Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 22 July 2020.)

Clause 4.

The CHAIR: For the committee's information, we have amendments to clause 4 in the name of the member for Heysen. When he tabled those amendments, of course, he was the member for Heysen. He is now the Speaker, which adds a layer of complexity to it, so we are trying to sort out what Mr Teague would like to do. I see the Attorney-General on her feet. I gather you are seeking leave to move amendments on behalf of the member for Heysen. Attorney, I suggest you move the first three en bloc to begin with.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: Yes, I am happy to move the first three en bloc. By leave, on behalf of the member for Heysen I move:

Amendment No 1 [Teague–1]—

Page 3, lines 1 to 3 [clause 4, inserted section 48B, definition of journalist]—Delete the definition

Amendment No 2 [Teague–1]—

Page 3, lines 4 and 5 [clause 4, inserted section 48B, definition of news medium]—Delete the definition

Amendment No 3 [Teague–1]—

Page 3, after line 24 [clause 4, inserted section 48B]—Insert:

publish means to disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means, including by—

(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; or

(b) broadcast by radio or television; or

(c) public exhibition; or

(d) broadcast or electronic communication,

and publication is to be construed accordingly;

I indicate that, essentially, this will undo a provision of the member for Badcoe in her aspect of this bill in another place, which she had at least endorsed. It was an attempt, I think, to clarify the protection of journalists in their general occupation to news mediums to be protected against prosecution for publishing or disseminating material when they might be reporting on an incident in relation to the behaviour that is sought to be prohibited. There is proposed to be removal of the definitions in relation to the persons who have been carved out to have special protection, and to insert a new definition of 'publish', as follows:

publish means to disseminate or provide access to the public or a section of the public by any means, including by—

(a) publication in a book, newspaper, magazine or other written publication; or

(b) broadcast by radio or television; or

(c) public exhibition, or

(d) broadcast or electronic communication,

and publication is to be construed accordingly.

The attempt was understandable. Earlier in this debate I canvassed it. It seems, though, on balance that it is a clumsy way to have dealt with the matter and will probably only lead to further complications, so I move amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3 standing in the name of Mr Teague in the interests of ensuring that we have no frustration.

The CHAIR: Without any further comments or questions, I will put the amendments. The question before the Chair is that amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3, which have been moved by the Attorney-General on behalf of the member for Heysen, be agreed to. All those in favour say aye, against say no. The ayes have it.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: Divide!

The CHAIR: A division has been called for, ring the bells.

While the division was being held:

The CHAIR: There being a division called for on the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill amendments to clause 4 and there being one and one alone dissenting voice, the ayes have it.

Amendments thus carried.

The Hon. D.J. SPEIRS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Speirs–1]—

Page 3, after line 34 [clause 4, inserted section 48C(2)]—Insert:

or

(c) engaging in silent prayer within a health access zone.

I will not speak at particular length on this amendment. I have made it clear in the house in my earlier remarks why I believe, for a range of reasons, particularly around freedom of expression, that I need to move this amendment in my name.

The committee divided on the amendment:

Ayes 20

Noes 24

Majority 4

Amendment thus negatived.

The Hon. V.A. CHAPMAN: By leave, on behalf of the member for Heysen, I move:

Amendment No 4 [Teague–1]—

Page 4, lines 8 to 11 [clause 4, inserted section 48D(2)(c)]—Delete paragraph (c)

Amendment No 5 [Teague–1]—

Page 4, lines 37 to 40 [clause 4, inserted section 48E(3)(d)]—Delete paragraph (d)

Amendment No 6 [Teague–1]—

Page 5, after line 8—Insert:

48F—Offence to publish or distribute recording

A person must not, without the consent of the other person, publish or distribute a recording of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises if the recording contains information that—

(a) identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of, the other person; and

(b) identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of, the other person as having accessed protected premises.

Maximum penalty: $10,000.

I indicate that these amendments are consequential to the stunningly successful amendments Nos 1, 2 and 3. They are consequential upon the same.

Amendments carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:13): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Mr COWDREY (Colton) (11:13): I rise today to speak in support of this bill at the third reading. I take this opportunity to speak briefly. Given that this is a matter of conscience and one I feel important, I will try to best outline the reasoning behind my position for the benefit of my community. It is also important to note that this issue, the subject matter of this bill, does not address the broader issue of abortion.

The crux of this bill is seeking to allow women to access a legally permissible procedure without undue stress or harm. I took the opportunity to participate at the committee stage of this debate to ask questions on behalf of members of my community and to provide clarity around what would or would not be permissible behaviour within the zone under this bill. I voted in favour of the amendment put forward to this house to explicitly allow silent prayer.

Ultimately, I see no issue with people participating in silent prayer on the provision that they are not adorned in messaging, holding up placards, interacting with women as they enter the premises or the like. would interpret those sorts of behaviours as falling under the prohibited behaviour provision of the bill, as activities that could be construed as intimidation or harassment. Ultimately, this amendment was not successful. However, I rely on the Attorney's view that silent prayer in itself could not be interpreted as prohibited behaviour in any case.

To paraphrase, the bill provides a restriction on communication in relation to abortion that is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety within close proximity to a facility. 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.

Ultimately, my view on the bill is similar to those already expressed by other members of this house. I do believe that the bill strikes the right balance. The bill maintains the right of political communication and does not prevent citizens expressing their political view on the issue of abortion on the steps of parliament, where the use of placards frequently occurs, or in fact 151 metres from a facility.

It does not prevent silent prayer within a zone. However, importantly, it does allow women to access a legally permissible service without fear of undue stress or anxiety, respecting the dignity and the moral choice an individual is free to make. I believe this is a reasonable and balanced view and one that my community supports.

Ms COOK (Hurtle Vale) (11:16): I thank all members for their contribution. Whether I agree with them or not, this is a democracy and we are all entitled to bring representations, and so we should, from our community, as diverse as those opinions are. I thank everyone for their contribution. I thank members for their thoughtful amendments and for the engagement that we have had during the process.

Today, we have made the world a much safer place in our community, a much more dignified place for those who seek to access a medical health procedure, sometimes during one of the most traumatic times of their life. Nobody should be exposed to harassment or intimidation at that point. I am very grateful to this chamber for passing this legislation.

The house divided on the third reading:

Ayes 34

Noes 9

Majority 25

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.