Health Care (Health Access Zones) Amendment Bill

Committee Stage

In committee (resumed on motion).

Clause 3.

The CHAIR: We are now on amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1]. The Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I understood that we were going to be looking at amendment No. 2 [Franks-1] and amendment No. 3 [Franks-1].

The CHAIR: We have voted on the Hon. Ms Franks' amendment No. 1. We are now on amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: Just a point of order, Mr Chair: there is a difference between amendment No. 1 [Franks-1] and amendment No. 2. I would say it was not consequential, because it actually adds 'cameraperson'. That is totally different from a journalist. They perform different functions and different parts of journalism. To say it is consequential—I was going to oppose, unless I had clarity—

The CHAIR: I said it was a test; I did not say it consequential. We have only done one. We have not gone to the others, and you still have a chance to debate those. I indicated that it looked like a test. If you wish to say that it is not a test, we will have that debate, but please understand that this is the first time I have seen these amendments. We now come to amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mr Chair, I will check with you. I had some general questions about the clause before I proceed, or otherwise, with my amendments. Can I ask those questions of the mover of the bill?

The CHAIR: It would be helpful if they relate to the application of this amendment.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Yes, certainly they do. Clause D in this section, under 'Prohibited behaviour', talks about 'to communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion', referring of course to within this 150-metre zone. My question to the mover of the bill is: what impact will this have on someone who is, for example—I know there is a cafe opposite the Woodville clinic—sitting there and discussing an abortion, either an intention to have one or one that has been had? Others might be able to hear; therefore, this would not necessarily be caught under the 'not provided consent' part of the bill. Can she explain whether that would or would not be an offence?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Did the honourable member say 'clause D'? It is paragraph (d) that she is referring to, under clause 3. So thank you for that clarity, and I will respond to the question on clause 3 paragraph (d).

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the member probably understood what it was.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This clause deals with the interpretation of what is prohibited behaviour within a health access zone. The example that the Hon. Clare Scriven gave would not be within the safe access zone because it is not within the 150-metre access zone; it is in a cafe that is completely separate, in terms of a premises, in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and is not within the anticipated safe access zone.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The safe access zone specifies being not less than 150 metres from the protected premises. Is the honourable member saying that the cafe is not within 150 metres? It is literally across the road from the premises on which the Pregnancy Advisory Centre is located.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: A safe access zone is a zone around a facility. Some claims have been made—for example, we received correspondence that St Paul's cathedral, I think, was going to be part of these prohibited behaviour safe access zones. Neither the cathedral nor the cafe, which is an independently run small business in its own premises, will fall under these safe access zones. They are their own premises.

I am not quite sure why the member feels that somehow all conversations about abortion will be shut down by a bill that simply seeks to stop people from being threatened, intimidated and harassed as they seek health care.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think we need to be sure that, whatever the intention of the bill, the bill actually does do that. Under part 5A, 48B(a) refers to 'the protected premises' and 48(b)(i) refers to a distance 'being not less than 150 metres' from any public area, so for any public area located within 150 metres. For example, this cafe has sidewalk chairs, and I would have thought that is a public area. I am very happy to be corrected if I am mistaken, but I would like clarification of that.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: 'Public area' does indeed mean public area and it is not inside a cafe. There are many restrictions placed on what can happen in public areas. For example, A-frames may not be able to be put out without approvals and people certainly may be moved on from loitering in public areas under the Summary Offences Act. There is a range of disorderly behaviours that we already provide that cannot take place; however, this bill provides specific provisions to ensure that those sorts of behaviours are not happening outside what are health access zones and that those behaviours are defined by this list of prohibited behaviour.

Regarding the idea to communicate or attempt to communicate with a person about the subject of abortion, if the other person is an unwilling participant in that communication, they will then have the provisions of this law to provide them with protection. If the other person is a willing participant in that communication about abortion, they will not need to avail themselves of this law. This law will not be something that they find useful, necessary or indeed applicable.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The definition of 'public area' in this bill is 'an area or place that the public, or a section of the public, is entitled to use or that is open to, or used by, the public or a section of the public'. In terms of consent, that was my concern. If two people are sitting in a cafeteria discussing abortion, presumably they are both consenting to that conversation, but someone sitting at the next table may not be consenting to hear that conversation. My concern is whether that will be captured by this bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The line in paragraph (d) is 'to communicate, or attempt to communicate, with a person about the subject of abortion'. Overhearing someone else's conversation is not somebody communicating with you. It is you overhearing their conversation. Similarly, public area does mean an area that the public is able to enjoy the use of with other members of the public. If it falls within a safe access zone, there will be prohibitive behaviours within that public area. If it does not fall within a safe access zone, there will not be. The majority of the state will remain outside any safe access zones. These are very small, discrete areas around the provision of abortion care.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Now that I have had the clarification that overhearing discussion of abortion will not be considered to be prohibited behaviour, I can indicate that I will not be proceeding with the amendment that was filed in my name.

The Hon. T.A. Franks interjecting:

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: No, I have not moved it. I am indicating that I might not be moving it, for the benefit of the chamber. I will not be moving amendment No. 1 [Scriven-1].

The CHAIR: We are up to amendment No. 2 [Scriven-1]. It also has an overlap with amendment No. 3 [Pnevmatikos-1], so for the benefit of the committee, I will hear from the Hon. Ms Scriven and then I will ask to hear from the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have a number of questions that may impact on whether I proceed with the amendment or not. I am just concerned that prohibited behaviour means 'to engage in any other behaviour of a kind prescribed by the regulations'. That seems very broad. I appreciate that regulations can be disallowed, but it is also not particularly common for that to occur, and often there is not a lot of debate because it is not necessarily in the forefront of people's vision to see those regulations being moved. What kind of behaviour does the mover envisage should be prescribed by the regulations that is not already covered by 'to threaten, intimidate or harass another person'?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think the honourable member will find that many acts have regulations and have similar provisions here that allow a minister and the government of the day the flexibility to ensure that the law is truly fit for purpose and that there are processes through our public servants, who are very competent and capable, to identify issues, to consult on those and to then have parliamentary counsel draft appropriate regulations which are then gazetted and which the parliament may then disallow, if we find them odious.

I do not have any particular ideas about what these sort of regulations may need to cover, because the things that I think should be covered are in the bill itself and would be in the act itself. But should other things arise that fall within the range of provisions of this bill, those processes would be able to be enacted without the legislation coming through this place again to make a very fine, minor detail change.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: So is the honourable member saying that she does not envisage any behaviour at this stage that is not already covered and that is not covered by threatening, intimidating or harassing another person?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have not put my mind to how I might protest to stop people accessing abortion in South Australia. I have put my mind to how to protect those patients and those healthcare workers from harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour as they go about their jobs, as they seek their health care. I am sure there are many and creative ways that people will come up with to impede, to hinder and to harm access to abortion care in this state. I have not really put my mind to exactly how they will plan to do that.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: But would that not be covered by new paragraphs (a) and (b)—'to threaten, intimidate or harass another person' or 'to obstruct another person' etc.?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: We have yet to see the latest tactics that will develop. We have seen things like drones being used. We have seen and heard examples of the Facebook live streaming which, sure, we have not seen yet in South Australia. But we have seen in South Australia Facebook pages which put pictures of workers up, which put pictures of healthcare workers, who should be afforded our protection in their day-to-day jobs, up online to put them in harm's way. Who knows what technologies will come along? Who knows what tactics will be tried? I am not here to come up with advice and give them a handbook or a playbook on how to hinder access to abortion. I am here in this place to ensure that they can access that abortion without hindrance.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Can the honourable member provide evidence of such Facebook posts, as that was the sort of evidence I sought at the briefing and did not receive?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Perhaps it was a condition of their contract with the Catholic Church, but the previous 40 Days for Life Facebook page did get taken down. I have seen reports of people seeking to access a healthcare service have people strike up a conversation with them, find out where they work and call their employer and have their employer be informed that they are at an abortion clinic that day. Those sorts of strategies in this day and age, and with the advent of things like Twitter and Facebook, are now possible.

Once upon a time protests were perhaps a little bit more basic. A rally on the streets and a placard or two was as far as it went. We can see increasingly that protests and protesters are coming up with many and varied ways of enacting their protest.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would simply point out that again we have not been given any evidence of these sorts of things such as Facebook posts or contacting employers.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I have read boasts by 40 Days for Life in South Australia in the past of their activities stopping people from accessing abortion, of their declared intent to shut down abortion care and to make health workers quit their jobs. That is stated in their aims and objectives on their website. If the honourable member needs more evidence that that is the intent of some of these protesters, I suggest she talks to them.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will indicate that, whilst I do have considerable concerns about such an open statement of regulations engaging in any other behaviour of a kind prescribed by the regulations, I will not be proceeding with the amendment as I do not think we have the numbers. I do have some other questions on this clause for the mover. Can the mover explain why the definition of the exclusion zone includes 150 metres of any hospital in the state?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: That anticipates the amendments of the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos and that is the appropriate place for those to be discussed because the member's concerns are addressed by that particular amendment. I think most of those who are supporting the bill have indicated they will be supporting that amendment.

The CHAIR: Can I give the call to the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos because her amendments overlap with the Hon. Ms Scriven's. For the benefit of the committee as a whole, we need to hear in relation to both amendments. Just to alert you, the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, your first amendment is amendment No. 3 [Pnevmatikos-1] because the numbering is slightly out. That will be the one I will ask you to move after I have asked the Hon. Ms Scriven to move hers. I am asking the committee as a whole just to have the debate generally around these two provisions, which will assist me then to put the questions. There is no need to put it just yet, but I would ask you to raise the issues in relation to the amendment.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Amendment No. 3 is basically in response to discussion and dialogue that has occurred, both within this chamber and outside this chamber, out of an abundance of caution. I believe the bill already covers the issues contained in this amendment; however, to remove any doubt, those provisions are spelt out in amendment No. 1. This only relates to health access zones and the gaining of access by people working within clinics and by individuals who are clients of the clinic. It does not preclude or prevent any other form of lawful industrial protest or any other event that people may be associated with. It is to do with access—access of staff and access of clients—nothing more than that.

The CHAIR: As I understand the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, she is intending to proceed with amendment No. 3 [Pnevmatikos-1]. I ask her to formally move it.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Shall I move them all now? I have not moved the first one either.

The CHAIR: Are they all related?

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: They are. They complement each other.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Mr Chairman, to assist the Hon. Ms Pnevmatikos, I think amendment No. 1 [Pnevmatikos-1] is not related to the other two. That one is somewhat separate.

The CHAIR: So in sequence we have amendments Nos 3, 1 and 2.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Pnevmatikos-1]—

Page 3, line 14 [clause 3, inserted section 48B, definition of protected premises, paragraph (a)]—Delete paragraph (a)

Amendment No 2 [Pnevmatikos-1]—

Page 3, after line 23 [clause 3, inserted Part 5A]—Insert:

48BA—Object and application of Part

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

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

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

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

Amendment No 3 [Pnevmatikos-1]—

Page 3, line 12 [clause 3, inserted section 48B, definition of prohibited behaviour, paragraph (e)]—After 'regulations' insert:

(being behaviour that is inconsistent with the object of this Part)

The first amendment relates to the deletion of paragraph (a) 'each incorporated or private hospital', simply because it is unnecessary and superfluous to the bill because subparagraph (c) actually covers any other situation that may arise, that being 'any other premises, or premises of a kind, declared to be protected premises under section 48C', and the premises are determined and declared by the minister.

So amendment No. 1 is simply a tidy-up of those provisions. Amendment No. 2 seeks to identify what constitutes protest for the purposes of safe zones. Amendment No. 3 simply further defines 'prohibited behaviour' in paragraph (e) being behaviour that is inconsistent with the object of this part. They are simply explanatory and refinements of the actual bill in terms of the provisions.

The CHAIR: Are there any questions on these amendments? I am going to put them separately.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: My first question is to the mover of the bill: why was each incorporated or private hospital included in the original bill, which I understand would have the impact of including every hospital in the state?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Because that was the drafting of parliamentary counsel and we accepted their advice. With concerns that were raised, particularly by the opposition in discussions seeking a reasonably collegial approach to this bill, we accepted that concerns were present, that perhaps it would restrict behaviours such as protesting about car parking or wage conditions or, indeed, through too broad a net. My personal preference would be to throw a broad net but I recognise in the spirit of collegiality that this tightens up the bill and secures the support of many members, particularly of the opposition who raised these particular concerns.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Thank you for the clarification. In regard to paragraph (c) which refers to 'protected premises' meaning 'any other premises, or premises of a kind, declared to be protected premises under section 48C', is this designed to provide exclusion zones around private abortion providers?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Hopefully, we will actually be able to access abortion health care in far more places than we currently can if we decriminalise abortion, because we have created a real restriction in access in this state, particularly for rural and regional women. So potentially there will be more places and private providers, with a decriminalised system, that will not be prohibited from, for example, early medication abortion. Should that fall under the protesters' ever-watchful eye of a vulnerable target in which to create harassment, intimidation and threats to those seeking that health care, then yes.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The Hon. Tammy Franks almost takes the words out of my mouth. When I was listening to the debate, I thought that we are going to have more medical abortions rather than surgical abortions, so there may well be myriad premises that are vulnerable to people being threatened, intimidated or harassed.

But I think it is really important tonight that we do not baulk at the opportunity to support this legislation in principle. I associate myself with the remarks of the Hon. Rob Lucas earlier, who has a different view on a number of these matters, but he quite rightly said that the House of Assembly will have a number of options put before them whether they are formally amendments that this council has endorsed or whether they are amendments that are tabled but not considered, including my own.

I think that it is really important that we do not delay the passage of this bill and that we can receive the SALRI report and develop the best system for South Australia. But I am fixated on the fact: why would South Australia, the first state in the nation to allow abortion, be the last state in the nation to support women's rights to access that service?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I have another question which is in regard to this clause but not specifically on this amendment, so should I ask that now or wait until we vote on this particular amendment?

The CHAIR: I think it needs to come now.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: In regard to the communicating or attempting to communicate with a person about the subject of abortion and the issue of consent, could the mover of the bill indicate, where a church is within the 150-metre exclusion zone, if the church wants to speak about abortion within their church, will the speaker have to get the specific permission of every member of the congregation in order to do so, given that the definition of public place includes a church?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No. I refer the honourable member to my previous answers and my great surprise that it is being claimed that churches would be prohibited from preaching about abortion. Certainly, nothing has stopped them so far, and I doubt anything will stop them in the future. Also, what is going on inside these churches that they are a bit worried that somehow they might be prescribed health access zones? As we know, these health access zones protect a premises for the provision of abortion care. What is going on if we think there is abortion care being delivered in churches?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think the honourable member has clearly misunderstood. The provision is in regard to communicating about abortion within 150 metres of a facility that provides abortion. Therefore, if a church, as part of their church services, is communicating about abortion, preaching about abortion, they are within the 150-metre zone if that is the location of their premises. Can she explain how it is that they would not be caught by this provision unless they have obtained consent from every member of the congregation or every person sitting in the church?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: One of the reasons I raised that particular issue is that I am sure every other member has received the same sort of correspondence that I have, saying that St Paul's Cathedral would be subject to these provisions and prohibited from speaking about abortion at their services. I cannot see where the provision of abortion is happening within 150 metres of St Paul's Cathedral, yet that is the correspondence that we have been repeatedly receiving from people who have been misinformed about this bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: The honourable member still has not answered my question, given that any facility under regulations prescribed by the minister will be able to be declared a protected premise, and given that any facility that is providing abortions that may not be limited to the ones we have at the moment could be located within 150 metres of a church, can she explain how someone speaking within that church, potentially to a congregation, would not be caught by the provisions of this act? It is not about providing abortion in the church; it is about communicating or attempting to communicate with a person about the subject of abortion. How is it that the church would not be caught by this, regardless of their location, if it is near an abortion provider?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think we have canvassed this more than enough. There have been various incarnations of various scenarios that are very hypothetical. I do trust the minister of the day and, as I say, if these regulations within the act are made, there will be public consultation, there will be voices heard, and there will be the ability to disallow should something be so odious that the people affected find it so. If my mother's brother was a girl, they would be my aunt. I can come up with all sorts of hypotheticals all night long and we can continue this debate in winding down the clock rather than actually progressing protection for patients and staff in our healthcare system.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I remind the chamber that it was the Hon. Ms Franks who spent time talking about the position I was going to sit in as part of the debate today, so I think it is worth remembering that the Hon. Ms Franks has been delaying in that respect. All I want is an answer and perhaps I can rephrase it for the benefit of the honourable member: can she answer, is it the intent of this bill to stop preaching in churches about the subject of abortion? If she can simply answer, 'No, it is not,' then we can proceed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would like to say 'No, it is not,' if you would sit down. No, it is not.

Amendments carried.

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

Amendment No 2 [Franks–1]—

Page 4, after line 12 [clause 3, inserted section 48D(2)]—Insert:

or

(c) by 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; or

(d) that occurs in circumstances prescribed by the regulations.

There are two parts to this. I will address the concerns raised by the Hon. Russell Wortley that the addition of a cameraperson raises some concerns. I understand where he is coming from with those fears. I was asked to presuppose before how protesters might get more and more creative. One of the ways I do think, which I have already identified, that protesters will get more creative is by pretending to be journalists, although I note in paragraph (c) that the cameraperson or other person is genuinely assisting a journalist.

We are very familiar in this place with news journalists. Quite often, the cameraperson is not necessarily a journalist and, in fact, they will tell you that if they are left there, abandoned, to ask you a few questions while the journalist texts them what to say. It covers that situation, where the cameraperson is not necessarily the journalist bound by the code of practice and ethics of our fine media professionals in this state.

Paragraph (d) allows for some flexibility, as we do in so many of our pieces of legislation and in so many acts, that where situations come up we have flexibility for the minister and the Public Service to finetune through regulation these provisions.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I just want to mention that in terms of some of the work that needs to be done by the House of Assembly, the honourable member has repeatedly said we are giving the minister discretion. Section 48C in particular forces the minister to make declarations on the basis of applications. As the minister, I regard that as inappropriate and I hope the house considers that.

The Hon. R.P. WORTLEY: I would like to thank the Hon. Ms Franks for that clarity. I support this bill because I think a woman who has made the very difficult decision to terminate a pregnancy should have absolutely no impediment and no intimidation whatsoever in entering a premises to undergo that termination.

With allowing a cameraperson the ability to go into an access zone and film, I fully support the sentiments that we have a very fine and professional media network here, but camerapersons could take many forms. It could be someone from Channel 7, Channel 9, Channel 10 or Channel 2, it could be somebody holding a video camera or it could be somebody holding a phone.

I think it would be totally intimidating for a person who is entering a termination or abortion clinic to have the possibility of being filmed and seeing herself on the 6 o'clock news. Because of that and because there can be no guarantee given that that will not happen, I have difficulty in supporting the next two amendments. I do support journalists' rights to access, their right to know. The written word is fine and audio, but it is the images of a person entering a clinic which I have a real problem with, so I cannot support the two amendments.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Has the mover of this amendment sought any advice from the Press Council?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: No, I have not on this occasion; I have taken the advice of parliamentary counsel. However, what I have drawn upon in previous debates prior to the Hon. Frank Pangallo and the Hon. Clare Scriven being in this place, is close work with the Press Council, free tv and particularly through the Surveillance Devices Act. I think there were three attempts in this place before we finally got those three bills to a final act. There were many discussions with regard to appropriate and ethical public interest media.

Amendment carried.

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

Amendment No 3 [Franks–1]—

Page 4, after line 36 [clause 3, inserted section 48E(3)]—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; or

This repeats the previous amendment so it is a repetition of those words, but it is a separate amendment.

Amendment carried; clause as amended passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported with amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (18:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (18:48): I would like to very briefly remind members what it is that we have had in this debate. The bill apparently is to address issues but the examples we have been given have been overseas examples. No evidence has been provided of things that have been alleged, such as filming of women going in and out of facilities in South Australia, nor any evidence of Facebook posts showing women who have been going in or out of abortion facilities.

There has not been any demonstration that the existing laws do not cover problems that could occur and, in fact, I know that a number of people who are voting on this bill have never been to, for example, the Woodville abortion clinic and never seen the two or three people, or five or six people, quietly praying up the road. In fact, The Advertiser visited several times in the last few weeks and asked several people who were there praying, 'Where are the protesters?'

The issues here are about ideology, they are not about problems that currently exist. We have heard that the mover of this bill made no attempt whatsoever to seek out anyone who might have provided balance, namely, women who have benefited from assistance offered outside the clinics. That means that help that could potentially be offered to women could be prevented through this bill.

There are also a number of issues around the precedent of stopping freedom of assembly. I note the comments of the Hon. Rob Lucas. I may be slightly misquoting him, but the gist is the same: he would be quite pleased to see laws that set a precedent for preventing freedom of association—I do not mean to slander him in the way I am putting this—because that gives the opportunity potentially to prevent industrial protests in the future at other premises.

For all these reasons, I think that this bill is flawed. Amendments were moved only today by the mover of the bill. While the intent of most who will vote for this bill might well be to protect women, we do not actually have the evidence that such protection is needed. Instead, there is a very real likelihood that women who are being coerced, who are being forced, into a decision that they may not wish to make will not be afforded the opportunity to gain help from those who might otherwise provide it outside the clinics.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Our abortion laws are 50 years old. They are no longer fit for purpose. The SALRI report has now been delivered to the government. In December, we will see the government's response and in the new year we will debate a bill for abortion law reform. We are one of only two states in the country that does not have safe access zones to provide this healthcare protection for healthcare workers and patients alike. South Australia has lagged where we once led. I look forward to the swift passage of this bill with the response of the SALRI report and the Attorney-General in the other place.

I thank the member for Hurtle Vale for her courage, leadership and experience in health care and ensuring that we provide that top quality health care to all who need it. I know that she and the Attorney-General will be very sound voices in the other place. When we come to a debate on the decriminalisation of abortion next year, I am hopeful that the work we have done in these past weeks and tonight will ensure that the protests are on the Parliament House steps and not outside the Pregnancy Advisory Centre.

The council divided on the third reading:

Ayes 12

Noes 5

Majority 7

Third reading thus carried; bill passed.