Bills

Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee.

(Continued from 31 October 2019.)

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a number of questions for the mover of the bill that relate to the overall bill and I may have additional ones, clause by clause, as we go through. Could the honourable member advise how many times there have been prosecutions in regard to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre for the behaviour that she alleges is going to be fixed by this bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, there were two problems there. I could not actually hear what the honourable member was saying, and I understand that we are now in private members' business and that this is a conscience vote, so I am wondering if I recognise the member in her chair or in another person's chair, where she is sitting assuming Leader of the Opposition status. Is she speaking on behalf of the opposition today, or is she speaking in her own right as an individual private member on a conscience vote and, if so, why is she not sitting in her own chair?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): On the issue of volume, I would agree that it was difficult to hear the Hon. Ms Scriven. I think maybe her microphone was not turned on at that time. On the issue of her seat, I think that was resolved yesterday. Having just conferred with the Clerk, my understanding is that the member is able to sit in that seat if it is not objected to by the individual who normally occupies that seat—that is, the Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Kyam Maher—but it is a conscience vote, so I presume the Hon. Ms Scriven will be speaking on her own behalf.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you, Chair. Has the Hon. Kyam Maher indicated that he is supportive of the member sitting in his chair?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): He has not indicated that he is not, which is sufficient, I understand.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Sorry, he has not indicated that he is not? Does that mean that there has been no indication whatsoever?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Yes, that is right.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Is the honourable member who is missing from his own chair today aware that there is another member sitting in his chair?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): I draw the member's attention to standing order 167, which states:

Every Member desiring to speak shall rise uncovered, in their place or in the place of some other Member who does not object thereto, and address the President…

He has not objected; therefore, the Hon. Ms Scriven is able to sit there.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, I would say that he has not been given the opportunity to object, and I have certainly objected to the member assuming this role of Leader of the Opposition, which she is not actually currently entitled to, and sitting in another member's chair. Shall I go and sit in one of the government members' chairs so I can hear the honourable member's mumblings more clearly—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: If they don't object.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —if they don't object?

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): In this case, the Hon. Kyam Maher has not objected. There is no objection before the chamber, so I indicate that we will proceed with the debate. The Hon. Ms Scriven, can I ask you to repeat your question, please, because it was difficult to hear initially.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly I can, but I am just wondering, given the level of debate we have just had, would the member prefer that we adjourn the debate until we can seek support from the Hon. Kyam Maher?

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Seconded.

The ACTING CHAIR (Hon. D.G.E. Hood): Just before you answer, the Hon. Ms Franks, there was no motion put to adjourn the debate, so there is no need to second, the Hon. Mr Wortley, but I will allow the Hon. Ms Franks to respond.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Right, let's get on with the business at hand then rather than ridiculous points. My question to the honourable member, the mover of this bill, is: how many times have there been prosecutions for the type of behaviour outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre that she alleges will be fixed by this bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This bill is actually put before us, and I would note, from the freedom of information requests and previous media statements on this issue, that police have found that their powers are wanting. So prosecutions are actually rendered quite difficult until we have specific laws, which is why we have a bill here today to allow for these behaviours to be appropriately addressed by the police, to give the police force in this state the tools they need to address these behaviours.

These are the tools that they have in New South Wales, the tools that they have in Victoria, the tools that they have in the ACT, the tools that they have in Tasmania, the tools that they have in the Northern Territory, the tools that they have in Queensland, the tools that they will soon have in WA with a Labor government bill to effect these protections for women seeking abortions, the tools that this council should give our police to address these inappropriate, harassing, intimidating and offensive behaviours. I look forward to a prosecution in the near future, should we pass this legislation through this parliament.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I draw the member's attention to the Summary Offences Act 1953, which refers to disorderly or offensive conduct or language, behaving in a disorderly or offensive manner, and then defines 'offensive' to include threatening, abusive or insulting. For the record, could the honourable member advise how many prosecutions there have been for behaviour outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: To my knowledge, there have been none. That is why we have this piece of legislation: to enable this behaviour to be appropriately addressed by police. I draw the member's attention to the Law Society advice given to SALRI on these safe access zones. I note that that advice of 31 May this year—so we have been waiting some time to have this debate—notes that:

Under section 7 of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA), a person who in a public place behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner is guilty of an offence.

The Law Society continues:

However, while this provision may address some of the unwanted behaviours exhibited in the vicinity of termination facilities, it is unlikely to provide complete and adequate protection.

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

The short answer for the member—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is a matter of conjecture.

The CHAIR: That is unparliamentary, the Hon. Ms Franks. You need to withdraw.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The short answer to the question—

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mr Chairman, has the honourable member withdrawn?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Withdrawn.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The member is quite strict on protocol when it comes to her title of 'honourable' but not so much when it comes to her title of 'Deputy Leader of the Opposition' in this place and assuming the seat of the Leader of the Opposition in this place. In answer to the member's question, the Law Society has recommended this very legislation. There have been no prosecutions because they are too difficult to take up. This behaviour is unfortunate and unwelcome in South Australia, but unfortunately our parliament has yet to act to provide these protections and these provisions for SAPOL to provide protections to healthcare workers and patients and their supporters alike.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the honourable member consider looking at a person entering an abortion clinic to be harassment and intimidation?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the honourable member consider standing in the vicinity of an abortion facility to be harassment and intimidation?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Not necessarily.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the honourable member explain what she means by 'not necessarily'? It is surely either a yes or a no.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: It means not necessarily.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Does the honourable member consider praying outside an abortion facility to be harassment and intimidation?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Not necessarily, but I would say that we have a great support for freedom of religion in this country. We also have a great support for freedom from religion, and should a person be praying in a way that is intimidating, harassing or threatening to somebody seeking a healthcare service or delivering that healthcare service, in that case I would find it so. In another case, I perhaps would not, but it would not be me policing this, it would be the South Australian police force, who would have received a call and a complaint, who would then assess the situation, given the specific laws that they need to do their job to provide protection and safety for workers and patients alike. They would then have a law fit for purpose to follow.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Is the bill designed to prevent quiet prayer near the Pregnancy Advisory Centre or any other facility providing abortions?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: What does 'near' mean?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Within 150 metres.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If within the 150 metres that would be designed to be providing that safe access to health care or that safe workplace for a healthcare worker was found by a patient, a supporter or a healthcare worker to be a threat to their safety, and should they call the police and the police assess the situation to be of a such a nature that it was threatening their safety and ask that person to leave, and then that person refuses to leave, that is when this law would be enacted. Should the person who is a patient or a worker not feel threatened, they would not call the police. Should the police arrive and feel that the situation is not threatening, they would not ask the person to leave the 150-metre safe access zone. The law would not apply in those situations.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Could the honourable member outline what kind of prayer is a threat to safety?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Chair, that question is quite offensive. I think the honourable member is playing politics with this area. Some people may stand outside of an abortion clinic and pretend they are there for pure purposes. As I have said, perhaps the person involved in that situation, through no fault of their own, has found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. Perhaps the pregnancy is not viable. Perhaps they have an ectopic pregnancy.

If they find that somebody is standing in their path, within 150 metres of the health care they are seeking to access that day, and it is upsetting, intimidating and hindering their lawful, human right to access that health care, then this law will provide them with some recourse and protection. If a person is praying within that 150-metre zone and does not offend a healthcare worker, a patient or their supporter, this law will never be applied.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was using the words of the honourable member herself. She talked about when prayer 'is a threat to safety'. Hence, I am asking the question: what sort of prayer is a threat to safety? The honourable member went on to talk about standing in their path, which is a totally different issue. I ask again, using the member's own words, what kind of prayer is a 'threat' to someone's safety?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If the Hon. Clare Scriven does not believe that there are situations in which people feel threatened outside of abortion clinics, where one person, two, 10 or 20 people are praying with placards, plastic foetuses and signs, and hurling hateful abuse—if she believes that sort of behaviour should be tolerated in our society, then she should simply come right out and say so.

In terms of saying that this is somehow banning prayer, that is a furphy. That is a straw man argument. This does not ban prayer. People pray for many different reasons. Patients entering that healthcare facility may well be praying for their own sakes. However, if somebody is using religion to cover harassment and intimidation, this law will provide a remedy to that situation and will enable the police to be called to make that judgement. We trust the police with these judgements in those situations.

The alternative is that we see what has happened in the UK and the US, where they do not have safe access zones. This has certainly been a real problem in the UK, where they need a team of supporters and volunteers to escort patients to access health care. This team will cover the identity of the person who is accessing the health care and escort them inside to protect them from the harassment that is a trademark of organised antiabortion campaigners. This is unfortunately increasing worldwide and unfortunately increasing in South Australia.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think I can interpret, from what the honourable member is saying, that it is not the intention of this bill to stop prayer in front of an abortion facility. The honourable member referred to placards and models of unborn babies—or, as she calls them, 'foetuses'—and the UK situation. I am talking about the situation in South Australia. If people want to pray in front of the abortion clinic, or any facility providing abortions, can I confirm that it is not the honourable member's intention to prevent that prayer?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I indicate that this legislation exists in every other state and territory, except WA and South Australia. It is not my intention specifically to dictate anything through this legislation. It is my intention to afford patients and healthcare workers protections from behaviours that they find harassing, threatening and intimidating. Those behaviours may take many forms, and in some cases they may take the form of prayer, but in terms of banning prayer, this bill does not do that. This bill does not, in and of itself, ban prayer.

There is no way that you can interpret it to do so, unless that behaviour then becomes the subject of a person feeling threatened, intimidated and harassed to the point where they call the police and the police make a judgement call that that person's assessment of a situation that they are being threatened, intimidated or harassed is a valid one and the police then ask the person who has had the complaint made about them to move on.

If the person refuses to move on, or is moved on and returns within 24 hours to repeat the same behaviours, then they fall foul of this piece of legislation and only then. It does not stop them praying. It does not stop people praying; however, it does create a very proportionate, measured and specific tool for the police to employ to protect the health and safety of patients and workers.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the confirmation that it is not intended to stop prayer within 150 metres of an abortion clinic or other provider. I would draw the member's attention to what I think is an error in what she has just said. She said that someone must engage in prohibited behaviour and be asked to move on by the police and refuse to do so in order to fall foul of this legislation. I think she is incorrect. There are two separate offences within this bill that are not dependent upon each other, so I think it is worth noting that the honourable member does not appear to understand her own bill. I move on to some further questions.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the member please clarify which particular clause she is referring to in her assertions?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. The prohibited behaviour is in clause 3—Insertion of Part 5A, which then moves on to 48D:

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

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years.

That is a standalone offence, separate to 48E—Police officer may direct person to leave health access zone.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Quite simply, a prohibited behaviour has to be occurring for the police to be called. For the police to be given the option not of an immediate fine, not of an immediate penalty, but asking the person to move on is a proportionate and appropriate response.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: I raised this in our earlier debate. I confess I am not a lawyer, but that is certainly not my reading of the legislation. My reading of the legislation is, as the Hon. Ms Scriven has just outlined, that 48D does impose an offence for someone who engages in prohibited behaviour in that zone, with a maximum penalty of two years. Prohibited behaviour is defined in the definition, as has been to referred to earlier.

I accept what the Hon. Ms Franks is saying that there are other offences, that is, if you are asked to leave and you do not and you return when you are told not to they are offences as well, but I respectfully do not agree with her interpretation that you have not committed an offence merely by the fact of having engaged in prohibited behaviour in a particular health access zone.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have been through this with parliamentary counsel. The advice I have from parliamentary counsel is the way I have outlined it is the appropriate way. If the members know more than parliamentary counsel, then they will vote accordingly.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the mover of this bill indicate how this will impact on offers of support to women who are considering their options with an unplanned pregnancy, whether that be material support, information about parenting payments, for example, or information about adoption options?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: There are many organisations that do very fine work with those who are expecting and those who have children. If they do that work outside an abortion health service in a way that causes the person that they are offering that support to to feel threatened, harassed and intimidated, they may well not comply with our expectations as a parliament, should we pass this legislation. If they are not seen to be a threat, there will never be a complaint to the police made.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Just to clarify: it is entirely possible that someone offering assistance to a woman, letting that person know about their options in terms of support should they wish to continue their pregnancy, could commit an offence under this act simply by doing so.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Yes, it is, actually, because some people will go and stand in the way of somebody seeking a health service. They will travel across state borders, as we saw in the High Court challenge. The people who took that High Court case up had travelled from interstate to stand outside pregnancy clinics in other states than those where they lived. We know people will travel from the US to Australia to protest outside the provision of health care which is around reproductive rights for women. So should they do so in a way that is seen to be threatening and intimidating and to fit the definition of the prohibited behaviours and have the police turn up, such is their behaviour, then they may well find themselves guilty of an offence.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I was wondering if I could ask the honourable member: I understood her to say that she understands that protesters might travel interstate to protest. Considering the number of jurisdictions she indicated are putting in place safe access zones, do you think that South Australia being the odd state out might actually attract an increase in protests?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Absolutely, and I did make this point in a previous contribution. In fact the 40 Days for Life campaign, with the stated objection of closing down abortion clinics, with the stated objection, on their website, of stopping people working in these healthcare centres, of closing them down, only has one target in Australia. It is a global movement. It has little dots right across the globe. The only one that they have in Australia is in South Australia, in Adelaide, in Woodville. That is the target of their global efforts, and they encourage their supporters to go to Woodville. It will only increase, particularly if WA soon moves. They are the only other jurisdiction at the moment that does not prohibit, with a safe access zone, this sort of behaviour that seeks to stop people having abortions.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member who has moved this bill referred to the Law Society correspondence. Could she explain to the chamber why she has ignored the views of the Law Society, which wrote that:

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.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: With great delight. The benefit in waiting is far outweighed by the point the Hon. Stephen Wade just made, in that we now have a target on South Australia for these types of behaviours and these types of protests. We know that the SALRI report has now been delivered to the Attorney-General and that the government will make a response to that in December. We know that we are looking at embarking upon abortion law reform in this state. We have 50 years out of date laws that currently hinder best practice and access to health care across this state.

We know that we have had, every single Wednesday since last December, protesters on the steps of Parliament House. We know that we have just had a 40 Days for Life protest outside Woodville, and we know that there is another one coming for Lent next year. Should parliament not pass this legislation prior to that? We may well find ourselves debating abortion law reform without the protections that previous jurisdictions have installed prior to having that debate.

In New South Wales they quite rightly had this debate about safe access zones first, to ensure and guarantee that the protesters were not outside any pregnancy advisory clinics while they had their debates, in recent months, about abortion law reform itself. They were right on the steps of Parliament House or in public parks, but not outside, impeding an individual woman seeking to access health care.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the honourable member advise the chamber of how many proceedings there have been for breach of the permit provided to 40 Days for Life for their regular prayer vigils outside the front of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could the honourable member please define what she means by 'regular' permit access? Which permits does she mean, in particular?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am referring to the ones that the honourable member has mentioned, which, as I understand it, are prior to Lent and are some time in spring each year. It is my understanding that these permits are undertaken twice a year for 40 days.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: These protests have gone on for some years. They have increased in occurrence, in regularity and in size in recent years. Indeed, the campaign of 40 Days for Life, which I previously noted, was disendorsed by the archdioceses of Adelaide and Port Pirie until contracts were signed to regulate the behaviour of that particular group. Those contracts, I think, have had some ameliorating effects, and the concerns that the Catholic Church had expressed were about some of the behaviours that we simply do not want to see in South Australia.

Not all groups will be like 40 Days for Life. There is Abort67 in the UK, which may well come here. One of their practices is to stand outside abortion clinics and Facebook live stream people coming in and people going out. Do we really want to see that sort of behaviour in South Australia, and will a permit be applied for and gained? One of the misnomers here is that somehow a permit provides protection. A permit does provide some protection in that you have somebody to complain to should things go awry, but you still do not have a fit for purpose law to be applied should things go awry.

You also do not necessarily have people applying for permits. 40 Days for Life applies for those permits in that twice a year time frame, but I am informed by those who work inside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre that, week in and week out, with the other protests, no permits are ever applied for and that no knowledge is really gained by the people—the health workers and the patients—inside that clinic about the nature of the people protesting outside that clinic.

We do not really have any guarantees that a permit protects anyone, other than allowing police to move them out of the approximately 75-metre zone that happily coincides with the car park, currently, where staff, in particular, park their cars in such a way as to provide themselves with the protection that this parliament has so far failed to afford patients and healthcare workers.

We know that permits are used by council as a tool for a situation that they have found themselves having to police. We also know that council has indicated that they would like a fit for purpose law to be passed by the parliament so that they do not have to rely on this permit system that has been cobbled together without great powers to enforce appropriate behaviours but simply to be able to be pushing people slightly further away from the door of a pregnancy clinic. A permit system is an abject failure of this parliament to provide those protections for workers and patients alike.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The current by-law to enable a permit to be issued is that a person must not on local government land annoy or unreasonably interfere with another person's use of the land. I ask again, given the honourable member talks about these so-called protests being around this some years, how many proceedings have there been for breach of permit?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do not think the permit system is an appropriate system and it falls far short of providing protections and a fit for purpose law. That is why we are currently debating a fit for purpose law, not a permit system.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the honourable member answer how many proceedings have been issued for breach of permit?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The question is not actually relevant to this piece of legislation.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Given that there are numerous allegations flying around this place that people are being obstructed from entering, that other behaviour is happening, which would clearly be in breach of a permit which says that one cannot annoy or unreasonably interfere with any other person's use of the land, the discussion of a permit and any breach is entirely relevant. Clearly, there have been no proceedings for breach of permit, and the honourable member does not want to admit the fact. There have been no revocations of permits because of any breaches. That is the fact and that is clearly what the honourable member does not want to acknowledge.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I must admit I am not familiar with the permit system, but taking the Hon. Ms Scriven's rendition of the condition, if it says that your permit is to be on a piece of land and not interfere with any other person's use of that land, I hardly see it is relevant. I visited the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville. I saw the protest. It is on the other side of the road. It is on another piece of land altogether. It would not fit the definition of interfering with a person's use of the land that they are sitting on. What the Hon. Tammy Franks' legislation is trying to addresses is the proximity to another piece of land inhibiting people's access to health. So I certainly do not see how the condition on a permit provides any protection to health workers or people using the facility.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I thank the honourable minister for leading us to a point, which is that those who go to pray outside of the clinic under the 40 Days for Life banner are in fact on the opposite side of the road and quite a distance up the road from the entry to the clinic, so there is therefore no possibility, if they are complying with the permit—which clearly they are, since there have been no breaches or allegations or proceedings for breaches—of preventing anyone entering the Pregnancy Advisory Clinic. Could the honourable member who moved this bill outline what input she sought from anyone who may have found the presence of people outside the clinic, who have offered support to women going in, helpful? Who has she spoken with? Has she sought to speak with anyone who has found the offering of support outside the clinic at Woodville to be helpful?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That actually draws me to some of the claims made by the honourable member in her second reading contribution. I would like the honourable member to explain two of the situations that she outlined that certainly raise some really serious concerns about what I think is a fine health institution in South Australia: the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. In the first example, the Hon. Clare Scriven outlined the case of:

A 20-year-old woman said that she agonised over her decision to have an abortion, and then when she was at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre she had second thoughts. She verbalised this to the nurse and was told it was too late and that she had to go through with the procedure.

In that case, did the Hon. Clare Scriven counsel the woman to make a complaint through APRA or the other relevant health authorities? What advice did she give this woman and what lengths did she go to to ascertain the facts? We had healthcare workers listening to this who completely dispute that this would happen in the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

I go on to the second example given. The Hon. Clare Scriven made a contribution to this place, outlining that:

There was an older woman who says that she was pushed into having an abortion by three other significant people in her life. She was taken to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and was so upset that the procedure was postponed. She was then taken back a week later and was still very upset. She said she was taken wailing to the operating theatre, where she was basically told to be quiet.

Can the member outline what measures she has taken to address, if these claims are true, quite inappropriate provision of health care in this state?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Before moving to questions that the mover of this bill wants to ask me, could she perhaps answer the questions that I have asked her?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have actually worked in the women's and human rights sector in the community services sector for most of my working life. I have worked for Amnesty International and I have worked for the YWCA, in particular. In both of those roles in South Australia, I have had longstanding involvement with the women's services sector and the human rights sector and I have, for a very long time, been informed by those groups about the fact that our abortion health care in this state is subject to these protests and is subject to laws that fail women.

I have had many conversations over several decades. Indeed, I remember some of those conversations were first sparked back in 2002, when the ACT, through the work of the YWCA and other women's groups, removed abortion from their criminal code. The work is ongoing. It includes, of course, the work to ensure access to abortion through the various senate committee work that I outlined previously.

In all of those, I have had experience in supporting witnesses to provide information to senate hearings. As a young women's program manager at the YWCA dealing with a range of young women's issues, this was ongoing and pressing as a concern and raised in many different situations in very many advocacy forms, as well.

I am not doing this just because I am a member of parliament now and we have hit a particular point of time. This has been decades in the making. We have left women in this state with inadequate access to reproductive health care and with inadequate access to the protections that they deserve and are entitled to as part of their human rights. It is part of our ensuring that they have access to the health care that they need at the time that they need it and in a way that they can access it.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: To the mover, in all those years of discussions that you have had, particularly with health professionals—I take it that you have had more than most of us—have you received feedback of instances where support or assistance was being offered to women trying to access these procedures as opposed to threats, intimidation or harassment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have certainly heard many complaints about the protesters. Before the permit system and the car park car arrangement system was provided, it was far worse for a short period of time and required that particular, I think, quite ingenious solution. I also remember the gardeners and the council, I have been informed, would put blood and bone in the garden outside just to keep the protesters that little bit further away. Should we really be relying on gardeners putting blood and bone down outside pregnancy advisory centres to keep protesters, their prayers and their plastic foetuses away from people who are accessing health care?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I note that the honourable member has referred to it being an ingenious solution in terms of the car parking and how much it has improved, which does lead one to question why she thinks this is still necessary; however, she appears perhaps not to have remembered what my question was. My question was not what her employment background was before entering parliament. My question was: did she seek input from anyone who may have found the presence of people outside an abortion clinic offering them support and found that offer helpful? Did she seek any of that information?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did not have to go looking for it: it came to me. When I was at the YWCA, the complaints came to us. When I was at Amnesty International, the complaints came to us. When I was part of the Women's Services Network, the complaints came to us. Now that I am a member of parliament who has advocated for the decriminalisation of abortion, believe me, the complaints come to us.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am wondering if there is something wrong with my microphone because I have not asked about seeking out complaints or otherwise. I have asked the honourable member: did she try to find out whether some women have found it helpful to be offered support outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre? Did she seek out any of the people who have said that they have a beautiful baby, a lovely toddler or a child of three or four years old because they were offered support outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre? Did she seek any of these people, any of this information?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: These people who have spoken to the Hon. Clare Scriven have not spoken to me, unsurprisingly. That is why I asked her today, and I will repeat my question: with regard to the 20-year-old woman who complained about her treatment at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre—when she had second thoughts, verbalised this to a nurse and was told that it was 'too late' and that she had to go through with the procedure—that person did not come to me. That person went to the Hon. Clare Scriven, according to her second reading contribution.

I ask: what did the Hon. Clare Scriven do when presented with that information? I also ask what the Hon. Clare Scriven did when she was presented with the information about the older woman who was taken wailing into an operating theatre and basically told to be quiet. If those people had come to me as a member of parliament, I would have sought a complaints process to take up their complaints about inadequate health care. I ask the honourable member if she did the same.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure whether someone who is not moving the bill has to answer questions, but I am happy to do so. I am not moving an amendment, as the honourable member is saying I am; however, I am happy to do so.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! Allow the member to speak.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If anyone brings an issue to me, I certainly listen. Often, it is more a matter of comforting them than it is immediately telling them to go to the police, a complaints body, or something like that. I have encouraged a number of women to go to the relevant authorities and place complaints or other documents outlining their experiences. One thing that we have all agreed on in this chamber is that seeking an abortion or having an abortion can be a very traumatic experience. It is not for me to tell these women, who are experiencing extreme trauma, extreme regret and often post-abortion grief, which some members in this chamber claim does not exist despite the women saying that this has ruined their lives—

The Hon. C. Bonaros: I don't think anyone has said that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think you will find that the Hon. Ms Franks has said that. If I am incorrect about that, I will be happy to correct the record.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A point of order, Chair: it is not parliamentary to speak on behalf of other members of this place. You speak in this place on behalf of yourself, but you do not assume the intents or reasonings of other members. That is in the standing orders; I can find it if you like. I ask the honourable member to withdraw from claiming that she speaks on behalf of us all.

The CHAIR: I do not think the honourable member was going there, as far as I understand what the honourable member was saying. The honourable member was indicating that that was her understanding of what other members have said. That may or may not be correct but, the Hon. Ms Scriven, please go on and be mindful of what the Hon. Ms Franks is objecting to.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. My understanding was I was referring to statements made in this place that would be recorded in Hansard. What I was saying is that I will encourage women who are experiencing extreme trauma following an abortion to report it to authorities, but I fully understand that it can often be far too traumatic and far too upsetting to actually go through that. I would be hopeful that anyone here would understand that because they acknowledge that abortions can be extremely traumatic and devastating to women's lives.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Given the discussion that has just taken place, I think we deserve a bit more of an explanation in relation to the two cases that have been outlined. The Hon. Clare Scriven raised those in her second reading speech. She has a position on this bill. The questions today are supposed to assist us in forming our positions on this bill, skewing those decisions one way or another or forming those decisions one way or another. So if, indeed, two people did make those allegations and they were put on the record in this place and recorded in Hansard, and they are serious allegations, then I for one would like confirmation of the fact that those two individuals did speak to the Hon. Ms Scriven and provide the information that she has provided in Hansard.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: What confirmation is the honourable member seeking?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I would like confirmation about the two cases that the Hon. Tammy Franks has referred to: the one woman who was forced into an abortion and the other woman who was taken to an operating procedure room wailing.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am asking what form the honourable member is seeking this information in. Does she want me to drag the women in here?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I want an answer now. We are here. We are debating the bill. These are allegations that have been raised in this chamber. They form part of this debate, so I would like a response about them here so that I can take those into consideration when making my decision on this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will ask again: what format is the honourable member seeking? Is she asking me to bring the women into the chamber? It is just not clear to me what she is asking for.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I am asking for confirmation that you have spoken to those women and that they have made those allegations to you. If you have not, then I would like to know where those two cases came from.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I see. You are asking me to say that these two cases exist and they have spoken to me; is that correct?

The Hon. C. BONAROS: No, I am asking you to confirm: have you had a discussion with two women who underwent procedures along the lines that you have outlined in your second reading speech?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: Was any action taken in relation to either of those two matters after they were raised with you?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I believe I have just answered that question. I comforted the women. I encourage anyone in that situation or a similar situation to consider going to authorities and lodging a complaint. I have a number of other situations of women whose experiences have been far from ideal; however, I cannot force them to take those complaints to authorities, and I understand fully why that would be. I am not quite sure what else the honourable member would like.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Just seeking further clarification from the Hon. Clare Scriven, how long ago did these instances occur and how long ago were you advised of them in person by the individuals concerned?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would think it was about 3½ years ago for the first one, and probably about 2½ years ago for the other. However, I do not take notes of every conversation that I have. I would remind honourable members that I was not a member of parliament at that time, so that is the closest, to my recollection.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We did ask the honourable member whether she had taken these cases to appropriate authorities in terms of making complaints or, I will add now, ascertaining their veracity. She has pointed to the trauma and grief that are often associated with these situations, and that trauma and grief can be for very many reasons. There can be trauma and grief, absolutely, for somebody who has an abortion. There can also be trauma and grief for somebody who is unable to access reproductive health care and an abortion. There can be trauma and grief for somebody who is raped. They can be somebody who is the subject of sexual abuse.

There are so many reasons that trauma and grief should not then be translated into a sledge of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre's practice, because the member—the honourable member—has come to this place and made claims that the Pregnancy Advisory Centre is not operating appropriately to the standards of health care that we believe this state should be providing. If these situations are the case, then various levels of medical procedure were not followed, consent was not sought and informed consent was not gained. If the member believes in these cases and brings them as a statement of fact to this place, I think she now has a duty to explain how she established their veracity.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure that I do have the duty that is mentioned. However, I am happy to answer the question to the best of my ability. The honourable members need to understand that when a woman has gone through extreme trauma, she has considered an abortion, initially consented to an abortion and then changed her mind and experienced the kind of absolutely devastating experience that she has, for members to then suggest that I should say to her, 'Is this real? Did it really happen? Are you crying here for some other reason? Why would you make this up?' is absolutely ludicrous.

If the honourable members would like another example, I can give one much closer to home, which I can certainly verify the veracity of because it is a very close relative of mine. This person—I am not going to use her name; I will call her Paula—found that she was pregnant, and she found that her child was diagnosed with spina bifida, was going to have spina bifida. This relative of mine already had a child who had a severe disability. She was counselled to have an abortion and she said that she did not want to have an abortion—that was just not part of what she was going to do.

She had several health professionals what she considers harass and intimidate her. One nurse said, 'Don't you think your family is already costing our health system enough?' This was her experience, while she was pregnant, when she had just found out only in recent weeks that the child that she was carrying had spina bifida: 'Don't you think your family is already costing the health system enough?'

It would seem that it was her duty to have an abortion. What is more, when she still refused, clearly upset, she went home and later that week a so-called health professional came to her home, uninvited, to again counsel—and I use those words in inverted commas—her to have an abortion. This is the sort of harassment and intimidation that is happening.

This is a close relative of mine, so if you would like to say that she is lying through her teeth about her daughter, then I challenge you to do so. To treat women who have experienced these kinds of things as though they are making it up is absolutely appalling. To see the honourable members here, some of them sitting smiling as though it is not true, is absolutely outrageous and should not be accepted whatsoever.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: You are not the only one who knows someone who has had an abortion, you know. You are not the only one.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros, restrain yourself.

The Hon. C. Bonaros: Don't take the moral high ground.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Ms Bonaros. We will run this debate in a respectful way.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The Hon. Ms Bonaros says I am not the only one who knows someone who has had an abortion. I do not recall ever suggesting that I was. However, what members need to realise is that everything in the garden is not rosy. People do not all go to the Pregnancy Advisory Clinic having made their decision and feeling that because someone is offering help to them—possible alternatives to them—that that is somehow intimidation.

I mentioned other people in my second reading speech who talked about how the offers of help that they had outside abortion facilities had been of huge benefit to them and gave them choice. They gave them choice that they did not feel that they had. That is the sort of person that I was asking the Hon. Ms Franks, the mover of this bill, about. Has she sought out anyone who has actually been helped by people outside the abortion facilities? Clearly, she has not sought that out because she does not want to hear that there is another side to the question.

To talk about protests—one member referred to 40 or 50 protesters, or some number like that, yet we are not being asked to verify the veracity of that. We have never seen that number of people outside the pregnancy advisory clinic at Woodville in the past decade, as far as I know. Two or three people, or four or five people, quietly praying 75 metres up the road, that is what we usually see outside the abortion clinic. We would also see, on occasion, people offering help to women. It is that help to women that is going to be denied by this bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I would just like to remind the council that I think we can all unite on the point that women, in making health choices, should have full, free and informed consent. I accept the Hon. Clare Scriven's concern that we need to ensure we have practices in place which will support women to have free, informed consent.

I feel that as Minister for Health and Wellbeing, I should stand and indicate that in my conversations with the team at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, I was struck by their alertness to the potential that somebody may not be giving full and informed consent. For example, my understanding is that one of the situations in which they are concerned somebody is not providing full and free consent is domestic violence. The centre has procedures in place to try to make sure that full, free and informed consent is being given.

I would like to stand with the Hon. Clare Scriven—as would, I hope, the whole council—to say that SA Health is not perfect. From time to time, one of the issues faced by health professionals is to make sure that the people receiving health services do so with full and informed consent. I note the Hon. Clare Scriven's concern about the behaviour of health professionals may have had nothing to do with the Pregnancy Advisory Centre; it may well have been health professionals in other domains. We expect all health professionals to live up to their ethics, and they are liable to be reported if they fail to do so.

I did not want this situation to continue, the suggestion that staff at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre disregard their obligation to seek full and informed consent. Of course, as with every service, I am sure they could do better; however, it is certainly not something that they dismiss.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I raised this because there were, in fact, claims made about the Pregnancy Advisory Centre in the Hon. Clare Scriven's second reading speech. Staff at the centre then complained to me about the way they were represented and portrayed. They were completely horrified and said that there was no way that those sorts of practices would ever take place in their time, and in their experience, at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

The Hon. Clare Scriven clearly disagrees and has a different perspective. She said these complaints occurred some 2½ years ago and that she was not a member of parliament at the time she received them. Was she in any way working for the health minister or for SA Health at the time of receiving these complaints?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not believe so. As I said, I took an estimate of when it occurred—I said about 2½ years ago and about 3½ years ago. They were simply guesses, as I indicated. I was working for a forestry association 2½ years ago.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did not hear where the honourable member said she was working, but in what capacity did she take these complaints? What action did she take on these complaints, and why did she then bring them and enter them into this debate to slight and impugn the work of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Two women talking to me about their experiences on separate occasions in my private capacity as a citizen, as a woman and as someone who cared about their welfare, that is the capacity in which I received this information. To categorise them as 'complaints' is to deliberately misconstrue the context in which they were received. I would encourage women to go forward with a formal complaints process. I certainly cannot force them to do so, and if they are in such a fragile state that it would be detrimental to their mental health, or they feel it would, then it would not be appropriate for me to do so.

To suggest that the intent of bringing these to the attention of the chamber was to sleight the staff at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre is entirely ridiculous. I bring them to the chamber to indicate that there are people who will help women outside of a pregnancy advisory clinic, whether it is Woodville or any other facility, and that those women have not received the options through other mechanisms, despite what might be claimed by the health system and perhaps the intent of the health system. Nevertheless, they are not receiving that assistance, and to say that someone cannot be offered assistance so that they understand that they have a number of choices is not of any benefit to women.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Following on from that question, in terms of your capacity, honourable member, in dealing with the 3½ year complaint and the 2½ year complaint, were you a counsellor? Did you offer a counselling service at the time? Were you in a church group and they happened to be part of your congregation? How is it that two women randomly come to you and divulge their traumatic experiences? Certainly, I know a lot of women too, but I do not necessarily have people divulging traumatic experiences like that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: They were friends.

The CHAIR: Honourable members, we are straying from the bill. The point of committee is not necessarily to grill a member, it is to give questions of a member who is moving it or, indeed, moving an amendment. I have given a tremendous amount of latitude to members. That latitude no longer exists. We are back on the bill. We are now back at clause 1. Members can discuss clause 1 generally or the provisions of the bill, otherwise I will put the question on clause 1 and then we will move through the clauses and the amendments.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I must admit that I am still intrigued by the fact that every other state and territory is addressing this. I recall speaking to the West Australian health minister, minister Cook, who indicated that he is introducing legislation. My understanding is that the legislation right around Australia is consistent with a federal ALP national policy and that that policy is not a conscience vote. Abortion law itself, I understand, is a conscience vote right around Australia. Is it your understanding that the ALP does have a policy for safe access zones and it is not a conscience matter, according to national council?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the minister for his question. In moving this, I knew that safe access zones and abortion law reform would be at the national convention of the Labor Party in the previous year. As we recall, Malcolm Turnbull, the then prime minister, had that by-election weekend and the national conference got bumped to the end of the year. The media from that national conference—and certainly I was not in the national conference, not being a Labor member—did announce some quite broadranging policies, while conscience votes were still to be afforded to the decriminalisation of abortion. They came out of that with a policy of supporting publicly funded access to abortion and, I thought, a party vote on safe access zones, which we saw in place and we have seen through the WA example.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am assuming that the Labor Party branch in South Australia is affiliated with the national branch. Why is a conscience vote being afforded in this house?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That is one of the vagaries and mysteries of the Labor Party in this state, I think.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Point of order: it is highly irregular, I suspect, to have the Liberal minister ask a Greens member proposing legislation to make commentary about the Labor Party's policy position. The fact is, as we all know, in South Australia it is up to the leader of the Labor Party to declare matters a conscience issue. He has done so for this legislation. Please, can we move on?

The CHAIR: Thank you, the Hon. Mr Hunter. I thank you for your point of order. I agree. The Hon. Ms Franks cannot speak on behalf of the Labor Party.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: And I did not ever purport to. I did in fact speak to the previous acting Labor leader of NSW's Labor Party post the election, Penny Sharpe, MLC. She was quite surprised that the Labor Party of South Australia did not have a party vote on safe access zones.

The CHAIR: As I have said, I have allowed a tremendous amount of latitude on clause 1.

The Hon. R.P. Wortley: Too much.

The CHAIR: Thank you, ex-president. Thanks for the reflection, Mr President. Is there any honourable member who wishes to raise an issue on the effects of the bill—the clauses in the bill—at clause 1?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The bill says that one cannot communicate about the subject of abortion within the proposed zone of 150 metres. I would like to clarify: this means that one cannot discuss abortion at all within the 150-metre zone other than the exceptions that are mentioned, such as you are working at the Pregnancy Advisory Clinic. Is that correct?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This actually presupposes the honourable member's own amendment to remove these provisions, so I would say that that is the clause at which they should be debated.

The CHAIR: We can wait until it is debated, that clause, but we have allowed a series of questions. We can have it now, or we can have it at the clause.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You are the one who did not want the latitude in clause 1 when she has a specific amendment—

The CHAIR: It is a specific question—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: —to remove that clause.

The PRESIDENT: The Hon. Ms Franks, it is a—

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If we are going to have the debate twice, that is okay, Chair.

The PRESIDENT: I doubt we will have the debate twice, since the question is asked. I am happy to wait. Actually, I am quite anxious to put clause 1. The Hon. Ms Scriven, we will ask those questions when we come to the amendments themselves. Is there anyone else who has a contribution that relates to the general application of the bill at clause 1? It is not the last asking, because you can ask questions on the provisions of the clauses of the bill.

Clause passed.

Clause 2 passed.

Clause 3.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Franks–1]—

Page 3, after line 2 [clause 3, inserted section 48B]—Insert:

journalist means a person engaged in the profession or occupation of journalism in connection with the publication of information in a news medium;

news medium means any medium for the dissemination to the public, or a section of the public, of news and observations on news;

This series of amendments that have been filed today are about ensuring that protections are afforded for healthcare workers and patients and supporters within 150 metres of a place where reproductive health services are provided—and I presuppose support for the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos' amendments to refine and clarify that—and that there is behaviour that is covered that may indeed impede the freedom of the press has been a concern that has been raised.

Amendment No. 1 [Franks-1] outlines specifically that a person who is engaged in the media profession, journalism, or the occupation of journalism 'in connection with the publication of information in a news medium', and that 'news medium means any medium for the dissemination to the public, or a section of the public, of news and observations on news'.

Amendment No. 2 [Franks-1] is that the 'journalist reporting on a matter of public interest (whether related to the subject of abortions or [not]) for publication in a news medium, or a cameraperson or other person genuinely assisting a journalist in such reporting', and there is a provision for further behaviours to be prescribed in regulations.

Amendment No. 3 [Franks-1] amends clause 3 to insert (ca) 'a journalist reporting on a matter of public interest (whether related to the subject of abortions or otherwise) for publication in a news medium, or a cameraperson or other person genuinely assisting a journalist in such reporting'. These exclusions are to make it absolutely clear that in this piece of legislation there will be no inhibiting powers on the freedom of the legitimate press. I note that some concerns have been raised.

Our advice from parliamentary counsel was that it was a bit of a grey area. However, I would point members to the fact that we also have legislation around the Surveillances Devices Act. We also have legislation in this state specifically about humiliating and degrading imagery. Both of those provide some comfort and protection for people from the kind of filming that is meant to hinder their access to health care or to provide discomfort to them.

However, this—given that we are now promulgating an entirely new provision that police will be able to use as a tool to ensure public order and safety for people accessing health care—does not unintentionally prohibit genuine media from doing news stories outside these facilities, whether they are about abortion or not. This clarifies the protection of the freedom of the press. I would note, with some caution, that I am concerned that sometimes these powers can be used by legitimate media outlets that may have a particular intent to prohibit abortion or to shame people for having abortions. I am concerned that these powers may not be tight enough to stop that sort of behaviour.

That behaviour may well occur, and I point again to the Abort67 campaign that Facebook live streams outside abortion clinics. There are media outlets that may well use the ability of their organisation as a media organisation, or their profession as a journalist, to engage in some of these behaviours that we have found are inhibiting and prohibiting access to health care, or indeed are providing an unsafe workplace for healthcare providers. If that is abused down the track, we can address it through the provision that the minister may prescribe further regulation.

Should campaigns that are seeking to oppose abortion employ particular instances tactically to use the media in a way that we are not anticipating today—through that freedom of the press—the minister will have the power to look at that and to promulgate regulations to consult on that, and the parliament will have the power to disallow those regulations.

I think this is a good balance between ensuring, categorically and clearly, that the media can still cover stories, particularly if they are about abortion protesters putting healthcare workers in an unsafe situation or affecting their mental health or, in fact, impeding their access to health care, or where a patient has to run the gauntlet of a protest and arrives to access that healthcare service in a state unfit to then undertake that healthcare service. Those situations should not have the shield, if you like, of pretending to be for the purposes of public interest media.

There may be instances where we now allow that, but should those occurrences happen I say we address those situations down the track and provide the protections for the freedom of the press now so that nobody is under any illusion that they cannot do a story for genuine public interest outside a hospital.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I am actually quite uncomfortable with that statement regarding the media just made by the Hon. Tammy Franks. I come from that industry and I think that what she is saying, essentially, is that we are putting conditions on who should be able to go to report there, and that perhaps it would then be up to the minister to decide, 'I don't like that viewpoint, so I don't think they should be allowed to go there.' I find that odd, particularly when there has been much discussion in recent times about freedom of the press and your right to know.

Quite rightly, there are sections of the media that would take the opposite position to that of the honourable member and others who are supporting this bill, and it is their right to be able to do that just like somebody can also take the position that they support what is going on here. However, to try to put an emphasis, in the way she said, on legitimate press and who should be able to report this, I find that, as a journalist myself, quite objectionable. I would like the honourable member to give me an indication of what is the definition of 'legitimate press' and what is 'illegitimate press' in her viewpoint.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Hon. Frank Pangallo for that question. To be really clear, this has actually thrown the net quite broadly. It has not delineated between legitimate and illegitimate press. That is why I have said that at some point, should there be a problem, there is a provision for regulations to be gazetted through the minister and for the parliament to disallow them if we find them to be offensive. At the moment, there is no way to define between the types of press, so we have gone for the broadest definition; in fact, we have captured all journalists and all of the press within this particular set of amendments to give them the right for their broadcast filming and journalism to occur.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Obviously, legislation on this does involve the balancing of freedoms and rights. The Hon. Tammy Franks is particularly focused on providing women access to health services. My understanding is the High Court actually considered the constitutional validity of legislation of this ilk. Could the member indicate what was the outcome of that consideration?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The High Court ruling was on the implied constitutionality of the freedom of speech, not the freedom of the press.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: On that particular issue, the view that I proffered the last time we debated this is that I accept the High Court judgement in relation to the constitutionality of laws. I am not challenging that, but ultimately the parliament can decide what it wishes in relation to particular issues; it is not an issue. I am not challenging the constitutionality or otherwise of laws, but ultimately the parliament can choose to legislate if it so wishes.

What I would say at the outset is that this is an issue that I raised concerns about when we last debated this. I do not accept the contention that this was an unintended consequence, as the Hon. Ms Franks has indicated. Clearly, the definition the honourable member moved about prohibited behaviour includes subclause (c) 'to record (by any means whatsoever) images of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises'. That clearly includes television cameras recording anything which occurred within the zone. I think it was designed to prevent television coverage because there is no other construction. It covers other circumstances, but it clearly covers television cameras and coverage.

My views on this are very similar to the Hon. Mr Pangallo's, as I indicated when we last spoke. Certainly, television cameras would see it as being a media event in the circumstances the Hon. Ms Franks indicates, where someone who is protesting against these new laws, if they are passed, was harassing or intimidating someone trying to access a service and the police came along and tried to arrest that person, dragged them off kicking and screaming, whatever it is. That is a media newsworthy event and they, in my view, would be entitled to cover that event.

Equally, if the police interpret these laws as someone who, in the circumstances the Hon. Ms Scriven has outlined, is not intimidating or harassing but is quietly praying and, for whatever reason, the police interpret that as being an offence under the law and were to drag off that particular person, I think that is a newsworthy event and the media are entitled to cover that particular circumstance, where someone quietly praying outside a service is arrested by police and taken away. I think it would be a travesty if this parliament passes laws that prevent members of the media from being able to cover what are media events that are in the public interest for them to cover.

Whether this drafting is the best, I do not know. Whilst I do not support the legislation, it at least addresses or attempts to address that particular issue. I understand some members in the House of Assembly, should this bill get to the House of Assembly, have expressed their views that an amendment along these lines would be required.

I think, in the circumstances that the Hon. Mr Pangallo has outlined, there is still the provision for the parliament, should a minister, of whatever persuasion and whatever view on these particular issues, issue a regulation, ultimately to have the capacity to disallow that particular regulation. If a particular regulation came from a particular perspective on this that was offensive to the majority of one house of parliament, it has the capacity to disallow that particular regulation.

I think the parliament still has that opportunity, should a minister in the future take a point of view that is different to a majority view of one house of parliament. Ultimately, that is a democratic process and we would all have the opportunity—you will all have the opportunity—to express a view in relation to that. So it was an issue I raised. I think it is an improvement in relation to allowing genuine media coverage of what I think are genuine media events in the public interest. Whether it is perfect or not, time will tell. Ultimately, it will be an issue also to be debated, if it passes this house, in the House of Assembly, where a number of members have indicated a particular view.

I know in this particular area, there was a raging debate on some legislation previously about what constitutes media, because on social media there are various people who describe themselves as journalists. I cannot remember what the view of the former attorney-general, the Hon. Michael Atkinson, was, but there were differing views as to whether or not certain people who so self-describe themselves—

The Hon. F. Pangallo: Citizen journalists.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Citizen journalists; yes, exactly. There is a raging debate about this and this may well be an issue on which the Attorney-General and others in the House of Assembly may well look to refine the amendment or the legislation. But in the interests of keeping the debate alive and whilst I am opposing the legislation—I suspect the majority in the chamber will allow the legislation to go through—I think this particular amendment is worthy of support to go through to the House of Assembly.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Members know that I also oppose the legislation and I made that clear in my second reading, but for similar reasons to the Hon. Mr Lucas I am also inclined to support this amendment. I think that one of the several objections I had to the bill was that there are very tight restrictions on exactly what can and cannot happen in these protected areas.

One of the real concerns, I think, is when we start restricting, intentionally or not—I am not sure if it was the member's intention; she has introduced an amendment to address the matter, so maybe it was not intentional—or when we start introducing legislation to restrict what can and cannot be recorded or broadcast. Then, I get nervous.

There are a few issues I would like to raise just with respect to the amendment. I make no criticism of the member here and I want to be clear about that. I know from personal experience how difficult it can be to get amendments drafted and filed when you are on the crossbench, but we have just received this amendment today, which does put us on the spot to some extent. They seem reasonably simple amendments, so my estimation is that the chamber will probably consider them and make its decision one way or another.

I think the Hon. Ms Franks acknowledged what I am about to say in her contribution when she introduced the amendment, and that is that it is very difficult to define what is a journalist. I think we automatically think of someone like Mike Smithson at Channel 7 as a journalist. He is employed; that is his role. He has a title or a business card, presumably, that says 'journalist'. I do not think there is a lot of debate that he is a journalist.

But what about somebody who turns up to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre with a camcorder and who has a website that may or may not have subscribers to it? They see it as their role to disseminate public information, people coming and going at these places for whatever reason, whether they be for or against what is happening there. I think they would have a case to describe themselves as a journalist. If charges were laid, it would ultimately be a matter for a court to decide whether they are a journalist or not, I would imagine, but they would then be in a position where they could claim to be a journalist and therefore enjoy the protections that these amendments offer.

I would support that. I would say that is a good thing, but I suspect that there are some members in this place who may not support it in that sense. It is always difficult to define these things, and that is my central point. I think that these amendments do improve the bill; therefore, the amendments will have my support, but I reiterate that the bill will not.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Firstly, I have a question in regard to process. I appreciate that we are debating these three amendments. Am I right in thinking that now is the time to ask questions about proposed new paragraph (c) in general? It provides:

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

Is it correct that I can ask questions about that now?

The CHAIR: We are on clause 3. Your questions do not necessarily have to be about this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you. I also note the comments that have been made about the difficulty of establishing who is a journalist. Notwithstanding that, I think this slightly improves an incredibly flawed bill, therefore I am likely to support this amendment. However, I have some questions about the principle to which it refers in any case. The Hon. Ms Franks has referred several times to live streaming of people entering or leaving an abortion clinic, but that is in the United Kingdom. Does she have any evidence of that occurring in South Australia?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, but as I have outlined we are anticipating that there will be an increased focus on South Australia if we are the only state left in Australia with no safe access zones. We also know that the strategies, techniques and campaigning methods have changed over time. Indeed, Facebook live streaming, now that it has been done in the UK, may well be done in South Australia outside an abortion healthcare clinic.

We know that people often Facebook live stream schoolyard fights and put them on YouTube. We know that people go on the latest one, TikTok, and that did not exist not so long ago. Technologies change, so I do not think it is fanciful to think that that could happen in South Australia. However, this particular set of amendments prevents what was not an intended outcome by protecting legitimate public interest media.

The definition is so broad that I anticipated that there may be flaws, that we may have allowed such behaviours to happen even with these protections that we seek to provide for people accessing health care and those healthcare workers, but the protections for the freedom of the press are also important. They will be guaranteed and ensured should the support be found in the parliament for these particular amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: At a briefing in relation to this bill, I asked a question of one of the providers of the briefing, or one of the attendees, Ms Brigid Coombe. I understand that she had been at the Pregnancy Advisory Clinic as the director up until seven years ago, so certainly some time ago. She mentioned the filming of herself or her staff, I am not sure which she meant, going into the clinic, which was then put on Facebook. I asked for evidence of that occurring, which she undertook to bring back to me, but I have not received that. Is that evidence available?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: At the conclusion of that briefing, I actually was of the opinion that Ms Coombe did not have to provide you with such evidence because she indicated that this had taken place to intimidate and harass her and her staff of the time. For you to then ask for information around that I found intimidating and harassing to her and disrespectful of her well-founded fears for her personal safety while she was the director at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

The fact is she had to hide her address with silent enrolments and had to hide which car in the car park was hers so that she could not be followed home. These are her real-life experiences, and you wanted evidence to satisfy yourself that she was in fact genuine in her feelings of harassment and intimidation. I found that to be an inappropriate request and so was of the view that you should not be provided with that information.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: That is a very interesting response, given the questions only a short time ago about women who had had very negative experiences. I had three members insisting that we provide evidence of those women, and yet we have someone who was employed by SA Health, who is saying that her experiences are a reason for this bill and who I understood did undertake to provide me with that evidence and did not do so. For Ms Franks to say that to even ask for that evidence to be provided is somehow inappropriate is quite remarkable.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My recollection of that briefing, where Ms Coombe had provided her experience several times as members came in and out for the briefing, was that, at the end, when you asked for that information you did so staring her down in a pointed way that made many of us on that side of the table sitting next to Ms Coombe somewhat uncomfortable, and that Ms Coombe did not agree to your request. After you left the room, I actually said, 'You don't have to do that.'

I found it quite intimidating and harassing that you wanted from her evidence of her experiences when we know that those healthcare workers are intimidated and harassed day in, day out in our state and have been for some decades, and that they have well-founded fears when a security guard in Victoria is shot dead by somebody who went into that health centre with the intent of killing every single member of that healthcare workforce and every single patient who was in that place that day. These are not fanciful pieces of these health workers' imaginations.

For example, in this place, we upped the security when there was an incident in Canada. Suddenly, doors were locked that had never been locked before. We had reasonably well-founded fears for our security. It is quite reasonable for a healthcare worker, where a person has been shot dead in their workplace simply because that workplace provided abortions, to feel that their safety is then under threat.

I think that is a pretty reasonable expectation and I also think it is a pretty proportionate response to provide a buffer zone of 150 metres where certain behaviours will not be tolerated and those healthcare workers can go to work every day not feeling harassed or hindered in their provision of that health care, not feeling that they have to hide which car is theirs when they drive to work, not feeling that they have to ensure that their addresses are not known to those who protest outside their workplaces for fear of that harassment not just being in their workplace but following them home.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: First of all, I would like to put on the record that I have always spoken to and treated anyone who has been at a briefing with great respect. To suggest that looking at someone while asking them a question is somehow staring them down is offensive but also ridiculous. The situation stands that we do not have any evidence of this occurring. I think it is entirely reasonable to ask for evidence.

In the contribution we have just had from the Hon. Ms Franks, she talked about the absolute tragedy of someone being killed—a security guard—in another state. To suggest that an exclusion zone that says that you cannot go in there and intimidate and harass someone would stop somebody who was intent on driving into any location with firearms or whatever it might be, clearly, the two things are very separate. An exclusion zone is not going to prevent someone who has that kind of ill intent. If they have a firearm, an exclusion zone is not going to stop them, so I think that we need to look at that for what it is. That tragedy would not have been prevented had this bill or a similar bill been in place in that jurisdiction.

My question moves on in regard to the recording of images of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises. We have heard a lot about the allegations of people being filmed going in and out. My question is: given that the Hon. Ms Franks has said that it is not the intention of this bill to stop people quietly praying, if there is a group of people quietly praying, perhaps 75 metres up the road, and they are approached by an aggressive person who perhaps yells at them, swears at them, potentially punches or carries out some other physical assault, is it the result or the outcome of this bill that such people are not able to film themselves quietly praying in order to provide a defence if they should be accused of behaviour that would be perhaps prohibited, or to provide it as evidence if someone was to assault them?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. Ms Franks, I am sure, has her own answer. My reading of the clause, though, is that it relates to prohibited behaviours only where you are recording images of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises. It is not, shall we say, a ban on filming in the zone. It is a ban on filming people who are approaching, entering or leaving protected premises. A person assaulting a group of peaceful protesters in the zone is doing none of those things and would not, in my view, be protected by it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: If I could just ask you, however: if the person assaulting the people who are quietly praying had come from the pregnancy advisory clinic, would that then be caught under this provision?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I do not think they are in the process of leaving the protected premises. I think they are in the process of assaulting law-abiding citizens.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: The safe access zones do protect that and envisage that, I would have thought, but in any event the Hon. Clare Scriven raised issues of examples of intimidation and harassment. I would like to give one in terms of my own experiences. On 2 November, at the decriminalised abortion rally, I was targeted. I have been told that the man who targeted me was, allegedly, Pastor Kevin Richard Bickle.

As I was speaking at Victoria Square, he found it appropriate to yell over my speech and intimidate those at the rally by confrontation. He was standing right next to me as I was speaking at the rally. He was aggressive, yelling in people's faces, forcing his way through people to the front of the stage and blatantly ignoring instructions from people running the event to leave. I was not going in for an abortion and I was not going in for work, and yet that is the nature of the prayer protest that we are talking about. That is the nature of that protest, and that is what this bill is about.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The focus in this bill is about protecting access to health services. I strongly support the right of any South Australian to protest about what they think the law should be and, for that matter, to express publicly their view on, if you like, the moral implications of those laws, but this is very focused on access. It is focused on making sure that people have the ability to come and go from health facilities, whether they are patients or staff.

As I have already said in my second reading contribution, and in the amendments I tabled but will not be moving, I believe it should be broader. Christians, Jews and Muslims, for example, have been culturally committed to circumcision. There are a lot of people in the community who strongly believe that is an infringement of the rights of a child.

The point I am making is that access to health services is important to all sorts of groups for all sorts of reasons. If people want to protest in relation to abortion, or circumcision, or whatever it might be, there is a time and place for that. The time and the place is not outside health facilities.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I agree, and there was never any intention to say anything else, but it is an issue of access and it is an issue of intimidation, aggression and violation of peoples' rights. In any event, I am moving an amendment in terms of the right to protest on other issues, so that is not a problem.

The CHAIR: Honourable members, can I refocus us back to the bill. I allow a lot of latitude in the committee but we want to get through this bill. We do not necessarily have to get through it today—

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Yes, we do.

The CHAIR: It is up to the will of the committee, the Hon. Mr Wade. We have an amendment before the committee. We have had extensive debate and conversation regarding the general principles of the bill and people's personal experiences. I am very reluctant to intervene in a debate, but we are getting to the point where I, as Chair, have to come in. I need honourable members to focus their comments and questions around the operation of the bill. The Hon. Mr Wortley has the call.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Thank you, Mr President. I support the right of a journalist reporting on an issue to have some sort of exemption, but I do have a problem with a cameraman, or a cameraperson. I could think of nothing more intimidating for a woman who is going into a clinic for a termination to have a camera in her face and then to see her image on the 6 o'clock news. I think that is quite intimidating, so I would have great trouble in supporting amendments Nos 2 and 3.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The mover might clarify, but in my reading of the amendment I do not think that this amendment actually allows a cameraman to film an individual—the only point being that they are coming and going from the clinic. That is not a matter of public interest. There is no legitimate public interest in any of us knowing what other health services South Australians are accessing. I certainly associate myself with the Hon. Mr Wortley's concerns, but I do not think that would be the impact of this amendment.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I support these amendments in terms of the media. Issues of concern have been raised in terms of this bill in this chamber, and issues have been raised by members in the other place on this very topic. I think it is important that we address it. This bill is about affording protection and safety for workers, affording protection and safety for people attending the clinic, and ensuring that we have freedom of the press.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I understand some of the concerns of the Hon. Russell Wortley, but we have quite a professional and ethical media profession in this state and I trust they will not abuse these particular powers. Just to clarify, we have defined 'media' quite broadly because we do have that level of trust that ethnical processes will be followed and that journalistic standards will be adhered to. They currently already have these powers to film people accessing health care, but they do not use them in a way which contravenes the protections of this bill and the very small buffer zone this bill will provide for healthcare workers and patients alike.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I asked a question earlier, which the Hon. Mr Wade gave his understanding, but I had actually asked the question to the mover of the bill and the amendment (the Hon. Tammy Franks). Just to remind members, the question was: if a group of people are quietly praying, maybe 75 metres up the road, and have a camera placed upon themselves as protection in case anyone who has been at the clinic should come and abuse them and assault them, or if they want to be able to prove that they have in fact been praying quietly and not intimidating or harassing anyone in any way, shape or form, will that be prohibited by this bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If they are not filming other people, they are filming themselves. I think the selfie safeguard rule applies. It will not fall under the provisions of this piece of legislation, as the member was informed in the briefing.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is reasonable to get things on the record, rather than simply rely on what was said in a briefing, particularly since some of those things are not followed through from briefings. To clarify, even if someone who has been at an abortion facility approaches and therefore gets into the camera frame of a group that might be filming themselves for their own evidentiary protection, that would not be an offence under this bill. Is that the honourable member's advice?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If they are getting into the camera frame, they are clearly not perturbed by the filming of their presence, so I cannot see how they would want to avail themselves of the protections that this piece of legislation would then provide.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: To go further on the point from the Hon. Clare Scriven, what would happen if those images that were taken by somebody or a group that was filming themselves were posted online or in the media or whatever? Would that also be perceived or constitute some type of harassment, if they posted that particular segment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: My interpretation of what the honourable member has just asked is that, if somebody is doing the selfie, they are videoing themselves and the selfie safeguard applies. They are not going to be found in contravention of this law because there has been no behaviour that they will find offensive. They have done it to themselves. They have every right in this day and age. There are far too many selfies going on, as far as I am concerned, but the selfie safeguard will apply. They can put that image wherever they like online. They can publish it. They can show it to their friends and family. They can show it to their work colleagues, if their work colleagues will put up with watching them quietly praying as they took a selfie.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: If images of people approaching the clinic were taken in that safe zone 150 metres away and then that was posted online, would that constitute a type of harassment?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: If it is published in a deliberate way to expose patients or healthcare workers going in and out of that service in a way that in fact does threaten, intimidate or harass, they may well find that there are some other provisions under the law that may apply if it is done without their knowledge, but if it is done in that way and they are simply putting themselves also in the frame, there is the selfie safeguard protection. It will not be the get out of gaol free card that they would be hoping for.

If they are also filming other people then, yes, they may be captured by this particular piece of the law, but let's remember that there are a few steps down the track before that sort of behaviour would capture the attention of the police and court action. We trust the courts to decide these things. I doubt frivolous and vexatious actions being taken by people will be entertained lightly by the courts and I doubt that the courts would uphold what is innocuous or legitimate behaviour. But should somebody really be undertaking behaviour, whether it is through selfies or not, we now have a provision fit for purpose to take action to provide protections for those patients and healthcare workers.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: To clarify, if there was a group of protesters and they were abiding by the legislation, should it be passed, and they were filming people going into that clinic and then posting it online, that would constitute a breach of this legislation. That could fall under some elements of this where they could be charged?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Potentially, but there is a range of scenarios that would unfold no doubt, and, as I say, we have the police and the court's processes to follow as well.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS: Just to crave the indulgence of the committee, with the agreement of the mover of the amendment and the resolution, I had hoped we might have been able to reach—there seemed to be agreement on this amendment, and there seems to be continuing interest in it.

We do have another piece of legislation, the landscape bill, where the other house is waiting for a message to go back. The mover has agreed to report progress for 10 minutes to do that and then to return to this. I am mindful of the fact that I do not want to interrupt this particular debate—on this particular amendment, I should say. So if there is ongoing debate—and it appears there might be—and we cannot do an early vote on this particular amendment, then with the agreement of the honourable member I will move to report progress.

I guess I am really seeking the quick indication from members as to whether they want to continue debate on this particular amendment. If so, with the agreement of the honourable member, I might seek to report progress so we can handle this other message.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I am going to point out that this particular amendment, amendment No. 1 [Franks-1], is the definition of a journalist. There are two more amendments that cover the turf we are talking about, so you have got more opportunities, should you wish to canvass the other issues, and that is in fact where your other discussions come in as opposed to the definition of a journalist, which is what we are currently debating.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Just to expedite this and to clarify, I am in support of all three amendments. I have no objection that this area of debate now—

The PRESIDENT: If honourable members do not object, just to build on what the Hon. Mr Lucas has said, I can put the question on amendment No. 1 [Franks-1], which inserts it—obviously, it is almost a test clause. Does any honourable member object to me being about to do that? No honourable member has objected, so I am going to put the question. I put the question that amendment No. 1 [Franks-1] be agreed to.

Amendment carried.

Progress reported; committee to sit again.