Bills

Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (16:48): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

The bill seeks to legislate for safe access zones around abortion health care in this state. It is not the first time nor is it even the second time that this chamber has debated this matter, but I hope it will be the final time to ensure that we provide that a person has the right to access legal reproductive services without fear, intimidation or harassment and that people in our state have the right to access these vital health services without having their privacy compromised.

It is also time that, finally, this parliament ensures that the staff, the workers in these places, in our state where abortions are performed, have the right to enter and leave their workplace safely every day without being obstructed, without being interfered with, hindered or harassed.

By providing for these healthcare safe access zones around premises that perform abortions, this bill will ensure that those seeking healthcare and the staff who provide that care can access those premises safely without experiencing anxiety, stress, fear or the trauma that can occur when they encounter anti-abortion groups or individuals outside those premises.

Some members of our community of course have very deeply held views about abortion and are opposed to the practice of abortion. That is their right. They are free to express those views. This bill does not prevent people from holding or expressing those views; however, expressing your deeply held views does not carry with it a free pass or a right to subject others to fear and intimidation.

This bill will entitle women and those accompanying them to access vital healthcare services in a safe and confidential manner without the threat of harassment. It will enable staff to access their workplace without being verbally abused, obstructed or threatened and without having their privacy compromised.

This bill contends that it is not reasonable for anti-abortion groups or individuals to target women at the very time and in the very place they seek to access an abortion health service or to target the health service workers with behaviours that are prohibited in this bill. That will enable safe entry and egress to these health services.

The impact of such actions on those who seek to use these health services is indeed something that must be viewed in the context of their own personal circumstances. Many attending these health services are already feeling quite distressed, anxious and fearful, perhaps about an unplanned pregnancy or a procedure that they are about to undergo. To be fearful that they also have to run the gauntlet of protest is further traumatic and further a burden, and we could and should ensure this parliament provides protection against that at the most difficult time in some people's lives. To be confronted by anti-abortion individuals or protests by groups at that time is of course going to lead to further trauma in these vulnerable patients.

It is also quite intimidating and demeaning for women to have to run the gauntlet simply to access a health service. Indeed, we know that the general aim of anti-abortion groups is to deter women from accessing these abortion services. The High Court has found that protections like those afforded in this bill—of safe access zones, where protections for patients and health workers alike ensure that there is not the ability to harass and intimidate a person providing or accessing a legal health service—is something that has already been done in most jurisdictions of this country. South Australia yet again lags in terms of these types of law reform.

Previously, when I have brought similar content matter to that which is in the bill before us in this particular debate, I have noted that only South Australia and Western Australia do not have safe access zones around abortion healthcare in terms of the Australian standard. I note that in Western Australia the Labor government has now moved for safe access zones in that state. I certainly hope that we are not the last state to legislate to ensure that protection for these patients.

The behaviour around these reproductive health services is conduct that can cause fear, anxiety and intimidation. Indeed, that is why this bill seeks to prohibit certain behaviours and defines those prohibited behaviours as:

(a) to threaten, intimidate or harass another person; or

(b) to obstruct another person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises; or

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

(d) to communicate by any means in relation to abortions in a manner that is able to be seen or heard by a person accessing, attempting to access, or leaving protected premises and that is reasonably likely to cause distress or anxiety;

Indeed, that is actually quite a high bar to set, and it is a bar and a standard that will be addressed by law enforcement. Should a person or a worker in these services feel that those prohibited behaviours are being enacted within the safe access zone of 150 metres around an abortion health service, then the police will be able to use their discretion to stop those behaviours.

In the first instance they will ask the person to leave the 150-metre safe access zone. Should that person refused to leave and continue with the prohibited behaviours then they will be facing potential fines of up to $10,000 or possibly imprisonment for 12 months. That is a penalty that is in keeping with the penalties around the country in most other jurisdictions of this nation.

We have seen in this place this week a bill to ensure that abortion is removed from the criminal code. We know that at least twice a year groups such as 40 Days for Life organise and target the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville, in particular for what they call silent prayer vigils for 40 days around those services. We know that because this parliament has failed to provide protection for patients, and yet again in the coming months patients will be required to run the gauntlet, we now also know, at a time when there are heightened feelings about abortion law reform in this state.

I think we have actually failed those particular patients by waiting so long to act on these safe access zones, so I do intend to see this bill progressed as swiftly as possible within the processes of a respectful parliament. I note that we have had this debate before in this place, that similar bills have passed this council previously and the SALRI report, some 550-plus pages of extensive work and consultations, is there to inform each and every member of this council with their deliberations.

I refer members of the council to recommendations 49 through 56 of the SALRI report and indeed chapter 18, which deals specifically with ensuring that South Australia has safe access zones to protect patients and healthcare workers alike. I would hope that members will be ready, willing and able to effect the swift passage of this legislation in coming sitting weeks.

To that end, I intend to take this to at least a second reading vote on 11 November. I would note that already there have been two tabled amendments circulated. I note that the Hon. Dennis Hood has an amendment for a review of the legislation, and to me that seems somewhat uncontroversial. I also note that the Hon. Nicola Centofanti has an amendment, similar to one that was debated in the other place, about ensuring silent prayer is not seen as a prohibited behaviour.

I would draw members' attention to the work particularly of the Castan Centre, which has specialised in observing how silent prayer is indeed used to threaten, intimidate or harass other people who are accessing reproductive health services in Australia. I note that this bill in and of itself does not actually prohibit silent prayer. It does prohibit behaviours, as I outlined, that are designed to threaten, intimidate or harass, that are surely behaviours that I would not imagine anyone would be looking to perpetuate in any parliament of the nation. It is not a right to threaten, intimidate or harass.

This bill does not prohibit silent prayer, but by ensuring that the bill affords the protections against prohibited behaviour, to include an exemption for silent prayer would, I believe, denigrate those who do hold a Christian faith or a faith that supports prayer, because I do not know of any religion that wants to threaten, intimidate or harass through the use of prayer.

By giving silent prayer a special dispensation from those prohibited behaviours, I think we open a very frightening Pandora's box, if you like, that allows religion and religious practice to be contorted into something quite ugly if we are saying that it is okay to use silent prayer to threaten, intimidate or harass. That is to me not what prayer is about.

I think I have put on the record before that I am agnostic. I am not an atheist, as some possibly assume, and I am also not a monotheist. I am not averse to the right, ability and power of prayer, but I certainly will not stand by while people use words and supposed rights to pray to threaten, intimidate or harass, and I would hope that other members of this council will see the same.

To that end, I also offer members the ability to talk to those who have specialised in the role of silent prayer around abortion health care and the way it has been weaponised, if you like. The Castan Law Centre is ready, willing and able to provide either direct briefings or, should members be interested, we can hold an online parliamentary briefing to find out more.

I and Nat Cook, the member for Hurtle Vale, who co-sponsored this bill and introduced it in another place, already offered such an opportunity to members of parliament, but we are happy to run that again, and we look forward, hopefully, to the passage of this bill on 11 November.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. T.T. Ngo.