broader discussion and debate about abortion law reform which many people have strongly held views about.

But I think that it is important to draw a distinction between that broader debate about abortion law reform and the particular issue that we are canvassing here, and that is whether somebody has the right, or a group of people has the right, to protest to a person who is on their way in to receive a medical procedure, or who is on the way out from receiving that medical procedure, or to even protest against those people providing that medical procedure.

This is not about protesting to a government. This is not protesting against a corporation. This is not even protesting about abortion law or abortion law reform. This is about whether people should have the right to directly, and in very close proximity, protest against someone who is on the way to receiving a medical procedure.

As we have heard well canvassed by previous speakers on this bill already, people who are on their way in to receive or on their way out of receiving these medical procedures often find themselves facing or having just faced a very difficult personal choice that lays upon them all sorts of stress, anxiety and so on. I cannot see that it is reasonable that we provide an environment where somebody is able to confront another person in that circumstance and protest against their choice to go and have this medical procedure. I know that there are others who have alternative views, and they are absolutely entitled to have those views of course.

I know that there are people who perhaps think it might be an idea that we could curtail the way in which those protests are undertaken. Perhaps it could be some form of silent vigil or silent prayer-type activity. I am no theologian, but I am not sure what the spatial proximity of the prayer accords in terms of greater strength of the prayer effort. I do not think that is a reasonable position to take, and I do not think it is reasonable that we allow an environment where people need to be confronted with these sorts of activities going forward.

Imagine how we would feel if we had members of particular religions, people who had particular religious beliefs, those members of religions who do not believe in medical treatment per se or who do not believe in broad ranges of medical treatment, protesting outside general hospitals here in South Australia when people were going in for what we would regard as relatively routine medical procedures.

The Hon. V.A. Chapman: Immunisations.

The Hon. S.C. MULLIGHAN: Immunisations, the Deputy Premier says. That is a good example. What about cancer treatment? What about all sorts of other procedures that are relatively run of the mill? What if we had members of religious sects protesting against people who were going in for colonoscopies or Pap smears? That would be regarded as disruptive and abhorrent and something that should not be allowed.

In that regard, I am not quite sure why we would be contemplating allowing this sort of behaviour to continue in this particular circumstance, which I am sure many others could argue far more persuasively and eloquently than I can, and likely to be occurring for a patient receiving that medical treatment at an even more stressful, anxious and distressing time. In that regard, I will be supporting the bill and making sure that we do not allow the confrontation of these people who will be on their way into, on their way out of, or providing these medical treatments.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS (Black—Minister for Environment and Water) (11:39): I rise to speak on the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill 2020. I wish to put on record that I will be opposing this bill. I do not think that will be a surprise to many people who are my colleagues in this chamber. I have a tendency to take a socially conservative position on many matters of conscience, and I am, at a personal level, opposed to abortion on most levels. However, I do think there is a place for access to abortion services in society, and I am certainly not someone who would take an activist position against the existence of those services being available.

I also made it very clear in my maiden speech in May 2014 in this place that I did not get elected to the House of Assembly in the Parliament of South Australia in order to use my Christian faith and the moral foundations upon which I seek to build my life as a pious instrument to further particular policy agendas in parliament. I do wish to make very clear that it is not my role to lecture people on what they should do with their lives and their bodies. I do not want ever to be seen to be the sort of politician who uses the privileged platform of my election to the South Australian parliament to push those particular personally held positions.

I am, however, opposed to the bill, and I am opposed to it for a range of reasons. However, I do think that the harassment of people who are going to seek an abortion, or who are leaving a clinic where such a medical procedure might have occurred, is abhorrent. I would never encourage it, I would never partake of it and I think there are many other ways to express concern and personally held moral beliefs than to harass and get in the way of, obstruct and make people feel fearful who are inevitably making a very difficult decision.

I think it would be extremely unusual for someone to make a personal decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly. I do not think anyone who makes the decision does so lightly, and I think it is a decision that is entered into with very significant thought and often external counsel along the way. I think that the presence of protesting in and around a place where abortions take place is not something I am overly comfortable with, and so I guess from that point of view my opposition to this piece of legislation is not particularly strident. However, my concern is that we are creating an unusual precedent around the capacity of the South Australian public to enter free speech activities to express particular opinions. I am fearful about what sort of precedent that this sets.

We have heard in the debate, both in this place and in the public domain via the media, both the print media and radio in recent days, that this proposed legislation will not prohibit people from silently and peacefully undertaking the activity of prayer close to a facility where abortions might be taking place. This house has been assured of that. We heard that from the Attorney-General earlier this morning, and it is her firm view that people would not be prevented from undertaking silent prayer as a consequence of this amendment bill. If that is the case, I would ask the parliament to provide clarity, to provide certainty, by codifying the ability to undertake the activity of silent prayer within the proximity of these places.

Members would be aware there is amendment sitting in my name that seeks to insert after clause 4, on page 3, after line 34, 'or (c) engaging in silent prayer within a health access zone'. I wish to do this for a number of reasons but first and foremost to ensure that this legislation has clarity in it. We are being told by some of the proponents of this legislation that this activity will be enabled through this legislation, or it will not be prevented. I am asking the parliament to make a decision around clarity and to make that decision by codifying the ability to engage in silent prayer within a health access zone.

I think it is an important thing to do. I think it enables people to peacefully demonstrate their faith—not waving placards, not wearing slogans on T-shirts, not chanting or singing or making loud noise—that they want to provide prayer for people who are making a decision to enter or, subsequent to the termination occurring, that they wish to pray for people as they leave. I believe people can do that silently, I believe people can do that respectfully, and I hope this parliament will see fit to enshrine that value and that right in legislation through this amendment. I will have more to say on that amendment if and when we get to the committee stage of this bill.

I am, as I have said, not supportive of the legislation but not stridently so. I can see the motivation behind it, I can see why you would want to protect people who are making or have made a very difficult decision and I can see why you would want to protect them as a member of parliament who seeks to represent a broad and diverse community. Within my electorate, I seek to put myself into those circumstances and to empathise with what I would do in those circumstances. I also add that that empathy is made more difficult by the fact that I am a male. I do not want to be someone who is seen as lecturing people who are going through those particular circumstances.

I understand why this legislation would be put forth, but I seek an amendment that will make it more amenable to me and to many people in our community who would like to express their faith and their views on this matter through silent prayer.

Mr BROWN (Playford) (11:47): This is the second piece of legislation dealing with this particular issue that is currently before the parliament—

An honourable member: No, it's the third.

Mr BROWN: I am advised that it is the third; I am not sure whether I have seen three on the Notice Paper. I must start my remarks by firstly saying that, like most of these bills, I feel it is important that members state their views on matters of conscience so that their constituents can see what thinking they had before deciding to vote a particular way.

I would also like to express my appreciation for the hard work of the member for Hurtle Vale on this particular bill. I think she has shown a willingness to listen to those who have alternative views and to compromise, which I know has been sadly lacking from other people who have put forward bills in related areas.

I had a number of concerns about the initial legislation that was presented to this place. I had concerns particularly regarding access to journalists and other people in the news media who would be reporting issues, so it is good to see that they have been addressed in the current bill. I also had some concerns about limiting the right to protest, but I also note that we do that on a regular basis with other types of protest and so this bill is not necessarily breaking new ground in that area.

I would also like to express my view that, as I am sure members are aware, abortion services are legal and free in this state and are done in public hospitals. I think that is not only entirely appropriate but also what the public demands. I think it is unfair and wrong for people who are trying to exercise their right to have access to these services to be harassed and I think it is unfortunate that we have come to this point where, largely, in my view due to the complete failure of councils in particular to enforce existing laws, people have felt we need specific legislation in this area.

I would like to also state my support for the amendment that I understand minister Speirs is likely to move. I think it is entirely appropriate that we specifically state that silent prayer is an allowed activity, following what the Attorney said about how she understands that it would already be allowed under the bill.

I would also like to express that, when it comes down to these sorts of bills, at the second reading we are being asked to vote on the bill that is in front of us not based upon our hopes and dreams for how the bill will end up. I would like to express my view that, based upon the hard work the member for Hurtle Vale has done on the previous bill, I will be supporting the bill at the second reading.

Mr TEAGUE (Heysen) (11:50): Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to rise to address the bill. I will be supporting the bill as it stands. I am with the member for Lee and the member for Newland in terms of the relevant matters. I could not put it any better than the member for Lee and the member for Newland have very eloquently, with respect, put those matters.

I do want to note that this is one of those pieces of legislation that I would much prefer deals with the question, this matter of private dignity, in a manner that is a more general application. In that sense, I hope that it is the thin end of the wedge. While we provide for means to protect people who are accessing health services to be free from threats, intimidation and harassment, we ought to do that across the board.

I also note that the matters that have been raised and expressed by the member for Newland and the member for Lee are, in my view, a complete answer to the problem that is being discussed by the member for West Torrens. This is clearly a matter that is distinct from those rights of public assembly that we would all seek to protect.

In that sense, to the extent that there is reflected here some endeavour to compromise in the bill, the carving out of provisions that would apply to journalists and their cameramen is, in my view, wholly inappropriate and wholly unnecessary. I think they raise the very real risk that everyone becomes a journalist. Everyone who sincerely has concerns about these matters in the public interest become would-be publishers of these matters, and I think that is problematic.

I do not know what the gestation of all this has been as far as compromises are concerned, if you will excuse the inadvertent pun. The point is it goes to a matter of substance in that it is a matter the member for West Torrens really wanted to raise as a matter of principle that this is somehow contrary to fundamental rights of assembly. The provisions that relate to journalists, that the member for Badcoe has adopted as her own or sought to express as amendments that she might have been responsible for or ought to have credit for, have been expressed in terms of the rights of journalists to report on matters of public interest.

Both of those aspects are swept away, in my view, very much for the reasons as expressed by the member for Lee and the member for Newland. I would prefer to see that removed. I think that is one aspect of this legislation, if it is to pass in the present form, that might well be the subject of reflection and amendment down the track. I may have something more to say about that in committee. I would prefer to characterise what we are doing here in terms of a refinement, therefore, of the laws, insofar as they relate to what constitutes an assault, and in some respects they go to those matters quite specifically.

I am concerned also that this bill, in the way that it is expressed, contains a restatement of the law that generally applies, in some cases in a tautologous way, and that is less than ideal. I also note that it contemplates actions of police in anticipation of conduct in what would be section 48E within clause 4, and that is a matter I remain somewhat concerned about.

I indicate my support for the bill. My overriding desire is that this might be, in this sense, the thin end of the wedge, and that in time we might consider these measures not so much directly in relation to particular matters of healthcare treatment but that, in the course of time, we might see these matters as being of important and relevant application to matters of health treatment more generally.

The Hon. G.G. BROCK (Frome) (11:56): We have this debate, and it is a very important issue. I think that what we need to do is let the members here explain to our communities, our constituents, where we are going, because it is a conscience vote. This is an issue that I think is traumatic, quite frankly, in that it has to come to a decision here for a woman to make a decision to have an abortion or a termination of a living body within her own system.

As the members for Lee and Newland have indicated, and others here have said, they go to facilities or locations that are quite legal. For a particular woman to make the decision to go in that direction is traumatic enough as it is without her also being confronted—although to my knowledge it has not happened in South Australia—by someone who does not believe in a particular person having a legal procedure, for whatever reason. It could be for their health, it could be because they have made a mistake and it could be because they may not be able to afford it. There are a lot of people out there who have had numerous children by numerous fathers, and unfortunately some of those kids have not had a good life.

Just recently, in the last two or three days, I have had three or four people contact my office to vote against this bill. The issue is that the incident has never happened in South Australia, so why are we putting a bill through? My comment to that is: the world is changing dramatically at the moment in regard to the Black Lives Matter movement, which is the other issue that is happening worldwide, and even though the other members here have said that we need the right of protest, we also need to put in precautions to ensure the safety and wellbeing of a particular person attending these legal facilities at the moment

I have some personal friends who have gone through this over the years, and as they have gone through the procedure it has been traumatic enough to actually go through with the termination. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.