Bills

Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 30 October 2019.)

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (15:32): I rise to speak in support of the Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill. I thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for introducing the bill to this place, and I also thank my fellow party member Nat Cook, the member for Hurtle Vale, of the other place for co-sponsoring this important bill. The bill recognises the need for better protections for workers and patients around reproductive healthcare services.

In terms of reproductive rights, South Australia is once again lagging behind. Excluding Western Australia, all other states and territories have legislation similar to the bill in front of us today. It is important that we recognise the difference between the bill being discussed today and the previous Criminal Law Consolidation Act. The previous bill has already led to heated arguments and contentious discussions about the rights of women.

I would like to emphasise that this bill focuses on the safety, privacy, dignity and wellbeing of staff working at women's healthcare clinics and those who access the essential healthcare services they provide. Abortion may be a contentious issue, but the issue of women's health and workers' safety is not. Workers at facilities where abortions are being performed are constantly targeted by anti-abortion protesters. At the Pregnancy Advisory Centre in Woodville, intimidation towards workers is common.

Brigid Coombe, who worked at the clinic for 18 years, has said that she and other staff had to take self-protective actions around the protesters. Brigid noted that the staff avoided walking in front of the anti-abortion protesters and had to make sure the protesters did not become familiar with their cars. The protesters harassed her, making her feel unsafe. It is totally unacceptable that someone arriving and leaving their job is made to feel like this.

People who go to access the clinic for their health services are perhaps the most targeted. We have heard countless stories in this place, and from constituents, of the harassment patients face when accessing abortion services. Patients at the clinic feel as though their safety is threatened, with protesters often invading their personal space. The patients are intimidated, making them feel lesser, impacting on their dignity and mental wellbeing. Women entering a clinic for an abortion already feel distressed, anxious and fearful about their unplanned pregnancy or any procedure they may undergo.

It is completely unacceptable for women to be targeted by anti-abortion groups. Just two weeks ago I talked, in this place, about International Safe Abortion Day: patients going through this harassment is not what safe access to abortion looks like. Women are having consultations in these clinics on a variety of health and reproductive issues; however, to the protesters the reason you visit does not matter. Everyone who enters the building is targeted by the anti-abortion protesters.

This includes a support person the patient may bring along. Although these people are not accessing the services, the protesters target them by intruding into their personal space, displaying vulgar pictures and taunting them as they enter. How is someone expected to support the patient when they are confronted with this sort of targeted protest? There is no way that a support person can feel safe entering a space like this.

There are large misconceptions about the women who access clinics that offer abortion services. It is almost guaranteed that the women entering the clinic for an abortion have done an incredible amount of research and have been told about the procedures from a qualified healthcare professional. One woman interviewed about her experience entering abortion clinics said that she had thought long and hard about the decision to come to the clinic. She was informed, and had done the research to make the difficult decision. She expressed that the protesters did not respect her personal circumstances, and that she knew she had made the most appropriate decision for herself.

It is distressing that women entering these clinics are not understood within the context of their personal circumstances by the protesters. Women accessing abortion services often talk through their decision with significant others, and gain advice from healthcare professionals within the clinic about the options available. This is not an easy decision for women to make. In fact, it is probably one of the most challenging decisions a woman would ever have to face, and it is unbelievable that protesters would seek to further challenge a woman's decision to seek an abortion.

Many people have specifically made mention to me that praying in silence around the clinic is not causing any inconvenience for those entering. I would like to make it clear that these people have many other places to pray: their home, a church, a temple, a mosque. They do not need to make a public display of their individual right to worship and pray.

As the Hon. Tammy Franks made mention in her second reading of the bill, the City of Charles Sturt, the council in which the Woodville advisory centre is located, has recognised that protesters are blocking access to the centre. The City of Charles Sturt acknowledged that they had to ensure the 'safety of the community when accessing services'—those are their words—and in 2010 introduced by-law permits to limit the activities of the protesters. Despite their best efforts, these by-laws have been largely ineffective in keeping workers and patients feeling safe.

We have a responsibility to enforce safe zones, giving the police force the ability to act on unwarranted behaviour. In part to strengthen this bill, I have moved an amendment bringing this bill into line with other state jurisdictions and following similar language to the High Court ruling. My amendment specifies that health access zones are created specifically to protect those accessing abortion services and other health services, a person supporting the patient, and health professionals providing health care. It also makes it very obvious that these protesters excluded from the 150-metre radius are those protesting against abortion.

It is important that we emphasise the High Court ruling that upheld the constitutional validity of safe access zone laws in Victoria and Tasmania, specifically provisions that prohibit certain communications and protests about abortions within 150 metres of abortion clinics. This was a significant win for gender equality. The High Court acknowledged, and I quote, 'women seeking an abortion and those involved in assisting or supporting them are entitled to do so safely, privately and with dignity, without haranguing'. This ruling gives South Australia the platform to move forward with this health access zone bill and ultimately reinforces the decision that South Australia have health access zones.

In supporting this bill, I am fortified by my party's commitment made at our 2019 state convention. The state Labor Party supported the introduction of safe access zones of 150 metres around any clinic, hospital or service that provides abortion, to ensure that staff and those seeking services are protected from intimidation and harassment. The intimidating behaviour from anti-abortion protesters acts as a barrier for women accessing the essential healthcare services.

With the recent closures of the women's advisory centre's surgical abortion section and the closure of the entire Women's and Children's abortion service, we are on a downward spiral, making these services completely inaccessible. This bill is just one part of the remedy to access in terms of reproductive rights for women in our state. The time for paternalistic rhetoric has passed. We must not just drive for the legalisation of essential healthcare services, we must make those services literally accessible.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (15:41): I, too, rise to speak in support of the Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill 2019 and take this opportunity to thank the Hon. Tammy Franks for taking the crucial step of introducing such a simple yet powerful piece of legislation to this chamber. The bill, as we know, seeks to establish health access zones to provide a level of protection for aborting care in this state—zones that are already operating in every other jurisdiction in Australia except for Western Australia and, of course, South Australia.

These health access zones are sometimes called bubble zones because they create a bubble within a specific radius around an abortion clinic in which certain conduct is prohibited under the law. Health access zones protect the privacy, the dignity and the safety of women accessing health care. Once again, South Australia stands as an outlier in this area of sensible reform. Tasmania was the first state to legislate for health access zones. Their legislation commenced in February 2014 and provides a buffer of 150 metres and imposes a steep fine and/or a term of imprisonment for contravention of the legislation.

Since then, jurisdictions around Australia have been gradually reforming their laws with similar legislation to protect people from harassment and abuse when they access abortion services and now it is South Australia's turn to do the same. I note that health access zones are also contained in the abortion reform bill, which is due to be debated once the South Australian Law Reform Institute reports on the bill. The delay by SALRI in reporting has resulted in the issue of health access zones being dealt with in a separate bill. I think it is worth noting also that the abortion debate is obviously going to be a highly contentious debate; there is nothing contentious about what we are debating today.

I also want to commend the work of the member for Hurtle Vale, Ms Nat Cook, who has worked together with the Hon. Tammy Franks to prepare and co-sponsor this piece of legislation, which was simultaneously moved by the member for Hurtle Vale in the other place. The intent of the bill is to protect patients, doctors and staff alike so that staff can operate in a safe workplace and patients are not harassed, abused, intimidated or filmed as they make their way to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

We do know this is occurring. Documents produced in response to the Hon. Tammy Franks' FOI request from the City of Charles Sturt substantiate that. There have been media reports in recent days also substantiating that and substantiating the extent to which this issue occurs. I have also heard firsthand from a clinician about the harassment and abuse that they deal with on a regular basis, so it is not just the women accessing these procedures who are being subject to these protests but also those people who are privately and diligently going about their work each and every day.

Staff and patients alike should not be faced with a barrage of abuse, and I concur with the remarks of the Hon. Tammy Franks and others that, while there is an implied freedom of communication within the commonwealth constitution, that implied freedom is not absolute. The law is also very clear on this issue. From 9 to 11 October 2018, the High Court of Australia heard two challenges to the constitutional validity of the legislation establishing safe access zones in Victoria and Tasmania respectively.

These High Court challenges were based on the contention that the legislation in each state impermissibly burdened the implied freedom of political communication. The Attorney-General for Western Australia intervened in the proceedings and filed publicly available submissions. These concluded that safe access zone laws do not unnecessarily limit political communications. This is because the restriction on free political communications created by each safe access zone is slight and reasonably appropriate, and adapted to advance the legitimate object of the legislation in a manner that is compatible with the maintenance of a constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.

The High Court delivered its decision on these challenges on 10 April of this year, with the majority of the High Court dismissing the constitutional challenge to the Victorian legislation, and the High Court unanimously dismissing the constitutional challenge to the Tasmanian legislation. The High Court held that both the Victorian and the Tasmanian legislation burdened the implied freedom argument.

However, in both cases, it was considered the burden was justified by reference to the legitimate purposes of the legislation. This includes the protection of the safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity of persons accessing lawful medical services. The justices of the High Court unanimously affirmed the importance of the law. For example, Justice Nettle said:

…women seeking an abortion…are entitled to do so safely, privately, with dignity, without haranguing or molestation.

The Victorian legislation was challenged by Kathleen Club, an active member of the anti-abortion group known as Helpers of God's Precious Infants. Founded in the US, the group picketed an abortion clinic in East Melbourne for more than two decades and actively engaged in protests in Albury, New South Wales. The Tasmanian legislation was challenged by Graham Preston, a Queensland-based anti-abortion protestor. Both protesters have been convicted of breaching the legislation in Victoria and Tasmania respectively.

Should certain persons and cashed-up lobby groups yet again seek to challenge the constitutional validity of the proposed South Australian laws, I would instead counsel them that their money is better spent on assisting the thousands of children in care across the nation. The High Court's decision should reassure members present today that there is no constitutional impediment to enacting health access zone legislation.

In my view, there are clear reasons justifying the introduction of the new legislation for the provision of health access zones outside places providing abortion and related services. It is a sad indictment that legislative intervention is required to better regulate and manage the behaviour of protesters and demonstrators outside clinics that provide abortion services. That behaviour does not have to be explicit. It does not have to be explicitly haranguing or harassing or intimidating; it can be implicit. The mere presence of these protesters would be enough to cause harm to people trying to seek access to these procedures and, of course, to people who are trying to go about their daily lives in terms of their work.

We live in a democratic country and that allows people the right to share their views, but I think the point is that they must do so in a respectful way, free of harassment, free of abuse and intimidation and, in some cases, this simply is not occurring. Whether it is explicit or implicit harassment, it requires intervention in the form of this piece of legislation.

I do not think any woman, any family, makes the decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly. I am sure all of us would agree that it is a decision made with the heaviest of hearts and one that anyone accessing a termination will have to live with and come to terms with for the rest of their lives. The very graphic images that protesters deem necessary will live in those women's minds forever and a day. They do not need to be shown them to appreciate the gravity of the medical procedure that they are undertaking or the decision that they have made.

Why any of us would want to add to that anguish is plainly and simply beyond me. It is incomprehensible and it is unnecessarily cruel. It is an affront to their right to privacy and their entitlement to access health services safely, and that is precisely what this is: a perfectly legal health-related procedure. As I have said again and again, these do not need to be explicit acts of intimidation or harassment to be defined as such.

The unimaginable vulnerability of these women also warrants decisive action by this chamber no matter how often or otherwise protests take place and no matter what our position on the abortion debate may be. This is not a walk of shame for women, their families and their partners. For very personal reasons, reasons known only to them, they have chosen to access a medical procedure, a perfectly legal medical procedure, and they are entitled to do so with every protection that we can offer. For those reasons, I will be supporting the bill and I commend the honourable member for introducing it into this place.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (15:52): I rise to indicate that I will not be supporting the bill. There are a number of reasons for that, which I will go through in some detail. The principal reason for me is that I believe—there is an old saying, and many members will be familiar with this saying, and that is: using a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, or something to that effect. I believe that is what this bill does. It is a very blunt instrument to deal with a situation where there seems to be very scant evidence that there is any actual issue to deal with.

Let me give you some detail to that: the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, which has been the subject of a lot of the debate—and of course that is entirely appropriate because that is where most South Australian abortions are performed—was established in 1990, I understand, so that is coming up to 30 years, 29 to 30 years. During that time, the protesters or those involved in the vigils, those praying, or whatever term people want to use for those individuals, have never had their permit to do so revoked by the relevant council, Charles Sturt council. That is in a period of nearly 30 years. I do not know how many permits were issued over that time but it would be very many, one would imagine, and never once has it been revoked.

There has never been a successful prosecution about the behaviour of any of the people involved in prayers or vigils, never a single successful prosecution over that entire time. There was one attempted prosecution during that period, but it failed, I understand due to lack of evidence. In fact, the charges were withdrawn, as I understand it. That is a very long period of time. If this was a really significant issue, if there were lots of these events occurring, if people were genuinely subjected to acts of violence or intimidation or something of that nature, then surely over that time there would have been some recourse. Surely the permits would have been revoked at some period, after a series of warnings perhaps, or surely there would have been multiple successful prosecutions. We already have laws that deal with these types of issues, and I will go into that detail a little bit in a moment.

I would like to contrast the behaviour of the people involved in these vigils with the sort of behaviour that we have seen in recent days and weeks from other protest groups or other groups that have strong views on issues that have received a lot of coverage. The Extinction Rebellion movement is one example—there are others—whose behaviour is appalling, in my view. They have resorted to violence and clearly intimidating tactics. In fact, members may have noticed an article in yesterday's Advertiser, on page 16, entitled 'Violence erupts at climate rally'. I will read it in part. It is written by Alanah Frost and James Dowling. It says:

Several police officers and protesters were injured as a climate rally turned ugly on the steps of the Melbourne Convention Centre yesterday.

Chaos broke out when about 250 protesters tried to block entry to a global mining conference.

The activists, who formed a human chain by linking arms, clashed with police who tried to clear a path into the centre.

Two people were arrested—

I think this is staggering—

on animal cruelty charges after a police horse named Will was slapped in the face and had to be treated for cuts.

Two officers [police officers] were taken to hospital, one for a dislocated finger, while the other suffered head wounds.

Police arrested 47 activists—

in one demonstration—

mostly for obstructing a footpath and intentionally obstructing an emergency worker.

Victoria Police Commander Tim Tully expressed his disappointment, saying the demonstrators sought confrontation and refused to protest peacefully.

The article goes on, giving the view of the organiser of the protest. Regardless of that, what is not in dispute is that 47 protesters were arrested—this is on one occasion, one single day. Contrast that with nearly 30 years of people holding vigils, praying or protesting—whatever term we want to use—at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and we have not had a single successful prosecution. There has not been a single revocation of a permit from Charles Sturt council. These are vastly different groups with vastly different approaches to issues that obviously both groups feel very strongly about.

On a personal note, I must say that I know some of the people involved in the groups that pray and hold vigils at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and I can tell you that they are peaceful people, on the whole. I do not know all of them, of course, but certainly the ones whom I do know are peaceful people. Again, their record of no successful prosecutions—in fact, only ever one prosecution, which was withdrawn—and no revocation of permits is clear demonstration of that.

We have had the organisation 40 Days for Life highlighted in this debate. They were used as an example of groups that were engaged in some sort of undesirable behaviour. It may help members to understand that 40 Days for Life requires all the people involved in these prayer vigils to sign what they call a peace statement. I have a copy of it here.

This peace statement is quite extensive in that it lists a number of things that people are required to sign up to in order to be part of the prayer vigils. I will read it in part because I think it is quite compelling. I will not read it all because some of it is not relevant, to be honest. I am not selectively editing the document; I am giving the thrust of what it is about. Let me read it in part. Remember, all the volunteers need to sign up to this:

I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life Campaign.

That is probably enough, even just that one point. Just to reiterate:

I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life Campaign.

They also have to agree as follows:

I will not obstruct driveways or walkways while standing in the public right of way. I will not litter in the public right of way.

I will closely attend to any children that I bring to the prayer vigil.

That is to maintain some sort of order. It continues:

I will not threaten, physically contact or verbally abuse abortion facility or planned parenthood employees, volunteers or customers.

I will not damage private property.

I will cooperate with local authorities.

Again, isn't that in stark contrast to the demonstrations we saw yesterday? It further says on this document, which all volunteers are required to sign up to (again, in part as it does go on a bit):

This approach avoids shouting, confrontation with patients and employees and the use of graphic abortion images.

This is 40 Days for Life's official document. I have read the main thrust of it—there are other bits on there that are not necessarily relevant to our discussion today, but if you are going to volunteer for this campaign they need to sign it, date it, provide their address, provide their email address and their phone number and sign up to that. Again, to be explicit:

I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life campaign.

I ask members today: what else could the organisation, 40 Days for Life, do in order to ensure that people representing them at these prayer vigils actually behave in a manner that is appropriate? They have taken all of the precautions that I think it is reasonable to ask them to take, and I think the fact that this document is easily downloadable from their website and is used for all their volunteers is very strong proof of that. That is strong evidence to suggest that the organisation is doing everything it can in order to avoid or minimise any potential issues that might occur at the site.

One other point that is important for members to note is that, whilst this bill seeks to focus on particular hate behaviour—it talks about harassment and intimidation—we already have laws that deal with those exact issues. The Summary Offences Act 1953, section 7, is, I think, a good case in point. It provides specifically:

7—Disorderly or offensive conduct or language

(1) A person, who in a public place or a police station—

(a) behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner; or

(b) fights with another person; or

(c) uses offensive language,

is guilty of an offence.

There is a $1,250 fine or potential for imprisonment for three months. It continues:

(2) A person who disturbs the public peace is guilty of an offence.

Again, a $1,250 fine, potentially, or imprisonment for three months. It goes on to detail what disorderly is, and it is exactly as you would expect it to be. It defines the word 'offensive' and includes 'threatening, abusive or insulting'. My clear understanding is that that is exactly what people are taking issue with here, if it has occurred. That is in dispute, but if it has occurred then we have laws that deal with that that do not single out a particular group or a particular issue, and could well be dealt with under this legislation but, of course, the truth is that there is insufficient evidence because, as I have already said, there has never been a successful prosecution.

Moving on: when the Hon. Tammy Franks gave her speech when she introduced this bill a few weeks ago now, she cited three particular events of incidents, you might call them, which certainly sounded undesirable, and I do not think anyone would like to see those sort of things happen. I point out that those three events are disputed by the organisation, on my understanding. In fact, I think one of them they said they had no knowledge of whatsoever, but the other two are disputed. Let us imagine they are completely true for the moment. I am not disputing the Hon. Ms Franks, I am sure that she has delivered that information to the chamber in good faith; whether or not it has been delivered accurately to her, I do not know.

Let us just assume for a moment that what has been conveyed is entirely accurate, that exactly what has been conveyed to the Hon. Ms Franks and she has conveyed to the chamber is exactly what happened. Those events, I should say, were over the period since 2014 to the current time, so that is about five years.

Over that time, there would have been roughly 22,000 abortions conducted in South Australia. These are approximate figures, of course, but they are not far off. About 60 per cent of those are conducted at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. That means there would have been roughly 13,000 visits by women seeking abortions at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. If you do the maths on that, that is a complaint rate of 0.003 per cent—a very, very low number.

You might argue, and I think not illegitimately, that it should be zero, but it is very close to zero. As I say, the incidents are actually disputed by the organisations and one of them they had no knowledge of whatsoever. It is important that we acknowledge that even if it is not absolutely true that some of these things do very occasionally happen, it is extraordinarily occasionally: 0.003 per cent, which seems to me an extraordinarily low number and, frankly, a number so low that I believe it is not worthy of creating legislation to deal with such an issue.

On that issue, I point out that the Charles Sturt council, as part of the process where they issue permits also require protesters, the people involved in these prayer vigils, to be at least 50 metres away from the Pregnancy Advisory Centre anyway. In fact, in practice, I have been down there and my estimate is it is probably more like 75 metres where people actually stand.

I turn now to a letter from the Law Society to the Hon. Ms Franks dated 24 October 2019, dealing with her bill, and I understand all members have received a copy of the letter. The Law Society did as they normally do: went through the bill in some detail, first of all explaining what the bill was and then gave their impression of it. My colleague the Hon. Mr Wade made mention of it in his contribution yesterday. At page 3, point 16, general comments section, the letter states:

The society notes that SALRI is due to provide a report to the parliament on its abortion law reference in the coming months or possibly weeks. Given the establishment of safe access zones was part of SALRI's reference, there may be some benefit in waiting for SALRI's report and recommendations to be delivered. Notwithstanding the importance of this issue, it may be a more prudent approach to pursue this matter as part of a holistic reform of abortion law in the state.

Of course, that is exactly what is happening. Members would be well aware that SALRI is looking at this issue, as they were invited to by the Attorney-General some months back now but I understand they are due to report, in fact I think they were due to report today.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: They were due to report in August, actually.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: That is right and as I understand it got put back to today, 31 October. It is a matter of weeks, in their words, not mine. Their words are this is weeks or possibly months away. I will just refresh myself. It says 'in the coming months or possibly weeks'. Then it says further on that it may be a more prudent approach to pursue this matter as a holistic reform of abortion law in this state. All I am saying to that is that I agree. Why rush? If we really are talking weeks and months, then this is not far away at all. That is the Law Society's view. I for one am very keen to see the South Australian Law Reform Institute's report. I understand it may in fact just be weeks away, as the Law Society has indicated. I think that is one reason for us to draw breath and consider if this should be part of a holistic reform rather than a standalone bill.

I would like to quote some information I have from 40 Days for Life. After this matter was aired in this place, I approached them seeking their response to some of the allegations or issues raised. I will not read this at length—it is quite a lengthy document—but I will touch on some highlights. I quote directly from the response from 40 Days for Life. It says, in part:

40 Days for Life fully agrees with Mrs Franks that—

The Hon. T.A. Franks: 'Ms', not 'Mrs'. They just married me off.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I beg your pardon, Tammy. Okay, I beg your pardon.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: The Hon. Ms Franks, you are right. But I am quoting from their document, and their document does not say that. So I will start again:

40 Days for Life fully agrees with…[Ms] Franks that patients who seek to access health services that provide abortion should be able to do so without harassment, without intimidation, without fear and without obstruction.

They agree with that. I think their peace statement, that I have just read to you and that they require all of their volunteers to sign, says that they are doing everything they can to make sure that actually happens. It continues:

40 Days for Life does NOT harass or intimidate patients, nor impede access by patients or staff. All prayer volunteers are required to sign a peace statement (copy attached).

As I have already read out. It continues:

We strongly disagree with…[Ms] Franks' contention that 40 days for Life impedes patients accessing the clinic or that staff working in reproductive support services do not have a safe workplace.

So that is their view. They should have a right to respond to that. I think what is crystal clear is they are doing everything they can, including getting their own members to sign documents, to ensure that these matters are handled fairly, appropriately and carefully. It seems to me that the evidence that there is a real problem down there is simply not convincing.

I would also like to bring up another issue which I think is of some significance. That is a chain of emails which has come my way. It has really sprung out of what one might have considered to have been a claim by the member for Hurtle Vale that somehow the South Australian Law Reform Institute was involved in the drafting of this bill or that they somehow supported it. I want to be fair to the member for Hurtle Vale. I do not want to be misquoting her, so I am going to quote word for word from the email to make sure we get it exactly right.

She said in her speech, when she introduced her bill in the other place, on page 7503 of Hansard for that day—and I quote word for word:

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Attorney-General—

fair enough, but it then goes on—

the South Australian Law Reform Institute and many other people who took the initiative of developing and supporting conversations around this private member's bill to address a longstanding problem.

I have been sent an email by a South Australian barrister who was quite surprised to hear that comment from the member for Hurtle Vale, because his understanding, as was mine and no doubt that of many others in this place, was that the South Australian Law Reform Institute was involved in an overall review of abortion law, as the Attorney-General had initiated some months back, and therefore it would be somewhat inappropriate, I would think—in my estimation anyway—for them to be involved in a specific bill dealing with that issue that was included in the broader terms of reference or that was one of the issues they would be considering.

What I want to do is read an email from the barrister to the Law Reform Institute seeking clarification: were they in fact involved in framing of this legislation with the member for Hurtle Vale? The barrister, a gentleman by the name of Mr Christopher Brohier, who people probably know, wrote to the director of the South Australian Law Reform Institute, Dr Williams, and I will read his email word for word. It is dated Friday 27 September at 3.26pm this year:

Dear Dr Williams,

I and many others have participated in good faith in the SALRI consultation in relation to the issue of abortion law reform pursuant to the Attorney-General’s reference. As the SALRI website shows, the reporting date has now been put back to 31 October.

In parliament on Wednesday 25 September, Ms Nat Cook, the member for Hurtle Vale, introduced the above bill, which seeks to create exclusion zones around abortion clinics. That is one of the issues expressly being considered by SALRI. At page 7503 of Hansard for that day Ms Cook said:

I would like to acknowledge the work of the Hon. Tammy Franks, the Attorney-General, the South Australian Law Reform Institute and many other people who took the initiative of developing and supporting conversations around this private member's bill to address a longstanding problem.

I attach the full text of Hansard for that day so you will see that I have correctly quoted Ms Cook. On the face of Ms Cook's comments it would appear that SALRI is in the midst of consultation, and before reporting to the Attorney, has assisted a private member to produce a bill which is subject of the reference that it has received from the Attorney. In the light of that, I have the following questions:

1. What assistance, if any, did SALRI give to Ms Cook to develop and support conversations around her bill?

2. Who provided any such assistance?

3. If such assistance was provided, how is that consistent with SALRI responding to the Attorney's reference in an unbiased manner?

4. If such assistance was provided, can, and how can, SALRI provide an unbiased report in response to the Attorney's reference?

I would appreciate a response as soon as possible.

Kind regards

Christopher Brohier, barrister

The response came later that day; in fact, it was quite late that night, at 10.34pm on Friday 27 September—the same day. It was to Mr Christopher Brohier and copied in a Mr David Plater. David Plater is the Deputy Director of the South Australian Law Reform Institute. It is from the director, Professor John Williams. It says:

Dear Mr Brohier

Thank you for your email regarding the private member's bill regarding safe access zones recently introduced to the South Australian parliament. I am able to confirm that neither Dr Plater or myself were aware of either of the bills. Their existence and the timing of introduction to parliament was a complete surprise to us. We had no advance warning of their introduction or even existence. To be clear, we provided no assistance with their production or drafting, and we were not consulted or approached on it.

The focus of SALRI remains on completing the reference which has been before us and to deliver a report to the Attorney-General. As for being acknowledged and thanked in Mrs Cook's speech, I am afraid we cannot assist as to what prompted her to do this. Whilst SALRI has been thanked before by members of parliament, I am afraid it's in error on this occasion. I hope this answers your questions. Thank you for bringing this Hansard reference to my attention.

Kind regards

Professor John Williams, Director, South Australian Law Reform Institute

I would say that is puzzling, to say the least. To be fair to the member for Hurtle Vale, it could be that she simply made an error; she was on her feet, and she included them in the attributing of people who were involved in error. That is possibly true. I would like to think the best; I would like to think that is the case. Whatever the reason, it is important that members here know that this bill, whether it be introduced in the lower house or the upper house, does not have the backing of the South Australian Law Reform Institute. They had no involvement in its composition whatsoever.

These are difficult matters for many people, and I think it is important that we understand there are always two sides to these stories. Very briefly, in the time that the Pregnancy Advisory Centre has existed in South Australia, approaching 30 years now, no permits have been revoked. There have been no successful prosecutions. One was attempted, which was withdrawn. I present that as a case in stark contrast to other protests that we have seen in recent times.

The volunteers are required to sign that peace statement, as I said, which really locks them in to behaving well. Do we need this law at all? I think it could be easily argued that the Summary Offences Act, in particular section 7 but also others, deals with appropriate penalties for what we might call behaviour that disturbs the peace or in any way intimidates or offends, etc., and certainly behaviour that threatens or harms.

I want to finish by saying to members that we have a more comprehensive review coming soon, as I mentioned in my contribution. I think it is wise for us to look at that in a more holistic sense. This bill may pass today—I do not know—but I would ask members to consider looking at it in a more holistic sense when the Attorney comes back to the parliament with something else. I will not be supporting the bill.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO (16:18): This is a conscience vote and I will be opposing this bill. I appreciate the intent of it, and I would certainly never support persons being harassed, abused or assaulted while going about their everyday business, accessing a medical centre, hospital, school or sporting facility or just going to their workplace. My opposition to this bill is based on a wider picture, on a fundamental right for people to be able to express their views.

I abhor and reject hate speech, racial vilification and criminal defamation. However, there are also a lot of other radical or wacky views out there and, while I would not agree with them, I could not deny a person's right to express them if they do it peacefully and respectfully.

I realise there is a High Court judgement relating to this issue of safe access zones and the implied right of free speech in our Constitution. While this bill does not attempt to curtail that right of free speech, of course, by creating an exclusion or safe access zone of 150 metres, it does attempt to distance and silence a person or persons with opposing views from being seen or heard while being legally on public property.

This bill does focus on abortion and the right for a person to go into a clinic or a centre unhindered. I agree with that: a person's security should always be paramount. Yet, as the Hon. Dennis Hood has pointed out, from the lack of evidence it does not seem to be happening here. In fact, the Hon. Clare Scriven has given us examples of where people have actually been assisted by them making their views known.

I have not seen examples of extreme violence in South Australia, as we have seen in the United States, for instance, and I would never want to see that here, but I will go back to the precedents that this can create with public protests and expressions of opinion on a variety of issues. There is an alarming trend where progressives, empowered by social media and fuelled by left-leaning media outlets, are super quick to shut down and castigate those with opposing views. Our society is heading down a dangerous path when laws are enacted that aim to deny our right to know, inform or silence.

Just because you do not agree with their viewpoint, you should not deny people the right to make it or to shame them and place legislative obstacles in their path. Have members seen exclusion zones in Hong Kong to stop pro-democracy demonstrators? Take animal rights protests at racing events like Oakbank: the Hon. Tammy Franks is known for her opposition to jumps racing—and I fully support that—but they have not exactly been peaceful. Imagine the furore if the Oakbank Racing Club or the SAJC sought an exclusion zone to prevent protesters coming near their racetracks, or if Greenpeace was stopped from challenging Japanese whalers.

Do we impose exclusion zones to stop animal activists from PETA or opponents to the live sheep trade—of which I am one? Will there be an exclusion zone introduced around brothels should that legislation become law or, if this law is passed, will it mean that someone wearing a T-shirt with a protest message could not even walk through one of these exclusion zones without fear of prosecution?

As the Hon. Dennis Hood has pointed out, there are laws and council by-laws already in place that can be used to correct or address these concerns we are hearing. As anyone knows, you can easily get an AVO; AVOs can be taken out even by vexatious complainants. They can go to a court or a police station, make a complaint without any evidence and get an interim order. So the laws are in place for people who feel they have been harassed or stalked, or whatever, to get a court order and stop people from doing that. In closing, all I am saying is that if this bill succeeds, where does it stop?

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (16:24): I rise to oppose the bill as well, and I support a number of the views the Hon. Mr Pangallo has just put, which are my prime reasons for opposing the legislation. I also support some of the views my colleagues the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Ms Scriven have put as well.

Can I say at the outset, as I think all members have, whatever their view is on this legislation, I do not think any of us support intimidation or harassment of people seeking to access health services or worksites, so there is a unanimity of view in relation to that, but where I am in furious agreement with the Hon. Mr Pangallo, in particular, and others is: where does this actually stop? The Hon. Mr Pangallo has used some examples, but one can think of any number of examples in recent times that are not directly analogous but, nevertheless, raise the same principle: if you do not like the views of an opposing force of people, what is it that you can do legislatively to prevent them from expressing that particular point of view?

In this case, you do not like the views of those who pray or, from the viewpoint of some in this debate, have intimidated or harassed people seeking services or delivering services at these particular centres. The Hon. Mr Pangallo has raised some examples. I think the Hon. Mr Hood raised some examples, but in a wider context, not too far along North Terrace only recently, when far right activist speakers have attended universities to give seminars or sessions, elderly South Australians who tried to attend particular venues were harassed, intimidated and abused by those seeking to prevent them from entering a university hall to listen to someone expressing their particular views on a particular issue.

The protesters took a radically different view in relation to the speaker's views, which is fair enough but, nevertheless, sought to intimidate, harass and prevent access to those particular sites for people to even go and listen. You see any number of examples in recent times of, in particular, conservative speakers, even conservative politicians, seeking to speak at universities where organised protesters harass, intimidate and abuse either the people going there or the speaker who attempts to go there to speak.

We have recently seen the mining conference in Melbourne, I think it was. I think the Hon. Mr Hood—I only came in at the tail end of that part of his contribution—referred to some terrible footage of people endeavouring to prevent people from even going into a lawful meeting to go about their business in terms of discussing the mining industry or something as broad as that. We have seen other examples, such as the anti-Adani protests all over Australia over a period of time, where intimidation, harassment and abuse have been directed at people going about their lawful work on a worksite.

I must admit that on occasions, as a politician, I would not have minded the 150-metre antiharassment zone around me in terms of the abuse and harassment, but that is part of the job that we sign up for willingly, that is, to be publicly abused on occasions. That is what we are paid the big bucks for.

There have been many other examples, and I think the slippery slope example that the Hon. Mr Pangallo in particular highlighted is an important one because one of the parts of this particular argument is that workers should be entitled to go about their work, and I agree with that. They should not be intimidated, harassed or prevented from so doing. It will be an interesting debate in relation to picket lines, where some workers want to go about their work, want to enter a worksite, but a union-organised picket line forcefully seeks to prevent the entry into a worksite of a worker who wants to go to work.

The precedent of a 150-metre secure access zone to allow workers to go to work, now being supported by many within the Australian Labor Party, is an interesting issue because, if they are so minded that workers who want to work in one of these particular health services centres have an entitlement to enter, free of harassment, intimidation or abuse, then a worker who wants to enter a worksite to work, even though he or she might not even be of the minority view, it might just be a view that is different from the view of the union delegates and the union that has coverage of the worksite, then the same principle perhaps can be applied: those workers are entitled to a free access zone to enter that particular worksite to work. Why is their access to the worksite any different to the health workers' access to this particular worksite?

I am sure the members of the Labor Party would never, until the end of their days, be allowed to support something along those lines, but nevertheless that is the slippery slope argument that one opens in terms of where you draw the line. I agree with the Hon. Mr Pangallo. There are a lot of wacky views out there with which I do not agree. We do have things that we are prevented from doing. There are hate laws and a range of other things like that that we are prevented from doing, but within that legal construct, if there are wacky views out there then people, by and large, should be entitled to put them.

They should not be able to physically harass or intimidate people, but in terms of abuse, again, I am not sure that there is anything. I guess there are restrictions in terms of the extent of the abuse, but one only has to look at social media directed at members of parliament and others, to which I have referred in recent times, to see that it is a pretty liberal view of abuse that is allowed generally in the community at the moment, in terms of public life and public office, and indeed public debate.

It is a slippery slope argument. I think those who want to support breaching in this particular case open themselves up to the debate and the argument where inevitably others will seek to argue, 'Well, let's extend the same principle to other areas.' I am sure there will be furious disagreement, in particular from those from the left of politics who will say, 'Well no, that's okay, because we are comfortable with those views and protests being expressed because that's a view that we share.' I do not think that is how parliaments and legislators should operate. Ultimately, there should be a principle there, and that principle ought to be that, within reason, people are entitled to express their differing views.

I think the Hon. Mr Hood has added much to the debate by reading in relation to the particular organisation the requirement or the undertaking that they sign in terms of behaviour. I suspect the overwhelming majority of people—maybe all of that particular organisation—follow that particular undertaking. I do accept, as with any protest, that there may well be others—either people who have not signed that particular undertaking or even people who have signed it—who on occasions breach the undertaking that they might have given.

I do not dispute the fact that there might be occasions, and I think the Hon. Ms Franks and the others have highlighted some examples. I am not in a position to dispute the accuracy or otherwise of particular claims, but my experience in relation to these things is that there may well be occasions when someone oversteps the mark and has done something that they had undertaken not to do, or maybe they are not part of that organisation, even though they are down there sharing part of the protest.

People whose views I respect have indicated to me that in many of these cases people are praying, and that is the extent of their protest. The Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos put the view, with which I absolutely disagree, that these people can pray in their churches or their mosques or whatever it is, why do they need to pray in a public place?

Up until this law, they are entitled to pray wherever they wish. If it is silent prayer and they want to pray within 150 metres of a particular institution and they are not abusing anyone, they are not intimidating anyone and they are not harassing anyone, why is it that we should be passing a law that says they are not allowed to pray in a public place in a peaceful manner?

That is what we are being asked to support. These people, within 150 metres of an institution, can sit there silently and pray outside one of these institutions, and we are saying that is an offence. Where are we actually heading as a parliament and as a community? Lawful prayer in a public place is going to be banned. This parliament is rapidly heading down a path of evidently wanting to support something as radical as that.

I just cannot see the logic of it, the sense of it or, indeed, whether people have thought through whether this is actually what they want to do. Clearly, it is, because it is quite clear that the vast majority of these people have been protesting for many years and that has been the extent of their silent protest. We are being asked to, in essence, ban lawful prayer in a public place on the issue.

I will not repeat all the points that my colleagues have made but there are a couple of other issues. In relation to the High Court judgement, I accept the fact that what the High Court has said is that the parliament is entitled to legislate—and it has legislated. What the High Court has said is that the parliament has the power to legislate and, in their view, it does not infringe on the freedom of speech issue, and the High Court is perfectly entitled to do that. That does not mean that a parliament cannot either legislate in this particular way or argue to the contrary. It is not as if there is High Court argument arguing against the position the Hon. Mr Pangallo or the Hon. Mr Hood or the Hon. Ms Scriven or myself is putting in relation to this particular issue.

All they have said is, 'A parliament is lawfully entitled to pass these sorts of laws if it so chooses.' My argument is not against that; my argument is that I do not believe that we should so choose because it is a slippery slope and the whole notion of banning lawful prayer in a public place is alien to me and is something which I do not believe we ought to be contemplating for the reasons that I have given.

Another issue I want to raise is in relation to the technical issues in the bill. On my reading, it would appear that protective premises include every incorporated or private hospital in the state and, secondly, the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at 21 Belmore Terrace, Woodville, and then any other premises declared to be protected premises. These restrictions, in terms of prohibitive behaviour—that is, preventing you from praying in a public place—will apply to every incorporated or private hospital in the state or, indeed, the various other prohibited behaviours such as communicating or attempting to communicate with the person about the subject of abortion, etc. in a public place.

Another issue in relation to the definition clauses is that a health access zone is defined to be or proposed to be defined in relation to protected premises means (a) the protected premises, and I have just read out what they are, so it is all the hospitals and the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and anything else that is declared to be a protected premise. It provides that:

health access zone, in relation to protected premises, means:

(a) the protected premises; and

(b) any public area located—

and then there is (i) and (ii), and (ii) provides:

in any other case—within 150 metres of the protected premises;

So anything within a 150 metres of the protected premises. The paragraph (i) provides:

If the minister, by notice in the Gazette, specifies a distance (being not less than 150 metres) from the protected premises for the purposes of this paragraph—within that distance of the protected premises;

On my reading of that what is intended here is that the minister, by notice in the Gazette, can extend this health access zone, or this antipraying area, to an area beyond the 150 metres and there is no restriction on that. He or she could make it half a kilometre or a kilometre or whatever it might happen to be.

It would appear to be that that is the intention and that will be an issue that I guess will need to be pursued in the committee, as to why by just mere notice in the Gazette a minister can extend this 150-metre antipraying zone to any particular area as well. The definition of 'prohibited behaviour' has been referred to and read before, but it needs to be considered together with 'protected premises', for example:

prohibited behaviour means—

…to record (by any means whatsoever) images of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises...

Again, I think we need clarification because if recording images of people coming and going from any protected premises, and if protected premises are any incorporated or private hospital in the state, together with the Pregnancy Advisory Centre (so we are not just talking about the Pregnancy Advisory Centre but also any incorporated or private hospital), how wide a restriction are we talking about in relation to other hospitals in the state? Does this prevent a minister or a shadow minister, for example, being filmed coming and going on any issue from one of these protected premises? The prohibited behaviour is pretty broad, and it is:

…to record (by any means whatsoever) images of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises; or

…to communicate or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion.

Does that prevent a minister or a shadow minister from standing up in a hospital, or just outside a hospital, and doing a media interview and talking about the issues of abortion from whatever perspective they might have in relation to abortion issues?

Clearly, it would appear to prevent people from harassing or threatening anybody entering a hospital, for example. When the Minister for Health is entering a hospital and there is threatening, intimidating or harassing behaviour from union picketers or protesters protesting at the actions of the minister in that particular hospital, union process action outside a hospital would appear, on the surface of it, to be prohibitive behaviour on protected premises. So I think there are some interesting questions in terms of the length and breadth of what is intended by the legislation.

There are many other issues, but I will not delay the second reading any longer by outlining them. Nonetheless, I think there are many other issues that will need to be teased out during the committee stage of the debate.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY (16:42): I was not going to speak on this particular bill, but, after hearing the contributions, particularly those of the last two members, I want to put my views to the council. Firstly, I support freedom of speech, people's right to know and people's right to protest. I have done that for most of my life, and I will probably continue to do it for the rest of my life. I have no problem with people protesting. However, comparing a termination clinic with Adani or a mining conference is a typical way for the Hon. Mr Lucas to depersonalise an issue.

For a woman to make a decision to terminate their pregnancy is probably one of the most traumatic experiences this person will ever go through in all their life. Intimidation comes in many forms. The very fact that you have to drive up to a clinic and walk through 50, 60 or 100 people praying for the foetus that is going to be terminated can be very, very intimidating and very traumatic for a person who is undergoing something about which a decision has been made, for whatever reason.

This bill does not actually say that you cannot protest. What it says is that you have to be at least 150 metres away from the clinic. So you could still be on public property and still be able to pray. It does not take away the rights; it is allowing a person who is going into a clinic to undergo a procedure which that person has made a decision on, through whatever circumstances they have made it. There are many circumstances causing a person to make that decision, but the overwhelming majority are because of circumstances that are quite traumatic to that person.

So I will support the bill. I support free speech. Nothing in this bill says to me that we are stopping any group from having free speech. All they want to do is give at least 150 metres of space for a person to enter without their having to walk through a crowd praying for them. That can be very intimidating in itself. Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to the vote.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:45): I really want to thank all speakers who have made a contribution, both today in the debate and yesterday. From the outset, I say that this is still a simple bill. In December last year, when I introduced this as part of an abortion law reform package, the safe access zones were contained within the bill that also sought to decriminalise abortion. That, of course—decriminalisation of abortion—was sent off to SALRI as a terms of reference.

At the time, back in December 2018, I did not seek to progress on safe access zones because the High Court challenge was underway and that ruling had not been made. I note that some attempts have been made to say that it is too soon and that we need to wait for the SALRI report. The fact that we are about to debate abortion in this state is the very reason that we should now debate safe access zones, to protect patients and workers alike before we as a parliament undertake that debate.

It is precisely the same tack that was used in New South Wales. In New South Wales they prioritised a debate on safe access zones and ensured the safety of those patients and those health practitioners before they commenced their most recent parliamentary debate on the decriminalisation of abortion.

It has been said that this bill is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut. I find that claim extraordinary. It has been said by some of the speakers that we are seeking to solve a problem that does not apply to us here in Adelaide or us here in Australia, that these are somehow violations of a patient's privacy, of their safety, of their right to health care, that apparently only occur across the border or across the sea. I certainly do not want to see those things that do happen across the border and across the sea happen here.

I will share one thing that did happen in Victoria, certainly in Australia. On 16 July 2004, one medical facility, the East Melbourne fertility clinic, placed a note on their door. That note said, 'We regret to advise that, as a result of a fatal accident involving some members of staff, we have been forced to cancel all appointments today'—Australia, Melbourne, this century. What happened was that a man, Peter James Knight, walked into that clinic carrying a rifle, other weapons, including 16 litres of kerosene, three lighters, torches and 30 gags, with the intent to kill everyone inside that clinic. He succeeded in killing Steven Rogers, the security guard. He shot that man in the chest, killing him. The staff and the clients then overpowered that murderer. He had intended to massacre the 15 staff and the 26 patients at the clinic that day.

That struck fear into the hearts of workers in reproductive health centres right across the country. In the briefing to the bill, when Brigid Coombe, who used to be the director of the centre at Woodville, spoke about how that really changed the lives of workers in Australia, increased their mental health stressors and put incredible pressures on those workplaces, that was dismissed by one of the members of this chamber as somehow a figment of her imagination.

The fact that somebody is killed at work because they are doing a particular job strikes fear into the heart of every worker who does the job. This bill is not a sledgehammer to crack a walnut, this bill is actually proportionate and far delayed. We are now one of only two jurisdictions in this country that does not have a safe access zone. There is no slippery slope here. We are, in fact, far behind the eight ball. We have put our patients and our health workforce under undue stress and in an unprotected state.

This is a proportionate measure that has the experiences that have gone before us. In New South Wales, when women seek an abortion, they are no longer handed plastic foetuses. In New South Wales, no longer do sidewalk counsellors follow women to the door. In New South Wales they have these safe access zones. In every other state, except for South Australia and WA, they have these safe access zones for very good reason. WA is about to implement this legislation. They have a discussion paper, which is most informative and certainly was used to help support the bill.

When I hear members say that we do not have to worry in South Australia because there have not been many complaints and 40 Days for Life do the right thing and they all sign a contract, that man who killed that security guard was not a member of any of the regular protesters but he was given the courage to walk into that place, given comfort that somehow he was acting righteously to walk into that place, to seek to kill those staff and those patients because of the ongoing protests that we have seen in this country.

We never used to see them 30 years ago. Increasingly, we see the tactics of the United States, the UK and other jurisdictions employed in Australia and the best way to ameliorate those tactics has been safe access zones. I point to the UK, which has only just introduced their very first access zone. In the UK, the way they have tackled this problem, the way they have avoided using the so-called sledgehammer to crack a walnut, I think has made things worse.

They have counter protests, as they do in the US. They have escorts, and many of us would have seen the escorts in the US where they put fabric over a patient's head, they wear hi-vis, colourful outfits, to escort patients to seek health care. Do we really want that to be the situation in South Australia? Do we really want South Australia to be the sole state that does not have safe access zones?

When you look on the 40 Days for Life website and you look at their activities right across the world, you note that their absolute sole stated intention, their boast of their achievement, is that they have closed 104 abortion centres, is that they have forced 191 workers to quit. Is that really what we want to see in South Australia, where we already have barriers to access abortion health care and we already see staff put under undue stress?

By not giving them the protection of the safe access zones we are actually creating far more harm than these very small 150-metre safe access zones seek to provide; a space free of harassment, intimidation and haranguing; a space where anyone is welcome to pray. I am sure that some of the patients probably pray. I am sure their family members and I am sure staff feel quite free to pray, but if you do so in a way that is stopping somebody accessing health care, that is harassing, that is intimidating, that is violating their rights, then surely it is the least we can do to afford them some small respite so that they can seek health care in peace and free of that harassment. There is no slippery slope here. It is a very small piece of comfort to give patients at a very difficult time in their lives.

We could see other tactics develop in South Australia. I have to say that the 40 Days for Life website has little markers all over the world and the only marker they have, the only target they have on that website currently in South Australia and Adelaide, is at Woodville. They are, of course, not the only group that exists. They are also not a group that has always been quite as squeaky clean as has been presented today.

I refer members of the council to The Record, whose by-line is 'The parish, the nation, the world', published out of WA and proudly the weekly newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Perth. It is published every Wednesday and indeed is boasting that, having been established in 1874, it is the oldest weekly newspaper in Australia. Some four years ago, it reflected the concerns that were raised here by the archdiocese of Adelaide and Port Pirie. In fact, 40 Days for Life was subject to what was perceived to be a ban.

I note that the article, 'Adelaide but not Tasmania to host 40 Days for Life', published on 26 February 2014, bemoaning the fact that Tasmania now had safe access zones but heralding the fact that Adelaide was still fair game to target patients and staff alike, noted that the archdiocese had sent out a letter stating:

The archdiocese speaks with a united voice under the leadership of Archbishop Wilson and our message and structures of accountability are clear.

This is not always so among other organisations that nevertheless share our deep concerns for the protection of life and the unborn.

For this reason, Archbishop Wilson asks that you do not publicise in our church bulletins the material you may receive from time to time from 40 Days for Life or other similar organisations, but that you continue to make our commitment to life very clear through prayer and action in your parishes and communities.

When even the archdiocese of Adelaide and Port Pirie has concerns about the practices of 40 Days for Life and, according to this article, had to haul them in for a meeting to give them a strict talking to and obviously get them to sign some good behaviour pieces of paperwork, then how can we trust other rogue groups or this group to do the right thing?

There has also been a lot of mention made that permits are issued. Well, permits are actually only issued to 40 Days for Life. There are other rogue protesters, individual protesters, and there is nothing to stop their ongoing activity. That permit system that has been developed has actually been done specifically to try to counter some of the issues that arose with 40 Days for Life.

There is also a car parking system that is used to push them to the edge of the car park, which is why you do not see them right on the door. The staff have had to collude to protect themselves in their workplace by parking cars in ways that the protesters cannot come right to the door. That is how they have dealt with this, and time and time again, if you read all of the FOIs, you will see that the council, the clinic and the police have all been hopeful that we will see law reform.

I will go on to address the suggestions that our current Summary Offences Act might be able to be adapted to reflect and to respond to this situation. Do we really want to get to the point where, as in the UK, restraining orders need to be taken out by healthcare workers to stop these protesters? There was one protester in the UK who was sentenced to 100 hours of community service and subject to a five-year restraining order for her behaviours. Do we want to reward that type of behaviour with lax laws that are not specific and fit for purpose, and do we want to put our police in the invidious situation where they have not been given the appropriate tools to do the job of keeping patients and healthcare workers safe?

I will reflect on just a few of the things that were claimed in the debate. Right from the outset, I will note that this bill does not ban praying by anyone. In fact, as I said in the briefing, my aunt is praying for me to get legislation through this place around the areas of protection. My aunt, being a nurse, has a particular vested interest in seeing this sort of law reform.

People pray for many and varied reasons. Nothing in this bill will stop them from doing so anywhere, anyhow, anytime. But if they are undertaking prohibited practices and harassing, haranguing and restricting the rights of others, then the police will have the appropriate tools to take action. Of course, the police will need to be called before they take that action, and the courts, as the final arbiter, will be able to decide whether or not that is a proportional response. The Hon. Clare Scriven stated:

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.

Yes, they are, and there is ample evidence of that here in South Australia and in other jurisdictions. One new technique of a UK group—I think they are called Abort69, but there are so many names, which are so varied and vivid, that I am not totally sure if that is the exact group—is to Facebook live stream people going in and out of abortion clinics. They also take up other things. They strike up a conversation with patients, find out where they work and call their employer to tell them where they are. This is the sort of behaviour that we seek to stop. The Hon. Ms Scriven said:

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?

I refer, of course, to my second reading explanation; the extensive FOI; the SAPOL FOI, which shows the police call-outs; and the countless case studies from both interstate and overseas. Let's remember that we will be the sole jurisdiction left. The target will be on our state's back if we do not create these safe access zones. If that is not enough, how about the evidence that was submitted before the High Court when similar safe zones in Victoria and Tasmania were challenged?

I point all honourable members to Madsen v Women's Health Center, Inc. In accepting medical privacy as a significant privacy interest supporting the restriction of the right to free speech, the Supreme Court stated that the:

…targeted picketing of a hospital or clinic threatens not only the psychological, but the physical, wellbeing of the patient held 'captive' by medical circumstance.

I refer members also to the Human Rights Law Centre in their written submission. It is an example from Victoria but is a similar situation, presented to the High Court by the Human Rights Law Centre. I quote:

One clear illustration is the findings of the Supreme Court in Fertility Control Clinic v the Melbourne City Council…McDonald J cited the unchallenged evidence that activities of the anti-abortion protesters included the following:

standing outside the Clinic every day for more than 20 years from Monday to Saturday inclusive in numbers from three to 12 persons with 50 to 100 persons once per month;

approaching women apparently coming to the Clinic, imposing their presence even when clearly unwelcome;

harassing women entering or leaving the Clinic, engaging in arguments with the women and passers-by;

attempting to block women's entry to the Clinic;

blocking the footpath outside the Clinic;

entering the laneway that runs along the side of the Clinic to follow patients or stand and pray, sing and shout outside the Clinic's consulting rooms;

jostling and striking people passing the area and entering the Clinic;

making offensive, frightening and misleading statements to patients and staff;

engaging in loud singing, praying and shouting, clearly audible in the Clinic;

intimidating and harassing patients of the Clinic, with the effect of deterring patients from attending the Clinic; and

causing significant injury to the personal comfort of staff members, patients and others.

I note, particularly when it comes to the PAC in Woodville, that a number of complaints have been recorded by the council from community members and those seeking the services of the PAC. The protesters have been blocking and/or obstructing footpaths leading to the PAC to the extent that one particular local resident—a mother who had to push her pram down the street—was often unable to use her local footpath.

Other examples of the behaviour that will be prevented by safe access zones, as submitted to the High Court by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law are included in the research of Dr Sifris and Dr Penovic that identified the adverse impact of protester behaviour that is constrained by the operation of safe access zones, pursuant to part 9A of the Public Health Act, on patients seeking to access the premises. These included but were not limited to:

protesters approaching, following or walking alongside people approaching the clinic premises;

distributing pamphlets and distributing plastic models of foetuses;

protesters equating foetuses with babies by imploring patients not to 'kill' their 'baby';

castigating patients as murderers;

protesters chasing, photographing, heckling, threatening and verbally abusing patients and staff;

protesters preventing patients from exiting cars, impeding entry to clinics or clinic car parks and access along footpaths along clinics;

protesters displaying large and graphic posters depicting what purported to be foetuses post abortion, foetuses in buckets, or skulls of foetuses;

protesters distributing visually graphic literature containing medically inaccurate and misleading information that abortion results in infertility, failed relationships, mental illness and cancer.

There have been some claims, given that the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville has been in operation for almost three decades, asking where these terribly intrusive protests all are in the media. Members who claimed this have also said that protesters have permits and that these have not been denied or rescinded by the council, so how can anything they are doing be wrong. This is quite misleading.

The 40 Days for Life vigil does have a permit, yes. If members were to read the FOI documents properly and fully they would see that there have been occasions where they have breached conditions of the permit and licence, but that is another matter. The point is that outside the 40 Days for Life vigil, other protesters do not apply for and nor are they granted permits, but they do protest.

Furthermore, not every breach is reported. Indeed, as individual patients and their supporters come in the last thing on their mind, the last thing they want to do with their day, is call the police or the council. It is an undue burden that you put on these people in a very, very difficult and vulnerable time. I note that under the FOI documents the letter that stated, 'I am mindful of the resources required by the South Australia Police and the City of Charles Sturt in the monitoring of compliance with permit conditions and hence I do not report every breach' was left out of the representations of these FOI documents.

You do not need to make a media spectacle of something for it to be real or for it to be recognised as an issue. If we look at police call-outs to the centre—and we know that issues do occur—over the past three years there have been at least 20 police call-outs, the majority of which are coded as 101—Disturbance. The next most common code is 404—Suspect/Vehicle Loitering. Seven of these call-outs have actually happened since I introduced my previous bill for abortion law reform.

That same letter goes on to demonstrate some of the behaviours that people working at or visiting the PAC face that make this bill necessary:

In the last two weeks Pregnancy Advisory Centre has responded to a complaint to the Premier's department about the protesters' presence, responded to the distress experienced by attending ambulance officers who were filmed on a mobile telephone while leaving the site and staff [have] provided clients with support who have reported being verbally harassed and intimidated when entering the premises.

The content of the verbal tirade is incorrect and seditious. Domiciliary Care who own Pregnancy Advisory Centre building have previously reported a male person blowing a trumpet creating a noise hazard and people have wandered to the rear of the complex to peer into the back doors of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

There have of course been other complaints, such as the one where 'A male was under the tree on the opposite side of the road and approached a female in her car, used inappropriate language, accusations and spat at her car.' There was another complaint about two protesters harassing two women who were entering the site. These complaints have been disparaged within this debate. Firstly, I would contend that the FOI is not the full and accurate reflection of the number of complaints, because so many would not be reflected in those FOI documents.

On that note, it was put that somehow the staff members involved in this provision of health care were overreacting with regard to their safety. I reiterate, they have seen a person, who was there to provide them with security, killed. They have seen threats on their lives. They receive correspondence. I have spoken to a particular doctor who is quite expert in this field, nearing retirement. He has that collection of hate mail, of death threats, of threats of violence, and those things, as many of us in this place know, add up over time. They create psychological harm and they serve to deter people from providing the health care that our patients in this state need.

Another claim made was that the bill prohibits discussion of abortion within 150 metres of the abortion clinic or of other hospitals that perform abortions. The Hon. Clare Scriven stated:

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?

The answer is clearly no, and that was a very twisted comprehension of the bill. I note also that the Hon. Clare Scriven went on to say, '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.' That is actually a really salient point, and I would agree with that. The same goes for hospitals that provide abortion services. The honourable member was completely right: people who are seeking other healthcare services are also affected by having to run this gauntlet and they should not have to. Similarly, staff providing a range of care should not have to and they should not face this intimidation just for doing their job.

I note that some claim was made by the Hon. Ms Scriven, as a member of the Labor Party, supporting and advocating for freedom of assembly. She claimed that this bill stops people from having that freedom of assembly. The bill does not say that. The bill does not prohibit the freedom for people to assemble. It says that they cannot assemble in this particular very defined and very small place. The High Court has upheld such a provision and has found that it does not impinge unduly on freedom of speech and other human rights. Furthermore, people are not being prevented from assembling. Indeed, if you look at Queensland, where they now have the safe access zones, they are having a rally in the next few weeks and they are very welcome to.

I note in this place that we are a temple of democracy, but we are afforded protections. People cannot come in here and stop us from doing our jobs, stop us from going about our business. The public gallery is full today and rightfully so. People may well be quietly praying for this bill to fail. People may be quietly praying for me to shut up. They can do so. They are free to do so. This bill not only does not take away the ability for people to pray, it will not shut me up in this place at this time.

I note that in New South Wales the Labor Party had a party vote, a party position on protecting patients and workers alike by supporting safe access zones, and they saw the need to do so. I note that the WA government, a Labor government, is introducing safe access zones and we have the benefits of their discussion paper and their extensive work to support our bill here today.

I note and concur with the WA Labor health minister, Roger Cook, that all patients in Western Australia have the right to safety, privacy and respect when accessing health care and that he could only imagine the distress a patient will experience when they arrive at a clinic to undergo a legal medical procedure and are confronted with a group of protesters. That is a Labor health minister and a Labor government doing the right thing by workers and patients alike. It is sad that we do not have a party vote here from the Labor Party in South Australia, when in other states they have taken that position in recent times.

However, the union has come out strongly today, and I draw members' attention to the email received just this afternoon from the ANMF of South Australia, who are standing up for workers. That email states that the core business of the ANMF SA branch is the representation of their members in all professional, industrial and legal matters relating to nursing, midwifery, health and aged care. They go on to say that they write to express their strong support for the Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill 2019, which is before the Legislative Council today. They state:

We urge you to vote in support of this Bill to respect a woman's right to dignity and privacy when seeking access to abortion services in South Australia.

At its heart, this Bill recognises abortion care is health care and that those needing and providing abortion services require and deserve the same respectful and private environment as applies to all other health care services. Because of the invasive and at times hostile activities of anti-abortion protests outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre in Woodville, it is necessary to legislate to ensure women and staff can access this essential and sensitive health care service without fear, intimidation, harassment or obstruction.

This Bill, which supports safety for both patients and workers, will align South Australia with other Australian states who have legislated to protect their community. The introduction of safe access zones legislation in Victoria, Tasmania, the ACT, the NT, Queensland, and NSW demonstrates governments' commitment to ensuring the right to provide and access health services without hindrance. Western Australia and South Australia remain the only Australian jurisdictions that have not responded to the need for Safe Access Zones around abortion services.

Legislators are supported by Australian opinion polls which demonstrate overwhelming community support for this legislated protection of areas around abortion services.

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.'

They go on to urge the council to support this bill.

I note that many suggestions have been made that people simply go and pray outside of an abortion centre. Apparently, this bill suggests that one should not be able to pray outside of a centre and that the restriction on the freedom to pray is apparently hindered by this bill. To describe what some people do outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre as 'simply praying' is disingenuous and deceitful, and demonstrably untrue.

There is evidence, not just in South Australia but around the world. As I said, if we are the last jurisdiction in this country—we have seen that people are prepared to travel, not just from interstate but also from overseas, to protest around abortion health care. You just need to look at the High Court challenge and the people who took that up. They had crossed state borders to go and protest outside those centres. They were prepared to take their challenge to the High Court, and they will be prepared to come to South Australia to continue to prosecute their beliefs and, obviously, to pray.

The activities in the FOI documents that were not documented by the speakers against the bill both yesterday and today forgot to mention that there was defined and reported inappropriate name-calling: 'child killer' was stated to one client; 'going to the devil's advocate' to another. PAC staff frequently respond to the clients who experience distress, and that distress takes the form of frustration, tearfulness and anger when they are approached by the members of these prayer groups. In fact, one support person was so distraught when approached by the prayer group, he stated, 'I don't know what I would have done if I had not spoken to you'—being the PAC counsellor—'today,' raising the PAC's concerns not just for the patients but also for others.

The timing of this bill and waiting for SALRI have been raised as reasons not to progress. I think there was also an interesting interpretation of the Law Society's point 16, that there may be some benefit in waiting. The Law Society did not urge this place to wait, and the Law Society is not necessarily in the position of ensuring the safety of the citizens of this state when they seek health care, but this council is. We know that this council will soon, in coming months, receive the SALRI report and debate abortion law reform. I hope and pray that it will remove abortion from the criminal code.

But the protection of patients and workers alike in the meantime is our role and responsibility. We have benefited from the SALRI process. I think the member for Hurtle Vale was a little verbal today, but where we did benefit from the process was that we had the submissions that were made to that inquiry and we were able to write to the main proponents to seek their input, so we have benefited in that way from the SALRI process. There is no need to wait to provide protection for patients and workers alike because we have the High Court ruling now which we were waiting on back in December.

My final point is that there were some claims made that it was a little harsh of the member for Hurtle Vale to call into question the work and the particular shop called Reborn. I understand, from some of the complaints that are registered in the FOI you would have seen, that they hand out anti-abortion pamphlets in that shop. However, as the Hon. Clare Scriven pointed out, they have nothing to do with 40 Days for Life or the other groups and, in fact, she is quite right: it is the Genesis Pregnancy centre.

That rang a few bells for me because I remember back in the late nineties and early 2000s that the Genesis Pregnancy advisory centre was the subject of deceptive advertising, particularly in the Yellow Pages and were also the subject of a community affairs legislation committee of the Senate for these disreputable practices because they pretended to offer all three options when a woman sought help and counselling for an unplanned and sometimes unwanted pregnancy, but they did not actually provide the option of abortion and, deceptively, did not present this in the Yellow Pages or in their advertising. So I am not sure that I disagree with the assessment of the member for Hurtle Vale about their practices.

I will go on to address what I am sure will be a very long committee stage in this place here today. We all have our voices and we have a diversity of voices. This is not a pro-choice versus pro-life argument. This is also not a freedom of speech versus right to healthcare argument because as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights quite appropriately and simply affirms, human rights are universal and indivisible. You may have your freedom of speech, but it need not impinge on the right of patients to health care or the right of workers to go about their rightful employment. In doing so, this bill provides an incredibly small, simple and proportionate response. I commend the bill to the council.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 12

Noes 5

Majority 7

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: At this point I note that the Minister for Health yesterday tabled a document, and that will certainly be the topic of a conversation between the houses and may see some small amendments made in the other place. We will have, I am assured by the Marshall government, the SALRI report by the time this matter is debated in the other place, but knowing the submissions, we have crafted this bill to the best of our understanding of the input and feedback that that provided.

One particular area that I know will be the subject of some reform, and an amendment to be put up by the member for Badcoe most likely, will be around ensuring categorically the freedom of press. Certainly the bill does not currently exclude press freedom, but we will seek to categorically ensure that in the other place.

I just want to thank the very many members who have had conversations, provided input and who today will move amendments, addressing in particular the concerns of the Hon. Rob Lucas and the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, who has some amendment around that. While the amendment is being put up by the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, it has been a conversation with many parties who came to the table. I thank those who have come to the table to have conversations, and I look forward to the committee stage.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Could the honourable member who has moved the bill indicate whether she is in broad support of the proposal from the Hon. Mr Wade in relation to the extension of the protection zone to services beyond abortion services, to which he spoke in his contribution. Without the words necessarily being agreed at this stage, is that a principle that the mover of the legislation is indicating her preparedness to support?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That was in my original bill in terms of the extension of the ability for the 150 metres to be extended. If you look at safe access zones around the country, typically they are 150 metres. Here in South Australia we specifically have in our legislation the clinic at Woodville, because that is where the majority of abortions in this state are currently performed. There are particular situations in the ACT where they only have a 50-metre proviso, because similarly they had a single centre.

In the submissions made to SALRI it was suggested that we may need to slightly extend at times the area from 150 metres, given the South Australian situation. It certainly was not a conversation I had with the Hon. Stephen Wade as Minister for Health, or in his role as a private member; it was from the various submissions put to SALRI.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: The other question I have is that the member evidently has indicated that another member in another place may well look to protect the freedom of the press in relation to these exclusion zones, and I gather from her comments that she may be supportive of that. One of the issues I raised was, in essence, the freedom of members of parliament to be able to express themselves.

I did not raise the issue of whether it infringes parliamentary privilege, for example, because it probably does not, but in essence is there a discussion going on with the member and others in relation to the issue of members of parliament, but in particular ministers for health, shadow ministers for health or minor party spokespersons for health—anyone who might be interested in it—being able freely to express their views if members of the media are able freely to express their views within an exclusion zone?

If members of the media are able to freely express their views within an exclusion zone, is the member interested in catering for the circumstance of a duly elected member of parliament being able to express their views in a similarly protected way as members of the media might?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member has misunderstood the idea of press freedom. The press are not there to express their views. They are there to document and so some concerns were raised around the filming provisions, for example. In regard to that, I have undertaken to continue conversations with the member for Badcoe, who is quite keen and we will probably consult with free TV to ensure that their legal expertise is taken advantage of.

In regard to the idea that somehow this bill will impinge on the ability of members of parliament to go about their duties, if a member of parliament were to go and protest at an abortion clinic and seek to harass and intimidate members of the public from accessing that healthcare service, then as an individual they might find that they have to stay outside the 150-metre zone.

If they are going there to cut a ribbon, visit a friend, do their parliamentary duties, go to a car parking protest, which has been the main one raised, go to protest health cuts—again that has been raised in the conversations—I think there have been conversations to address those particular cases to ensure, with absolute clarity, that that freedom of speech, if you like, will be protected. But, if the member chooses to go and stop people, with sidewalk counselling, from seeking lawful health care, then they will find no particular privilege attached to their actions above any other member of the public.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Clearly, given the views that I have expressed about anyone threatening, intimidating or harassing a person, I would not be supporting that a member of parliament be entitled to do that. For example, the member's bill at paragraph (d) provides: 'to communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion'.

So if a minister for health or a shadow minister for health were to give a press conference at a particular health facility or, indeed, a hospital or private hospital, about either improving abortion services or indicating a change to abortion services, an issue in relation to abortion services generally, he or she would be covered by paragraph (d), which is a prohibited behaviour, which means communicating or attempting to communicate with the person about the subject of abortion.

No-one is suggesting that a member of parliament should be entitled to threaten, intimidate or harass another person. That is a strawperson argument, to use the politically correct phrase. My issue is essentially in relation to an ability for a member of parliament, perhaps someone who holds office or not, expressing a view in relation to abortion or abortion services within the prohibited area.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I invite the member to read the bill in its totality rather than in that particular line that he has focused on. In fact, there would be no prohibition for a minister going and declaring that perhaps the government is going to extend abortion services to The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, or ensuring that all hospitals in this state that receive public funding should provide the full reproductive health medical procedures that were similar to a Shorten Labor opposition federal election promise. None of that is prohibited by this bill.

Talking about abortion is not prohibited by this bill. Intimidating, harassing, threatening and creating a nuisance in that way is part of the prohibitive behaviours that will then necessitate the ability for somebody who wishes to make a complaint, who is not a willing participant in that interaction, who is not supportive of being part of that interaction, being able to make a complaint to the police, and then the police will ask that person to move on.

If the person then fails to move on and continues to engage in the prohibited behaviours, that is when this bill comes into play. That is why this bill is so proportionate. It provides avenues for the policing of these situations, where they are inappropriate, but where people are going about their daily business, where people are seeking health care—and of course people will be talking about abortion within these safe access zones, but if they are not doing so in a way that is prohibited behaviour, they will not fall within the remit of this particular piece of legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to follow up from that, given that the bill as currently drafted says that 'to communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion' is prohibited behaviour, that seems to run contrary to what the honourable member has just said. Whilst it is also within the bill that a police officer may direct a person to leave the health access zone, it certainly does not say that that will be the outcome if someone is communicating about abortion. They are two separate things. So I am seeking further clarity as to how someone communicating about abortion—speaking about abortion, in fact, in perhaps the way the honourable Treasurer has indicated—would not be caught by this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The member asks whether or not speaking about abortion will somehow require police to come along and stop that person and direct them to leave this zone.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: That's what you said.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I cannot understand the heckling if you are going to mumble. If you want to rise to your feet and add additional commentary, I am happy to sit down and wait till you make that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My understanding was that that was what the honourable member said—that if someone was talking about abortion, the police would ask them to move on. I was making the point that it is an option for the police to ask them to move on, but as I read the bill they would have already committed an offence.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The member misreads the bill.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I do not believe that is the case, because proposed section 48D—Certain behaviour prohibited in health access zones, provides:

A person who engages in prohibited behaviour in a health access zone is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

A prohibited behaviour is 'to communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion'. That is what a prohibited behaviour is, amongst other things. Then 48D, under the member's bill, says:

Certain behaviour...

…A person who engages in prohibited behaviour…is guilty of an offence.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

So I do not believe the member understands her bill. The prohibited behaviour is clearly defined. The offence with imprisonment of up to two years is clearly defined. She can refer to 48E, which is a police officer directing people to leave various areas, but the definition of prohibited behaviour and the offence of engaging in prohibited behaviour is clear in the drafting.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: If I could just say something in relation to that as well, one of the amendments that I am proposing, which is amendment No. 2, clarifies some of those concerns that you are raising.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: In what way?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Well, if you read it, it says—I will read it for you:

(1) The object of this Part is to ensure the safety, wellbeing, privacy and dignity of people accessing abortion services, as well as health professionals and other people providing abortion services.

(2) To avoid doubt, nothing in this Part prevents a person from—

(a) lawfully engaging in behaviour outside of a health access zone; or

(b) engaging in lawful protest, or otherwise engaging in lawful behaviour within, a health access zone in relation to a matter other than abortion.

At the end of the day the only people who should be at an abortion clinic are those who work there and those who are accessing those services. If politicians go along for a launch, for a ribbon-cutting ceremony, to forward more funds and grants, that is not within the scope of this bill. It does not affect those activities. Just by way of clarification.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I seek further clarification. Is speaking about abortion communicating about abortion?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: It is when you protest, harangue and intimidate people, yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That was not my question. My question was: is speaking about abortion communicating about abortion? I would have thought the answer is fairly obviously yes, but I would like clarification since that seems to be in dispute.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes. So if speaking about abortion is communicating about abortion, it is a prohibited behaviour. Therefore, the examples that the Hon. Mr Lucas raises appear to be offences under this act.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The mere act of having a conversation about abortion does not provide the penalties within this act. The Hon. Ms Scriven would understand also that communicating about abortion could, and of course must, be part of the processes of the health care provided to ensure that the provision of abortion is made. Those activities do not fall under the remit of this legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Why?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This pre-empts that the member seeks to move an amendment to exclude the line about communication about abortion. The thing is that no other health services attract the sort of protest and the sort of behaviour that happens outside abortion health clinics. That is why we have some provisions here that the police can use, when appropriate, when called upon, to stop intimidation, harassment, threatening, obstructing, recording and, in some cases, communicating where it is done in order to impinge upon a person's right to health care.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I fully understand that is the stated intent of the bill. What we need to know is: what does the bill actually do? So far, there is nothing to suggest that communicating, speaking, about abortion within the 150-metre zone will not in and of itself make an offence. That is what I think we need to be clear on, not what the stated intent is but what the bill actually says.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I draw the member's attention to the entirety of the bill and section 48E(2):

(2) A police officer may, if the police officer reasonably suspects that a person or persons are engaging, or are about to engage, in prohibited behaviour in a health access zone, direct any or all persons within the health access zone to immediately leave the health access zone (whether or not the person or persons to whom the direction is given are engaging, or are about to engage, in prohibited behaviour).

It goes on to state:

(3) However, a direction under subsection (2) will be taken not to apply to—

(a) a person employed, or otherwise providing services, at protected premises to which the health access zone relates; or

(b) a person who has had, or is to have, an abortion, or be provided other services, at protected premises to which the health access zone relates; or

(c) a person genuinely accompanying a person referred to in a preceding paragraph; or

(d) any other person of a kind declared by the regulations to be included in the ambit of this subsection.

I note that the honourable member wishes to delete that reference for the ability of the minister to create regulations as well. She actually seeks to strip the bill and make it far more prohibitive with her tabled amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The section that the honourable member has just read out does not affect section 48D(1):

(1) A person who engages in prohibited behaviour—

which, we have established, includes speaking about abortion—

in a health access zone is guilty of an offence.

The parts the honourable member read out, in terms of who the exclusions were, apply only to a direction given by a police officer. So they are two separate issues. The issue is if you speak about abortion within the zone you are committing an offence—beginning and end.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member does not support this bill and does not seem to understand consent. Nobody is going to be calling the police to use the provisions and protections of this bill unless somebody is communicating with them about abortion against their will, without their consent.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.