Bills

Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 25 September 2019.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:46): I rise in support of the Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill and I note that this is a conscience vote for Labor members. I would like to begin by commending the co-sponsors of this legislation, the Hon. Tammy Franks in this place and Nat Cook, the member for Hurtle Vale, in the other. I am very pleased that, for once at least, it is women parliamentarians taking the lead on legislation for women's health and reproductive rights. Historically, that has not always been the case.

I note that we are soon to debate a bill to decriminalise abortion in South Australia, a state of affairs we have inherited largely from male legislators when they last struggled with this issue in the 1970s. I do not wish to be overly critical because those legislators back in the 1970s were struggling to bring our abortion laws into the 20^th century and they had to deal with some entrenched views of their colleagues. But I like to think, had women MPs been in charge of the legislation in the 1970s, they would not have allowed abortion to remain in the criminal code. But that discussion is for another day.

The bill before us today is a very specific one and it covers a very specific issue that has caused some trauma and concern to people who are particularly experiencing a vulnerable time in their life. Whether it is called protest or prayer, the people who congregate outside of places where abortion services are provided have just one goal, and that is to intimidate women from seeking access to a medical procedure they are entitled to seek.

Abortion is a health service. It is legal in this state and, while there are issues in the way our laws deal with abortion, which I referred to earlier, this is not the time to canvass them. What matters is that South Australians have a right to access health services and ought to have a right to access them without being threatened or intimidated or harassed or obstructed.

I understand that the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos has filed amendments to insert an objects section into this bill to clarify its operation and to remove the automatic inclusion of hospitals as protected premises. I believe these are good amendments and I will support them today. For example, if nurses are campaigning against a government's car park tax at a public hospital, then that is an activity which parliament should have no business in preventing. It does not intimidate and it does not harass. It simply draws attention to a political issue of significance and importance to people who are accessing medical services.

It is in stark contrast to the conduct we have heard about early in this debate, which we will no doubt hear more about as we progress this bill today. When individuals choose to target people accessing health services with the behaviours that are being addressed in this bill—threats, intimidation, harassment and obstruction—they have gone beyond peaceful protest, in my view. As I said, they are targeting people at a time when they can be feeling deeply vulnerable. To me, that is unacceptable. South Australia should join the rest of our country in restricting this.

I would like to reflect very briefly on a letter I received from the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition. All MPs probably received this today in their emails, but I thought one of the paragraphs in this letter was important. It is this:

In April, the High Court of Australia, found that Safe Access Zone laws in Victoria and Tasmania were constitutional and that any burden to communication or protest prohibition is justified because of the laws[:]

'legitimate purposes, which include the protection of the safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity of persons accessing premises at which abortions are provided and ensuring unimpeded access to lawful medical services.'

For the reasons I have just outlined, and particularly for that statement I have read about the High Court's finding, I will be supporting this legislation. I commend the bill to the council.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (17:50): We have been told that this is a simple bill. We have been told that there must be exclusion zones around abortion facilities because women are being harassed, intimidated and obstructed from accessing appointments they have freely chosen to access. We are told staff are being filmed and the footage is being put on social media.

That sounds very simple, it sounds as though it would be valid to therefore support this bill, but we in this place are not to take things simply on face value. It is part of our role to look more deeply behind the assertions made; we need to look at the evidence, we need to make an objective assessment of the issue and determine an appropriate response. That response should be proportionate, that response should include whether there will be negative consequences if we pass this bill.

I am well aware that there are people in this chamber—maybe most of them—who have already made the decision on whether or not to support this bill, but I respectfully suggest that members may not have heard all the information that might be relevant to the decision they make. It is easy to say, 'This is about abortion. I am pro-choice and therefore I must support it,' or alternatively to say, 'This is about abortion. I am pro-life and therefore I cannot support it.'

It is our role to go more deeply than that and actually look at what this does, what is currently the situation, and whether this bill will assist or not. We need to listen to the stories of people who have been impacted by the current situation. First, where is the evidence base for this bill? Where is the evidence that women are being targeted and harassed?

The Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville has been in operation for, I think, 27 years—27 years. If there have been all these terribly intrusive protests, why have we not seen them in the media? I am sure that anyone on the pro-abortion side would be very keen to report to the media—that is what we have seen in other jurisdictions where there have been issues—but in 27 years we have not heard, over and over again, of people being harassed, of protests being violent, of protests being highly objectionable.

The Hon. Ms Franks, who introduced this bill, referred to an FOI she had done with Charles Sturt council. I made a similar FOI that covered the last five years: how many complaints had there been to the council about the 40 Days for Life movement or other movements outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre in those five years? There had been 21 over five years, so roughly four per year, and I point out that it would appear that several of those were from the same person or body. It is not even four per year from different people.

What were those complaints? One was that there were four people sitting on chairs. The relevance of that is that the permit issued to 40 Days for Life or other groups requires that they must sit or be behind a barricade. Another complaint was that a person entering the clinic was told by the people who were outside that they were there to help. I am not sure how that is offensive or indeed harassment. Another complaint was that 'a small group of people' were 'across the road' from the centre and they were 'subject to their stares'. So they were being stared at, according to this complainant.

The Hon. Ms Franks referred to a complaint about a verbal tirade. When I lived in Adelaide, I lived not far from the Mareeba abortion clinic. For about 25 years, I lived nearby. In fact, my family attended the hairdresser just near the clinic. There was a cafe there, which we would frequent at times, and my late mother-in-law lived just around the corner until her passing, so I have spent a great deal of time in that area.

I have seen the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. I have seen the 40 Days for Life people. I have seen other people outside that centre. I have never seen something that would perhaps be what is in people's minds. We sometimes see, particularly in Hollywood movies, or we see in America quite objectionable protests outside abortion clinics. We do not see that here. We do not see the Grim Reaper outside the abortion clinic. We do not see pictures of dismembered, dead babies who have died through abortion. We do not see that here, so what problem is this attempting to fix?

Even if there was a problem, we have current laws that are able to address them. The Summary Offences Act covers disorderly or offensive conduct or language. Someone who behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner is guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $1,250. An offence, in that definition, includes threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour. So, if indeed that was occurring, there is already the mechanism to address it.

All councils have by-laws, such as those from the City of Charles Sturt. The City of Charles Sturt, in which the abortion clinic is located, has prohibited activities. A person must not on local government land annoy or unreasonably interfere with any other person's use of the land by making a noise or creating a disturbance, etc. Those who go to the abortion clinic regularly must obtain a permit from the council. No proceedings for breach of permit have been made. A permit has never been revoked, despite the fact that under the by-laws a person cannot annoy or unreasonably interfere with another person's use of the land. So, again, I would ask: how strong are these issues that are being alleged?

The bill prohibits discussion of abortion within 150 metres of the abortion clinic or of other hospitals that perform abortions. Indeed, it currently says within 150 metres of any hospital in the state. So the question arises: should discussion of abortion be prohibited at an abortion facility? I think it is really important for people to think about those women who are going in there. There tends to be an assumption, certainly in the debate so far, that every woman who goes into the abortion clinic has already made up her mind, has already gone there having made a decision that she is going to have an abortion and that she will go ahead with that; therefore, anyone presenting a different point of view is necessarily interfering with her free choice. Mr President, would you like to call order? Could we have order?

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Mr Dawkins, the Hon. Ms Scriven is speaking.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is an error to assume that every woman who goes to the abortion clinic has made up her mind, has made her decision. Indeed, the facility is called a pregnancy advisory clinic, so one would hope that they are there to get advice. I am sure they are there to get advice; I would hope that they would be given it.

So is discussion of abortion in the vicinity of an abortion clinic wrong? There is a cafe just near the clinic opposite. Under this bill, one could not go to that cafe and discuss abortion because other people around might be able to hear, and they have not consented to discussion about abortion. Is that really a sound law?

I would also like to point out that many of those who are involved in programs such as 40 Days for Life have been involved in many ways in supporting women. They offer quiet prayer and, if approached, they offer information about support services for a pregnancy, things like information about the fact that women can get a sole parent payment, currently called Parenting Payment Single, if that is their situation, and information about where they can, for example, get low-cost or no-cost baby goods and so on. All of those are available because people are out the front.

I would like to read from a letter about one woman's experience at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. This was a midwifery student who realised she was pregnant but she had just had a series of vaccinations and was told there was a risk to the baby, so she decided it was safest to have a termination. She said that the Pregnancy Advisory Centre staff lacked compassion and wrote that her reason for termination was 'unable to cope with pregnancy'. Her grief was compounded by the fact that she found out later there was only a very slight risk to her baby from the vaccinations.

A 20-year-old woman said that she agonised over her decision to have an abortion, and then when she was at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre she had second thoughts. She verbalised this to the nurse and was told it was too late and that she had to go through with the procedure. There was an older woman who says that she was pushed into having an abortion by three other significant people in her life. She was taken to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and was so upset that the procedure was postponed. She was then taken back a week later and was still very upset. She said she was taken wailing to the operating theatre, where she was basically told to be quiet. She said that post-abortion grief issues have had a major impact on her life.

Another woman who works with women who have had abortions says that she has had reports from them that there has been little care or understanding, pushing to go through with the procedure despite women saying they were not sure, despite women saying they felt pressured or had even changed their mind. They commented also that there was no after-care. Some of these women have experienced severe depression, rendering them unable to return to work or study for prolonged periods. Suicidal ideation is a common reaction.

I would like to now read some of the stories of those who have been approached by people outside of an abortion clinic. This is from the parents of Saira, who is about to turn eight months old:

We both are grateful to you to have Saira in our life. I still remember that day back in December…when we went to [the] clinic…and met [you]. It is because of you all who motivated us to continue ahead and face the challenges with your help and support.

We are really thankful to everyone who supported us to have such a beautiful baby in our life.

Thanks for helping us in our bad times.

I've attached the recent photograph of our family.

Another one:

I wish to say how grateful my wife and I are to [you] for offering help to my wife and to myself when we went to the…clinic.

This enables us to cancel the appointment of the abortion and therefore to keep the little baby Nicholas who is now 6 years old.

Now he is a beautiful little boy.

We thank God for people who were there for us that morning and the little baby now alive.

Another one:

Me and my family are very thankful for you and your team for the help you provided us…

If we couldn't meet you at the time of my wife's pregnancy termination…probably we [would have had the] abortion! But your help stops us to do so, bundle of thanks and regards that with your help my wife gave birth to an angel Maria and also she completed her study, because of your help to looking after my other two kids…for more than a year at my house.

My daughter is very cute, she is 6 months old and she start talking some words. Kind regards from me and my Family.

That was an example of some people who helped for six months during the pregnancy, because the wife was quite ill, and then for six months afterwards. Another one:

Our son Noah is 17 months old and he is a beautiful and healthy little boy. We are so proud and blessed to have him in our lives. When I was pregnant of him—

English is not their first language—

we thought of abortion because of the hard times we were going through but thankfully [you were put in] our way and we walk[ed] away from abortion.

[You] help[ed] us all through the pregnancy and even after. [Your friends] helped pay all our bills and introduce us to some beautiful people who now have become our close friends. We would like to take the opportunity to thank [you] for the incredible help, support and their prayers because it all paid off. We will never forget.

That is an example of some of the people's experiences who have been approached by people outside of an abortion centre. They have been helped by the people outside of the abortion centre. I think it is clear from those stories that some of those, if not all, would have deeply regretted the abortion if they had proceeded with it.

Another aspect which has been ignored so far in this debate is the issue of coercion of women into abortion. One or two of those women whose stories I just read out mentioned that they felt that they were forced—they did not use the word 'coercion'—that they were pressured into having an abortion. I spoke to one person who is involved in the 40 Days for Life campaign, who had been approached by a man outside the abortion centre. His partner was inside and he said, 'No I don't need to be in there. She can get on with it. I don't want to pay child support.' So it was not about the woman or her welfare, it was that he who had got this woman pregnant did not want to pay child support. There are many stories of coercion far more brutal than that. I will share one with you. This is someone whom I know very well. It states:

I got pregnant when our daughter was about three, but we didn't tell anyone I was pregnant. My husband was adamant we weren't keeping the baby. I wasn't religious at all, but I didn't want an abortion.

She then talked to me more about her abusive husband and his behaviour. Then we come to the abortion day. She said:

I clearly remember being wheeled into the operating room and just crying and crying. No one asked me if I was sure I wanted the abortion. No one asked me if I wanted to change my mind. Even though I was just sobbing.

He had decided that the baby was being terminated. It didn't matter what I wanted.

I have a story of another woman's experience from about two years ago at the PAC. Her name is Emily. She states:

The counsellor said to me 'for goodness sake, stop crying, we can't put you through if you keep crying, you need to stop.' She didn't ask me why I was crying. She didn't care that I didn't want to be there. My distress didn't set off any alarm bells that just maybe I wasn't ok to go through with this, she only wanted me to stop crying so she could push me through to the next part of the process...On the first visit I ran out of there because I couldn't go ahead. This also didn't seem to set off any alarm bells. Didn't they notice I didn't want to be there?

One other woman said:

All I wanted when I got there was someone to be out the front to help me stop. I didn't stop and the depression I have experienced has been with me forever after and I think it will be with me forever more.

I am not suggesting that that is the experience of every woman who goes there. I think it is wrong to suggest, as often happens with debates to do with abortion, that there is one end of the spectrum or the other and that is the only experience: one or the other. But what is clear from these stories is that the majority of the people out the front of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre are not there to harass women. They are not there to intimidate. They are there to pray for them, they are there to assist them, and they are there to offer help and alternatives to abortion. Some of those alternatives are not being offered inside the centre.

The stories of women I have heard and whom I have spoken to on other occasions have said that that is not being offered inside the centre, but it is being offered to those women by some people who will be outside for a number of weeks every year. One of the things we need to ask about in terms of voting for this bill or otherwise is: will we be doing harm by preventing people being out the front? There are at least five or six young people who I think would say yes.

There is Nicholas, there is Noah, there is Maria, there is Saira, and several others whose names I am afraid I have not been able to find just at the moment. If the people had not been out the front of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, those babies, toddlers, young children, would not be around, and their parents would likely be in a far worse situation than they are now. Help is offered out the front of the centres.

One of the issues that has been raised is reducing women's distress when they go to the abortion centre. I have seen, on occasion, photos of unborn babies on the barricades of the 40 Days for Life position, which by the way is about 75 metres away from the entrance of the abortion centre anyway, because that is a requirement of the council. So the question is: is a photo of an unborn baby—a live baby, I might add—intimidating or harassing? I can understand that people might think that it is. I can understand that people would think that, if a woman is about to go in and have an abortion, seeing a photo of an unborn baby at a similar stage of gestation would be difficult. It would be upsetting.

We need to ask ourselves: is it fair that a woman would see that afterwards but not before she has made her decision? Women will see them at other times in their lives. When they go on to have a child later in their life, they will have an ultrasound, perhaps at 10 weeks, and they will see that a baby at 10 weeks is not a blob of cells, that a baby at 10 weeks has fingers and toes, arms and legs, and they will know that that is what they lost. Is it reasonable to say that they should not see that beforehand, before they can make their decision?

Madeleine talks about just that situation. Madeleine says, 'I found myself unexpectedly pregnant at 18.' She goes on to describe how she went ahead with an abortion, and did not think it was necessarily too difficult a situation. She said that neither her boyfriend nor either set of parents pressured her to have the abortion. She stated:

Instead, from the people I loved and trusted there was eerie silence. They said nothing except that they'd support me whatever my choice.

That is something I think a lot of people say with the expectation that that will be helpful. She continued, however:

It took me so long to understand what happened that day because the whole experience was shrouded in half-truths. It was as I sat in an anatomy and physiology lesson in first-year nursing, staring blankly at the embryonic development of a ten-week-old foetus, that the whole house of lies came crashing down around me. There she was: no ball of cells, no half a fingernail-sized blob but a baby, heartbeat and all…That moment of realisation broke me open, and I found within a well of grief so immense.

She talks a bit more about her grief and then goes on to say:

I signed away her life with less awareness than when I signed the countless pages of warnings for a recent routine endoscopy.

In the name of wanting to be supportive of a young women facing an unexpected pregnancy, a young woman at risk of feeling pressured and condemned; the risks were never even mentioned. Not by the doctor I visited, not by the counsellor and not by the abortionist. It was decided for me by society that I didn't need the difficult facts, because abortion was the best choice for all involved.

However, four years later, that is not what she felt, because she saw the picture of an unborn baby. That is a very difficult and very painful experience for many, many women. The discussion of abortion itself is not what this bill is about, but it is relevant to the allegations that having a picture of an unborn baby is harassment and intimidation. It is information. It may be hard to look at, but it is information that every women deserves to have before she makes a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

If we vote for this bill we will be reducing the possibility for that to happen. Even more importantly, we will be reducing the opportunity for women to be offered assistance, alternatives and the help that they might need to make a true choice that they want to make, rather than something that they feel they have no choice about.

There are a few other matters to place on the record, just for information. In some of the debates, either here or in the other place, we have heard that protesters were not only outside the centre but at a cafe and a clothing shop adjacent to the centre. In case anyone should infer from that that the clothing shop is run by 40 Days for Life, it is not; it is run by a pregnancy support service, which one would think would be helpful to women when they go to a pregnancy advisory centre, whether they are considering an abortion or not.

I understand that the store can assist with the provision of items such as a cot, bassinet, change table and pram, as well as what is described on their website as good quality, affordable, second-hand baby gear, including clothes, toys, books, linen, rugs, shoes, etc., for children up to the age of two. The shops are open to anyone who loves to buy great gear at a bargain price. If someone is facing a pregnancy where money is an issue, I would have thought that having low-cost baby gear nearby would be a help, rather than something to be criticised. It was somewhat perplexing to find that, in the other place, this store was described as being evil. The suggestion, perhaps, is that a display of baby clothes near an abortion centre is not appropriate.

We need to remember that this is a pregnancy advisory centre, so one would expect that abortion is not the only reason that people go there. Down the road, not very far from the abortion centre, is a shopping centre with a Big W, which of course has baby clothes in the window. This is just a matter of being aware that if seeing baby clothes is going to be upsetting then perhaps the person is looking for some assistance to make a different decision. Also, just for the record, the cafe that some have referred to is an independently owned food and coffee establishment.

These are the real-life stories of people who will be affected by this bill. There are some other aspects that are, if you like, simply about principles. I am a member of the Labor Party and something that we have always supported and advocated for is freedom of assembly. To say that people cannot assemble because you do not like what they are saying goes quite contrary to that, in my view.

I think freedom of religion is also an important aspect. People go and pray outside of the abortion centre. This bill appears to suggest—and in fact this will be one of my questions—that one should not be able to pray outside of the centre. Restrictions on freedom to pray is, I think, a problem of principle. There are a number of other concerns that will no doubt come up during the committee stage.

The timing of this bill is also interesting. The Attorney-General in the other place referred a whole lot of issues to the South Australian Law Reform Institute, prompted, I think, by the bill around abortion more broadly, introduced by the Hon. Tammy Franks. SALRI, as it is called, is due to report within the next few weeks, yet this has been brought forward now, without that report. The question needs to be asked: why?

Similarly, I see that some amendments have been filed today by the Hon. Stephen Wade. We have not had the opportunity to look at those amendments in any detail. As a result of that, I have also had some amendments prepared. If this debate does go over to tomorrow, there will be the opportunity for those to be filed and discussed. However, I would note that it would make more sense to be discussing this after the SALRI report.

Is the legislation itself sound and reasonable? The current version of the bill provides that one cannot communicate about the subject of abortion within 150 metres of a facility that provides abortions or, as I said, of any hospital whatsoever. Is it reasonable that you cannot talk about abortion? There is a cafe literally across the road from the abortion centre. Is it reasonable that we should prevent people from talking about abortion at a cafe? I would have thought, if I were contemplating an unexpected pregnancy, that going to have a cup of tea or a cup of coffee with a friend, a trusted person or my partner would be a useful thing and that I should be able to talk about abortion.

The counterargument, of course, will be: well, yes, you would be consenting to talk about it, but those elsewhere around would be able to hear that conversation and under the current drafting of the bill that would be, apparently, illegal. The Hon. Ms Franks, when she introduced a different bill in regard to abortion, which had these exclusion zones, said that it would not affect the cafe, but clearly in this version of the bill it would.

When it comes to any legislation, we need to look at whether there is a valid and strong reason for the legislation and we need to look at whether the response that is being proposed is proportionate to the problem. There have been 21 objections over five years, most of those objections being, really, relatively minor, with no evidence of long-term large problems in the 27 years that the Pregnancy Advisory Centre has been operating. I suggest that this bill, which outlaws discussion, which outlaws assembly, which outlaws the offering of assistance to women who are considering abortion, is not in any shape or form proportionate to the problem that is purported to exist.

I therefore suggest that we should go back to the drawing board. We cannot in conscience, as responsible people, support a bill which does not have an evidence base, which does not have, in this case, widespread evidence of harassment or intimidation, and which in fact will prevent women being offered assistance and prevent them having the opportunity to take advantage of that assistance.

I would therefore ask every member to not react with emotion, to not react with, 'This is about ideology, so therefore I must support this or I must oppose this,' but to actually think about the stories of those people who have been assisted because people have been allowed to be out the front of the abortion centre. I would ask you, for their sakes and for the sakes of others in the future who will be in that situation, to vote against this bill.

Sitting extended beyond 18:30 on motion of Hon. R.I. Lucas.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (18:23): I rise to speak on the Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill 2019. I advise the council that this bill is a conscience vote for the parliamentary Liberal Party. I do not speak for any other member. While I speak today as a private member, I also do so mindful of my role as the Minister for Health and Wellbeing. I have a responsibility to ensure that all South Australians are able to access healthcare services.

While I will always support the right to protest, it is appropriate that protests are done in an appropriate manner and in a location that does not impede access to healthcare services. The bill before us aims to establish exclusion zones of at least 150 metres around protected premises. A range of behaviours are prohibited within the proposed health access zones. The purpose of establishing the zones is to protect the rights of staff and patients to privacy and safe access to health services.

Between 2013 and 2018, all Australian jurisdictions, with the exception of Western Australia and South Australia, have enacted legislation to provide for safe access zones of at least 150 metres, and in the case of the Australian Capital Territory a minimum of 50 metres. Within South Australia approximately 70 per cent of abortions are provided at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, which is part of the Central Adelaide Local Health Network. The service is subject to protestors gathering outside the service with the aim of discouraging women from attending the service.

Protest groups have attempted to video staff and clients without their consent and approached women to dissuade them from their decision to undertake an abortion. This behaviour has a deleterious impact on both patients and staff and compromises the entitlement of staff to a safe working environment. Women report feeling uncomfortable, threatened, harassed and unsafe as a result of the behaviour of the protest groups.

Whatever service you seek to access you should, in my view, be able to do so within the law based on your understanding of your needs and in accord with your values without the fear that you will be subject to protestors as you access those services. In speaking with staff who are employed by SA Health to provide pregnancy services and abortion counselling and services, I was disturbed to hear that healthcare professionals often need to calm their patients and reassure them that they do have the right to access the service. This is not an acceptable situation in South Australia in 2019.

I acknowledge that establishing safe access zones impacts on freedom of speech. As a liberal, I respect the principle that, as J.S. Mill put it:

…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

As a Christian, I accept that many Christians consider abortion to be a grave moral offence. However, in 1969 our state decided to allow abortions and they have been provided in this state ever since. They are funded by the state and they are delivered by public health services. No citizen has the right to unilaterally rewrite the laws of this state by denying access to health services to which other citizens are legally entitled.

The issue of the balance of freedom of speech and freedom of access to health services was explicitly considered by the High Court. In April this year, the issue of whether safe access zones infringe free speech was considered. Two people, prosecuted in Victoria and Tasmania, told the High Court that they had been denied their right to freedom of political communication; however, the High Court dismissed this appeal, saying the laws served a legitimate purpose.

It is noteworthy that all states and the Northern Territory intervened in the case, pointing out that even if the implied freedom of speech had been affected, it was eclipsed by the necessity to protect women seeking a termination. The High Court supported that argument. The Law Society, in a letter to the Hon. Tammy Franks, which was provided to other members, dated 24 October, states:

The Society supports the establishment of a safe access zone to protect a woman who is seeking or who has accessed terminations services, from harassment and intimidation or behaviour which attempts to obstruct a woman from accessing health care services related to terminating a pregnancy. The Society considers that the same protection should also apply to a health care practitioner who performs or assists in the lawful termination of pregnancy.

The Law Society goes on to say:

In weighing up the competing rights, i.e. ensuring safe and dignified access to health care, while also respecting freedom of political communication as they relate to premises which perform termination services, the Society considers a fair balance exists with the introduction of a safe access zone.

The Society supports the general principle that a person ought to be able to access health care services privately and without fear or risk of ridicule, humiliation or publication. This principle is also recognised internationally, including by United Nations treaty bodies, including the Special Rapporteur, who recommended that States whose domestic law authorises abortions under various circumstances should ensure that services are effectively available without adverse consequences to the woman or the health professional.

I will be supporting this bill but I do not consider that it is perfect. To highlight some of my concerns, I have filed amendments to the bill which I do not intend to formally move. I seek the leave of the council to table those amendments.

Leave granted.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was not able to finalise the amendments with sufficient time to allow members to give them due consideration but I hope that by tabling them they will provide clarity on some of the issues I have with the bill and hope that they may contribute to parliamentary consideration of this issue in future bills.

The amendments seek to do two things, firstly, to broaden the scope of the healthcare access zones to include all health services, not just abortions. Abortions are a health service. Citizens should be able to freely access abortion services. Health facilities providing abortion services, here and overseas, have been subject to protests and violence. I think that it is appropriate that access to abortion services is protected by a bill such as this. But abortion is not alone in stirring up active opposition and at risk from protests.

Some other services, which are polarising and may stimulate protests, include: assisted reproductive technology; stem cell treatment; gender services such as gender reassignment, counselling or hormone therapy; assisted dying; and safe injecting rooms. I consider all these services are at risk of protest and interference and, in my view, the protections available by this bill should be available to be applied to them, too.

These particular services tend to be offensive to conservative and religious groups but there are polarising issues across the religious and political spectrum. For example, circumcision is practised by Jews, Muslims and Christians as well as a number of cultural groups. Many people regard circumcision as mutilation of a child or young person and that it is not medically justifiable. Those people may seek to inhibit access to these services by Christians.

Conservative and religious people may want to inhibit access to health services today, but tomorrow they may need the protection of the state to access health services. I want to be clear that I am only seeking to protect the right to access health services which are permitted by the law. For example, female genital mutilation is illegal and nobody has the right to access that service in Australia or, for that matter, to take a child out of Australia to access that procedure. In my view, the bill should be flexible and allow authorities to act to be able to protect health services from protest action.

Secondly, my amendments seek to provide a ministerial discretion around the declaration of protected premises. The bill establishes safe access zones across a broad range of facilities. Personally, I think the clauses are too broad. I think that zones should only be established when they are needed.

Thirdly, my amendments seek to clarify behaviour prohibited in the safe access zones. I think that the bill should more clearly link prohibited behaviour with the impact on access. I, too, look forward to the tabling of the South Australian Law Reform Institute report on abortion law. My understanding is that it will be released soon. I hope that the House of Assembly, when they consider this bill, will both have access to that report and also consider the thoughts put forward in this council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. D.G.E. Hood.

At 18:35 the council adjourned until Thursday 31 October 2019 at 11:00.