HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, Second Session (54-2)
2020-11-11 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Bills

Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 15 October 2020.)

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (17:22): I do not propose to keep the chamber unduly this afternoon with any words from me, other than to say that I will, of course, be supporting the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill. I note that it is a conscience vote for Labor members and one which has been debated previously in this place, or a bill very similar. In fact, this bill is nearly identical to the previous health access zones bill which passed this place in 2019.

I would like to thank members of the public and the community who have contacted me to share their views on this subject. I have reflected on my previous contributions to this debate and the comments I have made in the past. My position has not changed. I would like to commend the co-sponsors of this legislation, the Hon. Tammy Franks in this place and Nat Cook, member for Hurtle Vale in the other place.

I would like to particularly acknowledge the member for Hurtle Vale for successfully negotiating the arcane hurdles of private members' legislation in the lower house. Passing a bill in private members' time in the other place is no mean feat, and I think she does deserve some consideration.

I would also like to make it plain, for the record, my position on the amendments. I will be supporting no amendments, for two reasons, really. Some of the amendments have only just been filed—moments ago—and I do not think it is conducive to a satisfactory debate to be filing amendments this late, when we have known for some time this matter is coming to a vote today at this hour.

Additionally and perhaps more importantly, any amendments made in this chamber today will necessarily mean an amended bill will need to go back to the other chamber and go through that whole arcane process of private members' legislation in the other place, where I would predict the bill would be lost for all time and would have to start again. For me, this is too important an issue to have that done to it. I want this bill done and dusted as soon as possible, so my position—and it is only my position—is that I will be supporting no amendments. I will be supporting the bill as presented from the lower house.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS (17:24): I rise today to speak not only in support of the bill but to convey how important it is to South Australians, particularly women and workers. We have considered a very similar bill in this place previously. It is important to note that the previous bill was passed with an overwhelming majority, and although the make-up of our chamber is slightly different to when that happened, I have no doubt that we will reach the same outcome again.

I would like to begin my remarks by thanking the member for Hurtle Vale for leading the bill through the other place and the Hon. Tammy Franks for championing the bill in this house. As we all know, the process of passing private members' bills through the other place is challenging, to say the least. The time restriction in place for private members' business makes it easy for progress to be held up, especially when members slow progress intentionally. Some members asked questions out of genuine concern for the bill; others, who did not like the bill, purposely sought to use the maximum time in their second reading contributions to drag out debate through the committee stage.

It was obvious that others saw it as an opportunity to once again slow progression on reform that is far overdue and make decisions prejudiced by their own views on abortion and women. Opposing members labelled this bill as an infringement on free speech, violating the right to protest and taking away liberties and freedoms of South Australians. These claims are false and need to be called out. Not only are these lies being espoused in parliament but in the public and are obviously influencing people's decisions in this parliament. This information builds fear and seeks to challenge the truth. It ignores the experience of others and the professional legal recommendations, ultimately undermining women and their autonomy.

Watching these debates, it is extremely obvious who uses these issues to stop progress on abortion reform and stall progress on reproductive rights. Some members are ignorant of the fact that we all know that they are anti-abortion. It is not only obvious to us but to the public as well. These members use these false claims as a facade to hide from being outrightly anti-abortion. No-one outrightly in this parliament claims to be pro life or anti-abortion. Rather, they hide behind these lies and incorporate the notion of helping women. To those members: in using that line, you are not helping women, you are denying them human rights and access to health services.

The opposition to this bill consistently surprises me. The minority of anti-work and anti-women protesters outside abortion clinics and on parliament's steps seem to be amplified in this place, with members mirroring their agenda of scare tactics and questioning women's autonomy. If people in this place truly cared about the wellbeing of patients and healthcare workers, they would support the bill.

When I visited the Pregnancy Advisory Centre for a briefing last week, I was confronted with the 40 Days for Life anti-abortion group. These protesters are obviously intimidating and harassing patients and workers. Not only have I seen this firsthand but it has been extensively reported through media, the SALRI report and during the course of this bill. People have tried to justify the anti-abortion protesters being there. Members have labelled the protesters as a form of counselling and comfort to patients. No form of counselling is done by these protesters. The very definition of counselling is the provision of professional assistance and guidance in resolving personal or psychological problems.

I emphasise the word 'professional'. Giving women unsolicited advice and biased information out the front of a medical clinic is incredibly offensive to both the women accessing the service and the health professionals working in the practice. Women feel as though the anti-abortion protesters undermine their autonomy by questioning their ability to make decisions about their own body. They also purposefully guilt women about making the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Health professionals are offended by the anti-abortion protestors, as they portray staff as enablers, without any regard for their expertise and ethics. Members in this place are hiding behind these claims when in parliament. However, they have no issue with actively participating in pro-life rallies and freely expressing their opinions to the media.

Why these members do not outrightly say that they are anti-abortion is beyond me. If you truly believe in something, then you usually are not ashamed to stand with the group. Unlike members of this place, the 40 Days for Life group very publicly state on their website that they work to end abortion locally through prayer and fasting, community outreach and peaceful all-day vigils in front of abortion businesses. This group is actively pursuing an agenda contrary to the law. They go even further to detail the number of babies saved, abortion workers who have had to quit and clinics they have closed.

Our party values workers and their contribution to society. As a Labor Party member, the work this group does to disentitle people from employment and shut down clinics is appalling. I am surprised that other members of my party do not see it this way. Through these statistics—unverified statistics, I might add—this group is boasting about taking away human rights from people. This group does not just want this legislation to fail, they want the practice of abortion to be completely banned. Our parliament cannot and will not let laws change back to what they were 50 years ago.

I note that three amendments have been filed in relation to the bill. The Hon. Nicola Centofanti has indicated that she will be moving an amendment specifically to allow silent prayer from occurring in the prescribed premise. This was addressed in the lower house and through multiple briefings. It is not illegal within the current form of the legislation to pray silently within the prescribed premise. Silent prayer would be unlikely to constitute threats, harassment or obstruction, but may be intimidating and hence be a prohibited behaviour. It is unnecessary to include this amendment.

This amendment was also not supported by the Human Rights Law Centre, SALRI, Monash University, the South Australian Abortion Action Coalition and the High Court of Australia. Listening to the advice of professionals and understanding the intention of this amendment to murky the waters of this legislation means that I will be voting against this amendment.

The Hon. Dennis Hood has indicated that he will be moving an amendment that would need the minister to review the operation of the safe access zone. This is also an unnecessary burden to this bill. We know from cases in other jurisdictions around Australia that this legislation works as prescribed by the legislation. It has been tested through legal proceedings in other jurisdictions and decisions made through the High Court. The pending Termination of Pregnancy Bill also includes an overall review, making this additional clause redundant.

The final amendment, and perhaps the most illogical of them all, is from the Hon. Clare Scriven, with the deletion of 'protected premises', substituted with 'boundary of the property on which the protected premises are situated'. Questions regarding the boundary have been answered in the lower house and discussed at length in the lower house and through briefings. Just in case there is any confusion, the current bill's interpretation would be that the safe access zone begins at the perimeter of the premises where an abortion is being legally performed and applies to any public area located within a 150-metre radius. Very straightforward, I would have thought.

If I am wrong in that explanation and the experts briefing us on this clause from Monash University are also wrong, I await the Hon. Clare Scriven's explanation. To those members who are thinking of opposing this legislation, I remind you of how appalled we and the public were about the horrific abuse and harassment frontline medical workers were receiving during the beginning of the pandemic. Did you find those attacks horrendous? Did you find it appalling when they were spat on, tackled to the ground and verbally abused in the street? This happens to people working in abortion clinics every single day.

The double standard presented by some members is laughable. Even through my work in women's health and the unions, I have never seen so much resistance to women and workers' rights as has been displayed by members throughout this debate. For those who have been asleep at the wheel, the public, health professionals and patients no longer accept practices rooted in misogyny and patriarchal structures.

For years, community groups, activists and the general public have been calling for legislation that recognises women having autonomy over their own bodies. It is time this parliament wakes up to those calls. The passing of this legislation marks the beginning, but do not worry, there will be plenty more to come.

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL (17:36): I will be supporting this bill. I would like at the outset to offer my hearty congratulations to my colleague the Hon. Tammy Franks for her work on this bill and on previous bills over many years. Her work in this area shows that persistence, I think, does pay off. I associate myself with the remarks that she has made, but I would also now like to associate myself with the remarks that the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos has made. Many of the issues that she has raised were issues that I wanted to raise myself, in particular the claim that this bill somehow is a gross infringement on civil liberties, the rights of free speech, the right to protest and, the latest in that list, the right to pray silently, apparently.

I agree with the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos that the free speech, protest and silent prayer that the opponents of this bill advocate is not for any other reason than to intimidate and influence the behaviour of people seeking to access legitimate medical services. The protesters outside abortion clinics are only there to influence the behaviour of the patients who are attending. There is no other reason for them to be there.

We have known for a very long time that, when it comes to civil liberties and human rights, including the right to free speech, there are limits. For example, where the right to free speech crosses against the right not to be vilified racially, this parliament and society, I think, accepts that there are limits, and the limit is, 'Thou shall not racially vilify people.' Does it infringe your right to say whatever you want? Maybe it does, but it is a right that, as a society, we have correctly identified needs to be curtailed for the greater good.

When it comes to this issue and the right for people to silently pray, for example, at a place of their choosing, which might just happen to be outside an abortion clinic, the other day I was trying to think of some parallels. Maybe someone wants to silently pray on the intersection of King William Street and North Terrace. They might claim that that is the particular spot that they want to silently pray: 'The cars won't be that inconvenienced. They can drive around me. I'll promise to just stand right in the middle. I will not be in anybody's way.' Guess what? That person is going to get arrested. Society has decided that in most situations that is not appropriate. 'Pray somewhere else' is what the police officer would tell that person.

So there are limits to free speech, and I have no qualms whatsoever in drawing up these limits in a way that protects women who are attending these health clinics, protecting their mental health, protecting their privacy and their dignity. I do not want to see some of the behaviour that has been described of protestors outside abortion clinics.

The other thing I will say is that many of us today are wearing our red poppies, it being Remembrance Day. I found it odd—I will say it more strongly: I found it offensive, but I will start with odd—that apparently there are some bills on the Notice Paper that cannot be debated on Remembrance Day. Other bills, apparently, are okay. This one is okay and we are debating this bill now, but another bill on the topic of abortion apparently is inappropriate to debate on Remembrance Day.

My view is that it is very poor form to somehow invoke the memory of people who have died in the service of their nation in a partisan way and to say that those people would not have liked the bill and therefore it is not proper for us to debate it on Remembrance Day. It is a bizarre concept and I find it offensive.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. M.C. PARNELL: Regardless, the work of parliament will proceed. There was an out of order interjection that the RSL lined up, saying, 'Please don't debate abortion on Remembrance Day.' I did circulate to a few members—not to everyone—an image. It is a favourite image of mine. It is actually one of the war memorials in Canberra.

It is in the precinct of the parliament building. It is a very simple granite memorial. It has a slouch hat, I think there is a nurse's hat and there might be an air force hat in there as well as a drinking fountain, so it is functional. It is a war memorial and basically the war memorial says—the words are few, but they are very powerful—'Look around you,' referring to the parliamentary precinct, 'this is what they believed in.'

I am thinking that they believed in democracy. Many of them believed they were fighting for democracy. Guess where democracy gets done? It gets done in places like this. The Notice Paper is what the Notice Paper is and we will debate the other bill tomorrow. That is just fine, but I just want to say that I thought it was very poor form for people to invoke Remembrance Day as a reason not to debate particular legislation.

On this particular bill, as I have said, congratulations to my colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks. It is an important bill. It is a bill that will improve the dignity, the security and the wellbeing of women who are accessing these services and I think it is more than time that this parliament passes this bill. I very much look forward to a successful vote, whether it is today or whenever, but I think this is a bill whose time has come.

The Hon. C. BONAROS (17:42): I rise to speak in support of the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill 2020. The recent passing of eminent United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg marked a momentous moment in our history. It was a salient reminder of both just how far we have come but also the long and often exasperating road still ahead of us when it comes to some of our most basic human rights. At her confirmation hearing some 27 years ago, the celebrated gender equality advocate said, I quote:

The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself.

All women and girls have a fundamental right to safety, privacy and dignity, especially when it comes to accessing vital health care. By its very nature, access to such safe health care is not just something we simply deserve or we have earned; it is something we are entitled to and, sadly, it is something millions of women the world over continue to fail to attain.

This debate is not just about body autonomy and reproductive freedoms; it is about ensuring that our daughters, our granddaughters, our sons and our grandsons are safe in the knowledge we have done absolutely everything in our power to address those aspects of our outdated and archaic laws that make the long road ahead easier to navigate. It is about protecting the very basic rights that people like the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg and others before her have championed for decades.

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy is never an easy decision. It can be heartbreaking. It can mean the end of a much-wanted pregnancy. It can mean the difference between life and death for a woman. It can mean a lifetime of emotional turmoil. It can mean having no choice at all. It can mean so many different things for so many different women.

We probably all know somebody who has terminated a pregnancy. Many of us may have felt the heartache ourselves. The bottom line is that these are not easy choices or decisions, but they are choices and decisions that women and girls need to be able to make free of unnecessary obstacles and worries, free of undue pressure and fear, and free of stigma. They are choices every woman is entitled to have, and decisions that women and girls need to be able to make for themselves.

I have spoken on the record previously about my support for this bill. My reasons for supporting these measures have not changed, so I do not intend to repeat them today. The importance of this legislation has been canvassed extensively by everybody, from the medical profession, researchers, academics, advocates and legal experts, to the South Australian Law Reform Institute. I do not need any further convincing. None of us should need further convincing. It is the right thing to do, and it is the decent thing to do.

I do want to address the issue of silent prayer, something which I myself quite often do, because whether we like it or not, it is central to this debate. Believe it or not, supporting this bill does not make us any less Christian, it does not make us any less Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, or any other religion you may believe in. Indeed, my own personal belief is that supporting this bill is in good keeping with the core values central to religious beliefs: compassion, understanding, love and, importantly, respect of others, and forgiveness. It is basic human decency.

I think this is articulated best by the Reverend Paul Turley from the Clayton Wesley Uniting Church in a letter that he wrote to the editor of The Advertiser that was published in today's newspaper. I appreciate that this is in relation to the broader abortion debate, but it is just as relevant to the debate before us today. He wrote:

I write in support of the bill to decriminalise abortion that is before the South Australian Parliament.

I do so because, like many others in our community, I believe that a woman seeking an abortion is not, and should not be treated as, a criminal by the laws of South Australia.

I write also as a Christian minister and do so because some religious opponents of the bill seek to portray their views as the Christian view.

There is no Christian view on abortion. Only Christians who have a view.

My view as a Christian is that moving abortion from the field of law into the field of health is the compassionate and just thing to do…

I am sure the decision is made unnecessarily more difficult by the threat of criminality. To be just is to seek the fair and equal treatment of all.

This bill will help ensure that the lack of access to services, particularly for women in rural and remote parts of SA, will be addressed.

One of the concerns of some is addressed by a study reported in 'Study backs abortion shift' (The Advertiser, Monday). It found the tiny number of later-term abortions sought in the UK, US and Canada were all sought by, in the words of the study's author, Dr Prudence Flowers, 'people in desperate circumstances that are very rare'.

In these rare circumstances, compassion and justice are even more crucial.

As I said, this bill may not be directly about the abortion debate but it is so indirectly because we are talking about access to health care for the termination of a pregnancy. I thank Reverend Turley for those eloquent and considered words. If you truly believe in a god—your god—then surely it must follow that you also believe that he will hear your prayers wherever you may be. The reality is that not everybody shares your beliefs.

Women attending such clinics and workers at those clinics, who are going about their employment obligations, are entitled to do so without fear or judgement, without intimidation, and making an already very difficult—an extremely difficult time—more traumatic. They are entitled to expect that even though we may not share the same personal beliefs, as legislators the legal standards we create will be fair and equitable for all. I count my lucky stars that I live in a nation that affords me and every other woman with safe (albeit far from perfect) choices in our decision-making in the full knowledge that so many other women simply do not have that entitlement afforded to them in law or in practice.

With those words, I would like to thank the member for Hurtle Vale in the other place, and of course the Hon. Tammy Franks in this place, for their commitment to this bill and to seeing it through to fruition. I commend the second reading.

Sitting suspended from 17:50 to 19:45.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN (19:46): As members would be aware, we debated a similar bill to this last year. Firstly, we need to remember there is no evidence for this bill. When we did debate the similar bill last year, I asked the Hon. Ms Franks how many prosecutions there had been in the 27 years of operation of the pregnancy advisory clinic—it is now 28 years, of course—and the answer was none. I have heard that there has been one attempted prosecution in all that time which was not upheld. So in 28 years, there has possibly been one attempt at prosecution, yet this is something that requires its own law, we are told.

The argument is put forth that there were no prosecutions because the law was not suitable and yet the Summary Offences Act covers disorderly or offensive conduct or language. Someone who behaves in a disorderly or offensive manner is guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $1,250. An offence in that definition includes threatening, abusive or insulting language or behaviour. So, number one, the Summary Offences Act already has mechanisms to address behaviour if, indeed, it were occurring.

Secondly, all councils have by-laws and the City of Charles Sturt is no exception. The City of Charles Sturt in which the abortion clinic is located has by-laws which prohibit particular behaviour, specifically:

A person must not on local government land annoy or unreasonably interfere with any other person's use of the land by making a noise or creating a disturbance…

To be absolutely certain, those who go to the abortion clinic regularly must obtain a permit from the council to be on council land. No proceedings for breach of permit have been made. A permit has never been revoked, a permit has never been refused, despite the fact that under the by-laws a person cannot annoy or unreasonably interfere with another person's use of land. Again, there is clearly no evidence that women are being targeted and harassed.

Last year, the Hon. Ms Franks, who introduced this bill, referred to complaints to Charles Sturt council. Freedom of information requests show that there had been 21 complaints over five years, roughly four per year, and several were from the same person or body. It is not even four per year from different people. What were those complaints?

One was that there were four people sitting on chairs. The relevance of that is that the permit issued to 40 Days for Life or other groups requires that they must sit or be behind a barricade. Another complaint was that a person entering the clinic was told by the people who were outside that they were there to help. Another complaint was that a small group of people were across the road from the centre and they were 'subject to their stares'—so they were being looked at.

We have not seen pictures displayed of dead babies at the Woodville abortion clinic. We have not seen any offensive signs. Reference has been made to studies by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, which apparently show that the mere presence of people outside a clinic caused harm to women going in. There are two such studies from that institute that I looked at. The first outlined the methodology of the study as follows:

We conducted 40 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with staff working in clinics providing abortion services and professionals engaged in health policy.

The second was the 2018 study by Penovic and Sifris from the Castan Centre. That study involved:

19 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with professionals engaged in health policy and staff working in clinics providing reproductive health services, including abortion.

The methodology further said:

Interview participants were recruited through personal contacts, email and snowball methodology.

And further:

We decided not to undertake interviews with persons who have engaged in anti-abortion protests.

This one was the study that involved only 19 people, who were already known to the authors or their associates and who were working in abortion facilities, such as the Maria Stopes Maroondah clinic in Victoria. It is not clear whether the 40 people in the first-mentioned study included the 19 people in the earlier study. They may or may not, but either way it is either 40 people total or, at most, 59.

I am not saying that there is no value at all in this study, but it must be seen through the lens of a very small sample who were not randomly selected, many of whom had a financial interest in abortion. There was no evidence that the study's authors put in place appropriate mechanisms to mitigate the possibility that some of the respondents would not want people offering alternatives to abortion and offering help outside their clinic because it would affect their bottom line.

The study's authors also outlined why they did not undertake interviews with women who had accessed the clinics, citing, for example, privacy, which is understandable. However, the conclusions reached are therefore relying on the perceptions of people other than those who have experienced people outside the clinics.

In an earlier contribution, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos said that when she visited the Pregnancy Advisory Centre last Friday she was confronted by the 40 Days for Life protesters (I think they were the words that she used). I also attended at the same time. There were two people standing under a tree opposite the centre, and I think I can say with confidence that unless you were looking particularly for them you would not know who they were or what they were doing there. Just up the road, behind bollards, there were three or four people who, again, would not be easily seen as one entered the abortion clinic. To go down that part of the road, you are actually going to a no-through end, so it is very unlikely that they could have been considered to be intimidating in any way.

Back to the studies. The studies such as the one described, which was not random, which was very small in sample and which interviewed people who had, potentially, a financial interest in a particular outcome, would obviously not pick up the women who appreciated offers of assistance outside a clinic. As mentioned, here in Adelaide we have not seen the harassment that has been outlined, but we have seen offers of help to women, many of which have been absolutely welcomed. This was from one woman who assisted, who said:

A mother was referred to me for assistance with an unexpected pregnancy. I found her employment and a house, budgeting assistance through…

And she mentions the person and organisation. She continued:

I arranged babysitting while the Mother was at work. A lady who met the mother through the cafe became the baby's Godmother, and cares for the baby girl up to this day, bringing her often to [the café]. All the regular customers know the little girl and some have given clothes and toys as gifts for her.

There will be some arguments that assistance is provided inside the clinic, so help is not needed to be offered outside. The experience of many women is contrary to that. As I mentioned, I visited the Pregnancy Advisory Centre last week on invitation as part of the briefings on the termination of pregnancy bill. There were information pamphlets in the various waiting areas, but none of them outlined alternatives to abortion. I repeat that: there were information pamphlets in the various waiting areas, but none of them—not one of them—outlined alternatives to abortion; nor did they offer assistance in housing or material help.

I asked where such pamphlets could be found and was told they were in the drawer of the social worker. Now, one could mount an argument that once a woman had got in to see the social worker, the social worker could give her those pamphlets, but in the general waiting area, where there are other information pamphlets, it struck me as remiss, to say the least, that those alternatives are not offered and that those options are not offered.

In any case, with the best of intentions the level of support provided in the earlier example cannot be provided by government bureaucracy, however well intended they may be. Anyone who has worked in government knows that things often move quite slowly and that a staff member would not be able to find employment, arrange a roster of volunteer babysitters, provide baby goods and arrange housing. Had these forms of help not been available to this woman, she would have been forced into an abortion. She would have had no choice—quite contrary to making a choice.

I would like to remind members of other experiences of people who have been offered help by people outside of an abortion clinic. I am quoting here:

We both are grateful to you to have Saira in our life. I still remember that day back in December...when we went to [the] clinic...and met [you]. It is because of you all who motivated us to continue ahead and face the challenges with your help and support. We are really thankful to everyone who supported us to have such a beautiful baby in our life. Thanks for helping us in our bad times. I've attached the recent photograph of our family.

Another:

I wish to say how grateful my wife and I are to [you] for offering help to my wife and to myself when we went to the...clinic. This enables us to cancel the appointment of the abortion and…keep the little baby Nicholas who is now 6 years old...We thank God for people who were there for us that morning and the little baby now alive.

Another one:

Me and my family are very thankful for you and your team for the help you provided us...If we couldn't meet you at the time of my wife's pregnancy termination…probably we [would have had the] abortion! But your help stopped us to do so, bundle of thanks and regards that with your help my wife gave birth to an angel Maria and also she completed her study, because of your help to looking after my other two kids…for more than a year at my house. My daughter is very cute, she is 6 six months old and she starts talking some words. Kind regards from me and my Family.

Another one:

Our son Noah is 17 months old and he is a beautiful and healthy little boy. We are so proud and blessed to have him in our lives. When I was pregnant…[you were put in] our way and we walked away from abortion. [You] helped us all through the pregnancy and even after. [Your friends] helped pay all our bills and introduce us to some beautiful people who now have become our close friends. We would like to take the opportunity to thank [you] for the incredible help, support and their prayers because it all paid off. We will never forget.

This is an example of some of the people's experiences who have been approached by people outside of an abortion centre. They have been helped by the people outside the abortion centre. They have been very grateful for the support they received. They could not have received that support if legislation such as this had been in place.

No-one supporting this bill has addressed this issue, no-one: the help provided, the help that was not offered to these women through the system, the current health system, the current health system under this current government and many governments previously.

I remind members that the 40 Days for Life positioning is about 75 metres away from the entrance of the abortion centre. As I mentioned, it would be very hard to even tell why people were there unless you already knew or were looking for it. As we know, this bill prohibits discussion of abortion within 150 metres of an abortion clinic or other hospitals that perform abortions. Indeed, it currently states that it is within 150 metres of any hospital in this state.

My question, which I will put when we get to the committee stage, is: if the other termination of pregnancy bill goes through, which means that abortions will be able to happen in places other than hospitals, does that mean there will also be a 150-metre exclusion zone around any of those locations? It would be helpful to have that answer from the mover when we get to that stage.

We are also told that the staff at the abortion centres have a screening tool for domestic violence, and certainly I am glad to hear that they do, but all tools have their limitations. There are certainly women who say either that they have not benefited from such a tool or that, to their knowledge, it was never applied for them. These are the women who have said that they have been taken into the abortion clinic—often by a male person; perhaps a partner, perhaps a brother or perhaps a parent—not wanting to have an abortion and yet there was no screening that picked up that they were being coerced. There was no screening that gave them assistance to say, 'No, this isn't what I want.' A number of women have said that they are not even asked if it is what they want.

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

Instead…there was eerie silence. They said nothing except that they'd support me whatever my choice. That is something I think a lot of people say with the expectation that that will be helpful.

She continues, however:

It was as I sat in an anatomy and physiology lesson in first-year nursing, staring…at the embryonic development of a 10-week-old foetus, that the whole house of lies came crashing down around me. There she was: no ball of cells, no half a fingernail-sized blob but a baby, heartbeat and all…That moment of realisation broke me open, and I found within a well of grief so immense.

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

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

In the name of wanting to be supportive of a young woman facing an unexpected pregnancy, a young woman at risk of feeling pressured and condemned; the risks were not even mentioned. Not by the doctor I visited, not by the counsellor and not by the abortionist. It was decided for me by society that I didn't need the difficult facts, because abortion was the best choice for all involved.

So Madeleine did not feel that she was exercising her agency; she did not feel that she was making free choices. Instead, she felt that others had decided that this was the best choice and that was what she was obliged to do. However, four years later, when she saw a picture of an unborn baby, that is not how she felt.

We of course will be discussing other aspects of abortion in another bill, so I will not continue along that line here at this stage. What I do ask members to think of, and we know that probably most if not all members have already decided how they are going to vote on this bill: I want you to think about those parents who have contacted me and others in this place, those parents who said how much they appreciated being offered help at the front of a clinic when they felt they had no choices.

They said how much they appreciated being given those choices by people who are willing to help them; people who are willing to support them and love them, not judge them; people who are willing to organise a roster of child care by volunteers so that a mother could continue her pregnancy and still work; and people who are willing to stand with the woman and say, 'If you want another option, we can help you.'

If we pass this bill—and I know it is probably when we pass this bill—we are saying to those women, 'You didn't deserve that help. That help didn't come to you through the system, and we are fine with it not coming to you through any other way.' That will be a tragedy, and I ask members to reflect on that.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI (20:04): I rise to speak on this bill and to indicate that I will not be supporting it in its current form. First, I would like to place on the record that I think it is reprehensible that anyone would be harassed in any manner in any situation, let alone for attempting to access a medical procedure. I believe that we all have the fundamental right to go about our daily lives and decisions without abuse or threat. We also all have the fundamental right to express a view or an opinion in a respectful manner. This is called free speech, and we are all lucky to live in a country, the foundations of which were built on free speech and liberty.

This bill is regressive as it is an attempt to progressively dismantle the architecture around freedom of speech. Government should not be able to regulate a person's speech, just because it disapproves of their opinion or what they say. It is disingenuous to limit free speech only in relation to a particular cause, as this bill seeks to do in section 48C(2)(b). Free speech is about the right to express one's opinion without censorship, restraint or legal penalty.

I disagree with members who claim that this legislation does not impinge on freedom of speech, because it does. It regulates the format or manner of a form of expression by restricting the uses of places in which a particular protest activity may take place. That, in itself, impinges on freedom of speech.

I reiterate, as I stated previously, that I do not support and fervently oppose any situation in which a protest is violent, aggressive or of a harassing nature. I can see the motivation behind this legislation: to protect people who are having to make extremely difficult decisions. However, we have current rules that govern protesters of all causes, rules that balance the rights of those inconvenienced and, more importantly, laws prescribing harassment and assault.

I draw the chamber'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'. These laws already exist to protect our citizens from harassment, and further laws such as these do nothing more than to threaten to protect the value of freedom of expression.

I would also like to talk about the reality of this legislation. In 2017, several members of the ACT community were fined for praying silently in Canberra's CBD after the passing of legislation in the ACT preventing protests in the vicinity of an abortion clinic. During this debate in the other place some members suggested that silent prayer in itself could not be interpreted as a prohibited behaviour in any case. It is true that this may not be the intended consequence of the bill, but what we have seen occur in the ACT shows that this is the reality.

So that members are aware, let me step you through the consequences of this legislation. A zone, similar to the proposed legislation today, was introduced around the Moore Street Clinic in Canberra in March 2016. A group of individuals had held vigils at the civic clinic every Friday for 18 years. After the legislation was passed, the group no longer held group vigils, remained silent, did not use placards and instead prayed as individuals. Despite this, police fined three of these individuals and temporarily took another into custody for praying within the protest exclusion zone. Again, it may not be the intended consequence, but like much legislation it is the reality.

That is why I will be moving an amendment identical to the amendment moved in the other place by the Minister for Environment and Water, to ensure that silent prayer cannot be interpreted as prohibited behaviour. This would enable people to peacefully and silently provide prayer for individuals as they enter or leave a protected premises.

There are stories of women who have actually, by choice, approached those so-called protesters: women who felt that their circumstances meant they had no other choice but to seek an abortion, women who felt pressured to make a decision based on the lack of necessary support. These women, feeling empowered, have then changed their minds and have raised their children with the support of this community.

They are stories such those of Aashika and Suyra, who came to Australia after the earthquakes in Nepal with little money and no family support. They were not aware of the support structures available in Australia. When remembering her past journey, Aashika said:

I was so stressed outside the abortion clinic. My husband and I just stopped there. My husband went to talk with one of the people sitting on the side of the road. He didn't force us to stop or listen to him. He just spoke with us about our problem, why we were choosing abortion. My husband told our story...The man, Paul, told us about the things he could help us with and we don't have to abort our baby. He really helped us. He helped us to bring our mother out to Australia to help take care of the baby whilst I was studying and my husband was at work. He also helped us with accommodation and other things.

Another story is from Sara, a young woman who walked into the cafe adjacent to the abortion clinic to ask for directions to the clinic. She spoke to Marguerite, the then owner of the cafe, and after a friendly conversation Marguerite gave her literature on pregnancy support and her mobile number. One hour later, the young woman phoned Marguerite to thank her for the information and to say that she had decided to keep her baby. In 2013, Sara's healthy baby girl was born, and Marguerite continued to support Sara, bringing her needed goods for her and her baby.

I strongly believe that silent prayer should be allowed. By explicitly allowing individuals to practise silent prayer near an abortion clinic, a woman then has the option to seek their support, such as we hear in stories. There has been a lot of discussion on women's choice, and this is another example of choice. By removing these people from this area, you remove the woman's choice to approach and engage. I believe that the saving of one life and the provision of support for these women justifies the amendment.

I am also extremely uncomfortable with the wording of the proposed amendments to the Health Care Act. Under section 48E, the proposed changes state:

A police officer may, if the police officer reasonably suspects that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in prohibited behaviour in a health access zone, direct the person to immediately leave the health access zone.

If he or she fails to comply, they are guilty of an offence with a maximum penalty of $10,000. There are five words that I am extremely uncomfortable with, and they are the words 'or is about to engage'. I am no lawyer, but even I know that there are some basic principles of criminal law. One of those is that you cannot arrest someone before they have actually committed a crime. After doing some research on the topic, I can tell you that there are five principles of criminal law, which are: (1) actus reus (or guilty act); (2) mens rea (or guilty mind); (3) and probably the most important, the concurrence of actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind); (4) causation; and (5) harm.

Legally, I am not sure how one can satisfy oneself beyond reasonable doubt that someone is 'about to engage' before they have actually engaged in prohibited behaviour. I believe there is a significant risk that, with the use of these words, members of the public could be religiously profiled and, in doing so, be forced to leave a health access zone before actually committing a crime.

This bill has been carefully crafted so that the crime is not actually committed unless the member of the public argues the point as to why they may be within the health access zone other than to protest and refuses to leave the zone. What happens if this person is visiting a sick friend or relative in a hospital where abortions are performed? What about their right to be in a public space? I believe this legislation is flawed and problematic.

When working on a measure that restricts freedom of expression, we need to ask ourselves a number of important questions: whether the measure can be justified under the permitted grounds for restriction, whether it would be effective to achieve the desired ends, whether it impinges on freedom of expression to a greater degree than is necessary, and whether there are less restrictive means of achieving the desired ends. I believe this legislation is fundamentally flawed in all these areas and I therefore cannot support it.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (20:15): Members will be aware that I spoke at some length on a very similar bill that was debated in this place not long ago. In light of that, I do not intend to go into the same level of detail today but, rather, will outline more briefly some of the reasons that I will not be supporting this bill. I refer members to my previous speech on this matter for a more detailed outline of my position but I imagine members are familiar with it by now.

The principal reason I oppose this bill is I believe that the bill is a disproportionate response to overcome a perceived problem based on very little evidence that any problem actually exists. The Pregnancy Advisory Centre is the primary setting for the proposed safe access zones that this bill seeks to impose, given that is where most of South Australia's roughly 4,300 yearly abortions are performed.

For some 30 years, vigils have been held at that site by those wishing to exercise their democratic freedoms to assemble, pray and advocate. This has been done by way of permit through the City of Charles Sturt and not even once, as I am informed, has this permit ever been revoked by the council—not once in 30 years.

As a democratic society, we have the expectation that the fundamental democratic rights of our citizens will not be eroded except when it is absolutely necessary to do so, but this is exactly what this bill will do. It impinges upon the right to peaceful protest, freedom of expression and freedom of speech. It targets otherwise law-abiding citizens and says that you cannot behave in a way that is legal and acceptable in any other setting but not in this defined zone. Furthermore, if you do protest there, potentially even silently, you face the prospect of arrest and a $10,000 fine or imprisonment for up to 12 months.

I argue that this bill is unnecessary because we already have laws in place that deal with this harassment, intimidation and coercion if, in fact, it occurs. These are the very reasons we are told this bill is needed; however, I am informed that there has never been a single successful prosecution regarding the behaviour of any of the people involved in prayers or vigils over that entire 30-year period of time. I am aware of a single attempted prosecution during that period, but it failed due to a lack of evidence; in fact, I understand the charges were withdrawn and not pursued.

Therefore, in light of those circumstances, it begs the question: if there was a significant issue requiring legislative intervention with actual cases of bullying or violence against individuals—which is wrong and I think all of us would acknowledge that—just seeking to use a government service, where is the evidence of it? Why have people not been arrested and charged in over 30 years? Why has the council not revoked the permits it issues regularly? Where is the proof? I guess that is the most simple way of asking that question. If people have genuinely been subject to the types of behaviours this bill seeks to prevent, why have there not been any successful prosecutions to date under existing laws?

I would like to contrast the behaviour of people involved in these vigils with the sort of behaviour that we frequently see on our nightly news services. I am talking about violent protest with acts of what is clearly criminal behaviour with real and devastating consequences for the victims. Fortunately, these events often occur overseas, and we have seen them frequently on the news in recent times. But there have been examples of those protests turning violent at times in our country, too, and when these events do occur, we also see arrests and charges laid, as they rightly should be, and I would 100 per cent support that. What we do not see is people's democratic rights to peaceful protest taken away, and I emphasise peaceful protest. The right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression are not outlawed as a result of these quite violent events that we sometimes observe from time to time.

On a personal note, I must say that I do know some of the people involved in the groups that pray and hold vigils at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre. I know some of them personally, and I can tell you that my knowledge of them is that they are peaceful people. I do not know all of them, of course, so I cannot vouch for all of them, but certainly the ones I do know are decent, law-abiding citizens and would take pride in not infringing the law. Again, the record of no successful prosecutions and not even a single revocation of permits by the council, in my mind, is a clear and indeed irrefutable demonstration of their desire to, in simple terms, do the right thing.

As I mentioned before, while this bill seeks to focus on hate behaviour—as it calls it; it talks about harassment and intimidation—it is my view that we already have laws to deal with those exact issues. Indeed, the Summary Offences Act 1953 section 7 is a good case in point. The heading is 'Disorderly or offensive conduct or language' and it states:

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

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

(b) fights with another person; or

(c) uses offensive language,

is guilty of an offence.

There is a $1,250 fine or potential for imprisonment for up to three months. I would support that. Secondly, it states in subsection (2), 'A person who disturbs the peace is guilty of an offence.' Again, it is a $1,250 fine potentially or imprisonment for up to three months. Again, I would support that. It goes on to detail what is considered disorderly and it is exactly what you would expect it to be. It defines the word 'offensive' and includes threatening, abusive or insulting—I am quoting directly from the act—and goes on to define them. My clear understanding is that that is exactly what people are taking issue with if, indeed, it has occurred.

That is in dispute but if it has occurred then we would have laws that already deal with that, and I have just outlined two subsections in the act that actually deal with this specific issue. These existing laws do not single out a particular group—that is, the existing laws do not single out a particular group or a particular issue. The issues we are dealing with in this bill could be dealt with under existing legislation. That is my primary point.

Of course, the truth is that there is insufficient evidence of this alleged behaviour because, as I have already said, there has never been a single successful prosecution. I would like to outline the potential effect of these laws, should they pass, by referring to a case in the ACT in 2016. That year the ACT Legislative Assembly passed legislation that banned protesting in exclusion zones around the abortion clinic in their city, so that law is very similar to the one being proposed here.

In that time, in that actual year, three men aged in their 70s were simply offering silent prayers and not protesting in any verbal way, they had no placards or anything like that, out the front of Canberra's abortion clinic but they were arrested for their silent prayers and charged for their behaviour—for praying in silence, making no noise at all, I am informed and, indeed, that was the case as it went through the court.

Despite only being there to pray silently, the men were charged by police for being in a protected area and engaging in prohibited behaviour. They were each issued a $750 fine but they refused to pay, and the matter moved, not surprisingly, to the ACT Magistrates Court. The court heard that the men were walking, silently praying, and one sat on a nearby bench holding a pair of rosary beads. The law prohibits, and I quote, 'protest by any means in the exclusion zone', and the prosecution argued that the men's actions amounted to a protest: by being there and, as I said, one of them sitting on a bench having a pair of rosary beads. However, in the court, Magistrate Glenn Thexton disagreed stating:

They simply do not stand out as participating in any extraordinary activity. I make these observations cognisant of their previous involvement in prayer vigils and their admitted views about abortion.

Magistrate Thexton dismissed the charges wholly. It is not unreasonable to expect a similar outcome here should this bill pass. Certainly, sanity prevailed in the end but the fact that these elderly gentlemen, all in their 70s, as I said, could be charged and a fine issued for silently praying, making no noise at all, not holding placards or anything of that nature, is just plainly wrong in my view. Nothing in the bill that we have before us prevents exactly the same thing from happening here in South Australia. I do note a proposed amendment, however, which would remedy the situation which I intend to support.

I turn to clause 48E of the proposed bill which I believe presents a very real problem. The heading is 'Police officer may direct person to leave health access zone', and subclause (1) states:

A police may, if the police officer reasonably suspects that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in prohibited behaviour in health access zone, direct the person to immediately leave the health access zone.

Subclause (2) states:

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

What concerns me greatly about this clause is the reference to 'are about to engage'. It specifically allows a police officer to direct a law-abiding member of the public to leave a public place when they have not engaged in any activity contrary to law. This potentially means you could be arrested and fined for doing nothing if merely the officer's opinion was the individual was about to do something. How can this possibly be proven in a court of law?

It is difficult to see how a case like this could proceed to court without being dismissed, making the bill fatally flawed, in my opinion, or certainly this section of it. I firmly believe that we are indeed on very shaky ground when legislation is enacted for what someone is about to do. It completely flies in the face of the presumption of innocence and it simply cannot be proven what someone was about to do. On countless occasions over the years I have heard a number of members defend individual legal rights in this place, including the presumption of innocence as a primary right.

I would ask those members genuinely and sincerely to consider their position on this bill, or at least this section, as a consequence. How can we possibly know what someone is about to do? In summary, it is my strong view that the bill is unnecessary and seeks to target a matter and, more concerningly, particular individuals quite unfairly, and it is a substantial removal of basic civil liberties. Clearly, I will not be supporting the bill.

Should the bill pass the second reading into the committee stage, members will note that I have an amendment in my name that I intend to move. It is a very simple amendment that requires the bill to be reviewed in two years' time should it pass. It is as simple as that. Given the very substantial potential imposition on individual liberty that the bill entails, I sincerely ask those who intend to support the bill to consider supporting my amendment so it can be properly reviewed, as are very many other bills in this place.

We often pass bills in this place that have review clauses on them that I believe are of substantially less consequence than this. Regardless of the abortion issue, we are talking about civil liberties and the fact that we cannot possibly know what individuals may or may not be about to do. I strongly believe the bill will be well served by review in two years' time.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) (20:26): I rise to speak on the Health Care (Safe Access) Amendment Bill 2020. This bill is a conscience vote for the parliamentary Liberal Party. Accordingly, I do not speak for another member. However, I am also mindful that, as Minister for Health and Wellbeing, I have a solemn responsibility to promote access to healthcare services for South Australians.

I advise the council that the Department for Health and Wellbeing supports the bill. It welcomes the opportunity to put in place formal exclusion zones that will ensure the safety and wellbeing of clients and staff of clinics that provide termination services. This will ensure that women in South Australia can receive care free from harassment and intimidation at what can already be a tremendously difficult time. The safe access zone bill will also align South Australia with most other Australian states and territories that already have safe access zones. That is the end of the department's input.

As a Liberal, I hold that a person should be able to access health services permitted under the law in accordance with their understanding of their needs and in accordance with their values. They should be able to do so without fear that they will be subject to duress or intimidation. I respect the liberal principle put by J.S. Mill:

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

The moral offence caused to one person by another person's choice to access health services within the law is no basis to curtail the first person's choice. As a Christian, I know that many Christians consider abortion to be the taking of a human life and a grave moral offence. However, other citizens hold diametrically opposed moral perspectives.

We live in a pluralist society, and in 1969 our state decided, despite the diversity of moral perspectives, to allow legal abortions. Since 1969, successive state and federal governments have provided funding to make abortions widely available through public health services. My assessment is that there is minimal support to step away from this pluralist position on abortion and impose a single world view on the issue, to prohibit abortions and to withdraw funding from termination of pregnancy services.

In the context of this broad consensus, I consider that no citizen has the right to unilaterally rewrite the laws of this state by impeding the right of other citizens to access health services to which they are legally entitled.

If a member of this council is considering supporting this bill, I simply ask: are you intending to bring a bill to prohibit abortion in South Australia? If not, I respectfully submit that facilitating protests which impede access to legally authorised and funded health services is a feeble attempt to achieve beyond the law what cannot be achieved democratically within the law. I support the bill.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The PRESIDENT: Order!

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (Treasurer) (20:30): I rise very briefly to oppose the bill. I gave the reasons when we last debated this bill not that long ago and those reasons remain a fair reflection of my views.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:30): I thank those members who have made a contribution this evening to this bill and for their thought and consideration into their positions: the Hon. Ian Hunter, the Hon. Irene Pnevmatikos, the Hon. Mark Parnell, the Hon. Connie Bonaros, the Hon. Clare Scriven, the Hon. Dennis Hood, the Hon. Nicola Centofanti, the Hon. Stephen Wade (Minister for Health and Wellbeing) and the Hon. Rob Lucas (Treasurer and Leader of the Government in this place). It is fair to say there is a variety of opinions in this room. It is fair to say that everyone has given this some thought before we come to this debate before us.

In summing-up, I note that we have a bill before us that reflects the recommendations of the SALRI report. It is a reasonably heavy tome of October 2019 that is an extensive piece of work. I draw members' attention to Part 18—Safe Access Zones. Recommendation 49 states:

SALRI recommends that any new law in South Australia should include safe access zone provisions around premises where abortion services are provided and that the purpose of these provisions is to protect the safety and welfare, and respect the privacy and dignity, of people accessing the services and employees or other persons who need to access those premises in the course of their duties or responsibilities.

Recommendation 50 states:

SALRI recommends that any new law in South Australia should provide that a place will be within the safe access zone of premises at which the service of providing an abortion is ordinarily undertaken if it is in the premises or not more than the prescribed distance from an entrance to the premises.

Recommendation 51 states:

SALRI recommends that any new law in South Australia should provide that the prescribed distance is 150 metres.

Recommendation 52 states:

SALRI recommends that any new law in South Australia should provide that the operation of the safe access zone is not limited to the hours of operation of the premises and should be 24 hours a day and seven days a week, with no exceptions.

Recommendation 53 states:

SALRI recommends that safe access zones should be automatically established by legislation and not be by Ministerial decree.

Recommendation 54 states:

SALRI recommends that a new offence be established in South Australia—

I will repeat that: a new offence be established in South Australia—

to provide that it is an offence to engage in prohibited conduct in the safe access zone for an abortion services premises and 'prohibited conduct' should be defined to mean intimidation, obstruction, impeding access, harassment or other conduct that relates to abortions or could reasonably be perceived as relating to abortions and would be visible or audible to another person entering, leaving or in the premises; and would be reasonably likely to deter a person from entering or leaving, or from requesting, undergoing, performing or assisting in the performance of, an abortion.

Indeed, recommendation 55 states:

SALRI recommends that a new offence should be established in South Australia to provide that it is an offence for a person to make, publish or distribute a restricted recording of another person without the other person's consent and without reasonable excuse. A 'restricted recording' should be defined to mean an audio or visual recording of a person while the person is entering, leaving or in an abortion services premises, and which contains information that identifies, or is likely to lead to the identification of, the person being recorded.

Finally, recommendation 56 states:

SALRI recommends that there should be a maximum penalty of one year's imprisonment and/or an appropriate fine for each of the offences in Recommendations 54 and 55 above.

Far from this being a figment of my imagination, this is the recommendation of the South Australian Law Reform Institute, which was thoroughly researched and well tested, and heard from all opinions on this matter. Indeed, I have not ever heard anyone say that SALRI has it wrong on a majority of the recommendations that they put forward in government bills. It seems to only be when it is those conscience votes that somehow SALRI is not to be listened to or acknowledged.

I do acknowledge the extensive work of SALRI. I obviously have put such a bill before this place before. Indeed, it is almost a year since this place, this council, passed a very similar bill that also—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: More than a year. It was October.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: More than a year. Thank you, Minister for Health and Wellbeing. It is more than a year since we passed in this council such a safe access zone protection for those workers and patients, either working in the provision of abortion health care or seeking medical treatment, or those supporting them—their families, their friends, their loved ones.

It provides that 150 metres of respite from protest, specifically protest, because this bill does not, as the Hon. Dennis Hood alluded to in the ACT bill, outlaw all protest. It is very specific. It is that prohibited conduct: intimidation, obstruction, impeding access, harassment. That is what we are talking about here. This bill does not ban silent prayer. What it does ban is the ability for silent prayer to be used to intimidate, obstruct, impede or harass. That will be the test of this law.

The idea that somehow this law is not necessary because there have been no prosecutions is an incredibly circular argument that I really do not understand. The thing is we do not have a fit-for-purpose law, currently. The council around the Woodville PAC has had to retrofit and use its by-laws to address a situation that causes workplace stress to those working in that healthcare centre, that indeed provides an ongoing annoyance and hindrance to the residents around that healthcare service. I can vouch for many people I know who have either been supporting somebody or seeking abortion health care from that service, who have been harassed, who have felt that they were being shamed or watched, or that their dignity and privacy were being offended.

In fact, it is often not the patient, because certainly the patient is in no state, usually, to deal with those people, who probably do mean no harm. The patients, the supporters of the patients and the healthcare workers themselves tell me that that is not the way that they feel when they are watched, when they are impeded, when there are these protesters who, we all agree, do protest outside abortion healthcare services in South Australia. They feel that they need more protection than is currently afforded them.

Given the amount of abortion stigma and shame that is put on women, particularly, in our society, why on earth would you think that they are going to come out and call for these laws to protect them? They simply have a difficult experience made far more difficult on that day by our failure as a parliament to do what every other state and territory, except for WA, has so far done and ensure safe access zones around abortion health care.

I note that in the last half hour the Western Australian parliament has passed a safe access zone abortion healthcare bill through its lower house, so we could actually, finally, not be the last for such a reform, but we will see. Time will tell this evening whether we get through this debate tonight. I have to say that the idea that this bill is unnecessary is a little disingenuous, when we know that the SALRI report has recommended it and yet nobody who got up and spoke saying that this bill was not necessary mentioned the SALRI report.

The idea that people do not feel threatened, intimidated and harassed is certainly not my experience of those constituents I have spoken to; those workers in these healthcare services that I have spoken to; their professional associations, whether it is the AMA, the HSU or the ANMF and the like; or indeed, the very patients themselves. And I am here to say that human rights are universal and indivisible. You cannot cherrypick them. There are other rights at stake here when we debate this tonight. There is a right to health. There is a right to a safe workplace. There is a right to privacy. There is a right to respect for their decision.

While people have waxed lyrical about the right of freedom of speech—the free speech rights that are apparently trampled upon by this bill—I will note that is also disingenuous. We do not get to say whatever we like whenever we want to. In this place—the home of democracy and freedom of speech—I am afforded parliamentary privilege right now while I speak. I am also afforded the protection, through the President, from being harangued, harassed, intimidated and prevented from speaking when it is my turn.

I also note there are people in the gallery. Some would be supportive of this bill, some would be opposed to this bill. They do not have the right right now to speak at the microphone as I am doing, and should they do so, they would be removed from this place. Yet are we saying that this very parliament has trampled and stifled and ended free speech in South Australia? No, we do not, because we balance the responsibilities of free speech with the rights of free speech and indeed respect for dignity and democracy.

I will have more to say on the amendments that have been put up in the committee stage. I am somewhat frustrated that the other place did not debate the bill that this council sent down to it—that we had to start all over again with the member for Hurtle Vale with a bill in the lower house to try to get it through. I watched the extraordinary lengths that people went to to stifle that debate, to limit the time that that bill was given to get to that very respect, indeed, for freedom of speech and the right in this place to have our views noted for the record with the very votes that we carry, which is a real privilege, I have to say, in representing our constituencies.

We will not all agree, but I do think that this place does respect our differences of opinion. What I fear is that should we amend this bill tonight we will see, yet again, the games of the lower house, of the other place, used to not ever see this bill see the light of day and become an act and be assented to.

So I have every sympathy for the Hon. Dennis Hood's amendment, but I will not be supporting it tonight. I do, however, offer to the Hon. Dennis Hood two options. The first: I am happy to either move or support an amendment to the other bill that we will be debating tomorrow, the termination of pregnancy bill, to ensure that in the review clause that already exists within that bill we also look at safe access zones.

Should that bill not pass this council or parliament, I also say I will support or indeed sponsor a private member's bill to affect the same, and I would hope it would pass both of the houses of this parliament with rapid speed, because I think it would be in everyone's interest to see that review clause.

I note, finally, this bill is on those SALRI recommendations, but those SALRI recommendations also drew from the extensive experience in Australia over well over a decade of laws that have been tested—and tested in the High Court, because people who chose to protest outside abortion health care in various other jurisdictions were prepared to cross state boundaries to go and do that, to get arrested, to get it tested in the High Court.

This bill is a very safe option because it actually reflects legislation that has passed those very tests, those tests that have balanced things such as freedom of speech with the right to health care, the right to a safe workplace and the right to have your privacy respected. I look forward to the committee stage.

The council divided on the second reading:

Ayes 14

Noes 7

Majority 7

AYES
Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. (teller) Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. Pangallo, F.
Parnell, M.C. Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.
NOES
Centofanti, N.J. Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lucas, R.I. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M. (teller)
Stephens, T.J.

Second reading thus carried; bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: This is for the record, so I am not trying to draw it out, so hopefully the honourable member will just simply answer the question quickly so that it is on the record. Could the mover advise how many times there have been prosecutions in regard to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre for the behaviour that apparently is going to be fixed by this bill?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: This bill will create a new offence, so there have been no prosecutions for an offence that does not yet exist, but I imagine there may well be people who seek to test it. However, I note that in the bill you have to really push to get to that point where you are charged with the offence of threatening, intimidating, harassing and impeding somebody's access or other prohibited behaviours.

This idea that somehow this bill is unusual, because the police might ask you to move on if they suspect you are about to commit an offence—it will allow the police the ability to manage this situation in a way that they have been seeking the power to do. The council has had to create a very unwieldy and not-fit-for-purpose permit system to address it. So I suspect that, while there have been no offences at the moment because this fit-for-purpose offence that has been recommended by the SA Law Reform Institute has not existed to this point. The fact that nobody has been charged or found guilty of an offence, or a prosecution that was successful, is an indication that we do need this law to address situations where there have been those tensions, those difficulties.

There has been fracas, arguments, melee and so on that those supporting the patients and the patients themselves have found, getting into heated arguments with the protesters and the like, where this will now provide the police the ability to be able to intervene, de-escalate the situation, ask those creating the offence to the patients, their supporters or the health workers, to move out of the 150-metre safe access zone. Should they not comply with that police direction, then that is when this offence will take effect, and I should imagine that there will be those who come and seek to test it, so potentially we will have a prosecution in the next year or so.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I am not sure if the member misheard. My question was: how many times have been there been prosecutions in regard to the behaviour that this is allegedly going to fix? I did not refer to any particular offence.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I did understand your question. This creates an offence that will be able to be fit for purpose for this behaviour.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I draw the member's attention to Summary Offences Act, which defines disorderly or offensive behaviour to include 'threatening, abusive or insulting'. How many attempted prosecutions have there been in relation to the Pregnancy Advisory Centre at Woodville?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Those are not the subject of this bill. This bill creates a new offence. If the honourable member wishes to talk about the Summary Offences Act or the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, the appropriate place would be when we debate bills with regard to that, and then you might ask those questions of the Attorney-General.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: It is a little interesting, given that the member was talking about other members being disingenuous. The simple question is in regard to the attempted prosecutions at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, and that is why it is relevant to this bill, because this is the reason the member is saying that there is no fit-for-purpose offence currently in existence, yet there appears to be one that talks about threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour. How many attempted prosecutions have there been for the behaviour outside of the Pregnancy Advisory Centre? That is the question.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I do not have that information to hand, so if the honourable member would be convinced to change her vote, should I undertake to get that information to her by the third reading, perhaps we could dig up the archives, but I am pretty sure that actually no matter what I say right now is not going to change your vote, the Hon. Ms Scriven.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On the assertion that base criminal laws and summary offences laws are sufficient to deal with these sorts of issues, is the member able to advise whether any other state or territory has needed to have specific provisions in relation to health care access to protect access?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Every other state and territory of Australia, with the exception of WA, has a law fit to create a safe access zone outside abortion health care of up to 150 metres, as is in this legislation. Each and every one of those jurisdictions in Australia—and I note that in WA the health minister there has introduced a bill that has now passed one chamber of that parliament. Every place in Australia has had, through either government legislation or private members' legislation, protections around abortion health care, because they have all required it.

What I would note—and I raised this the last time, a year and a bit ago, when we discussed this matter—if South Australia is the only jurisdiction in Australia that does not have this protection, those who seek to protest outside abortion health care will come to South Australia to protest outside the abortion health care services here. We know that from the High Court experience. We know that the people who seek to protest to stop abortions taking place in lawful healthcare services in Australia will travel a very long way to do so. South Australia, if it were to be the only jurisdiction not to have such a law, would be the jurisdiction where all of those who sought to protest abortion would come.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I would just like to place on the record my understanding is there was one person who travelled from Tasmania into another state—I believe it was Tasmania. However, my question is in regard to the member's frequent reference to the SALRI report. From my reading of that report, I cannot see any reference by the authors of the report and those who were involved in that investigation in actually attempting to talk with women who had been offered and received assistance from people outside the abortion centres, such as a number of women who I mentioned in my second reading contribution. Can the member tell me whether there is something that I have missed in the report in regard to reaching out to those women to find out the assistance they received and how they would be affected if this bill was to proceed?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I would actually note, despite what the Hon. Clare Scriven just informed the council, that both of the High Court challenges tested the very laws on which we are now basing our bill that we are currently discussing. In both of those situations people travelled over state borders to protest in those two jurisdictions. So there is at least—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: How many people?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You only said one, so there is more than one.

The Hon. C.M. Scriven: Yes, I think the other one actually moved to that state.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Oh, they moved to the state! Even better!

The CHAIR: Order! We are not having a conversation here.

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: Order! The Hon. Tammy Franks has the call. We will not have a conversation across the benches.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I think the Hon. Clare Scriven asked me to explain to her a document that she read from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law. I did not refer to that document; she did. If she does not comprehend it, that is her concern, and it is nothing to do with this particular discussion that we are having about clause 1. I do not understand why I am being asked about a document by the Monash University's Castan Centre for Human Rights Law and what it might mean.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Oh, the SALRI report. You will have to be a bit clearer when you say which report, because I could not tell which one you were referring to. Could you ask the question again, if you are referring to the SALRI report?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly. What indications are there from the SALRI report that they reached out to women such as those who had received assistance outside abortion centres? I referred to some of the examples I used in my second reading contribution as an example of those women who have found it most beneficial to have that assistance offered outside abortion clinics.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you for the clarification, because I did not hear which report you were referring to in your original question. The SALRI consultation was actually an open process available to all people, not just in South Australia but, indeed, Australia and the world. Everyone was able to make a submission to it.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Being open to everyone is quite different from actually seeking out the experiences of people who have benefitted. I think I will just leave that on the record.

Clause passed.

Clauses 2 and 3 passed.

Clause 4.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I have a question on clause 4, new section 48E. New subsections (1) and (2) are of particular interest to me and I did outline them in my second reading contribution. It really comes down to the issue of the wording of how a police officer is to gauge the offence. It states:

(1) A police officer may, if the police officer reasonably suspects that a person has engaged, or is about to engage, in prohibited behaviour in a health access zone, direct the person to immediately leave the health access zone.

My question to the mover or to the minister—whomever is the right person to reply—is that this is a difficult issue, so how is that police officer supposed to reach a point of genuinely understanding if someone is about to do something? There may be times when that is appropriate, when you can judge or it seems likely that someone is about to do something, but I guess the point I am making is it is incredibly tenuous.

It really comes down to the individual judgement of that police officer, which may be perfect judgement or could be highly imperfect judgement. How does that particular phrase sit with either the mover, the minister or whomever the person I am asking this question to, and how do they see it holding up and being worked in practice?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Thank you to the honourable member for the question. The first thing I did mean to add in my summary comments is we do entrust police with quite extraordinary powers and we do expect them to use their judgement. We are certainly not empowering them here to arrest somebody for the suspicion that they are about to engage. We give them the power to ask that person to leave the area and to move that person on if they have that suspicion. It does not in and of itself lead to a charge or arrest.

What does lead to this offence coming into play is then that person refusing to comply with the direction of the police officer. Indeed, it is a far less powerful position than that we charge police officers with every single weekend on Hindley Street. We have declared public precincts in this state where, indeed, the police officer does not even have to imagine that someone is going to engage in a prohibited behaviour but they have the ability to move them on, kick them out for days at a time and, indeed, have quite extensive and significant other powers that we do not often afford people. We do so because we have seen that that area is an area where the police need those extra powers.

This 150-metre safe access zone around abortion health care is, if the council supports it tonight, an area in which we believe we can trust the police to fulfil their duties, that significant power, with that judgement that we anticipate they will have. But, certainly, should the police not exercise their authority appropriately, it would not stand up in a court, so that is the balance we make here in terms of protecting the workers and the patients and those who support them.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I thank the member for her responses. I think that is exactly the crux of the issue for me. I do not want to put words into the honourable member's mouth but I think she said that in the case where it was not interpreted or was not used appropriately, it would be thrown out of court. Does that not therefore suggest, and I would like the member to respond if she is in agreement with this, that we acknowledge, or those supporting this at least would acknowledge, that clearly this is not absolutely crystal clear and that there is potential, as there may be in other circumstances—I agree, with the Hindley Street example; it is a good example. It may well be true in those examples as well but there is the possibility under these circumstances for it to be misused.

Whatever law we make, that sits uncomfortably with me. There is a high level of discretion, I guess is the point I am trying to make, with the individual police officer, who may well be antagonistic to these people at the site, for example, for whatever reason. They may be completely supportive of their view as well. That is entirely possible. But in the circumstance where they are antagonistic to that view, I think this interpretation creates a situation where that police officer has an inordinate amount of power and potentially can create a situation where these individuals' liberties are infringed. That is the point I am making. I wonder what the member would say to that.

The Hon. T.A. Franks: The minister seems very keen to make a contribution.

The CHAIR: The honourable minister.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I am happy to defer to the member but the point I want to make is to reiterate the point that the honourable member made, which was that this parliament continually gives police significant discretionary powers, whether it is drug offences, whether it is the right to inspect a vehicle in relation to road traffic offences. We give police very significant discretions. They are not clear-cut and they are often challenged. Day after day after day, police have to account for themselves in the courts.

That does not mean that the parliament does not give police powers where it is not clear-cut. We trust police to make their best efforts. We rely on the courts to curb them when they exceed. I believe this is another example of appropriate police discretion in a very important area of protecting both—I commend the honourable member for continually referring to the rights of staff. I employ 44,000 staff right around South Australia and the staff at the Pregnancy Advisory Centre, like any other healthcare staff, have the right to come to work without being intimidated by protestors.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I wish to add to that. There are a few things and one is that we are not implementing mandatory sentencing here; we are not having that sort of approach. I understand where the honourable member is coming from in terms of the significant powers that we give the police. We allow this policing by community consent but where you have concerns about how a police officer might use their powers, the remedy there is not actually to give them the powers in the first place, it is to not have the police investigating police where there are complaints of wrongdoing, and to have independent complaints and scrutiny on that process. Certainly, that is a much bigger discussion than the one that we are currently having.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For clarification—and I appreciate that we had this conversation when we debated a similar bill but just for the record—section 48F creates an offence to publish or distribute a recording. 'A person must not, without the consent of another person, publish or distribute a recording of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises if the recording contains information that identifies or is likely to identify,' etc.

I just wanted clarification from the honourable member that if someone is within the 150 metres, if they are filming themselves and someone else comes into that camera shot without the first person's inclination or consent or whatever, is it envisaged that that person could potentially be in breach of this provision or is it the case that they had no intention to record another person and therefore they would not be in breach?

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I note that the full title of 48F is 'Offence to publish or distribute recording', not just to record but to publish or distribute those recordings. Indeed, the person must not, without the consent of the other person, publish or distribute a recording of a person approaching, entering or leaving protected premises if that identifies the person or is likely to identify the person entering those protected premises.

Should a person be filmed and they have no problem with being identified, there is no issue; should they be filmed and have a problem with being identified, there is an issue. We already have laws that are quite strict around, for example, filming schoolchildren or photographing outside schoolyards, playgrounds and the like. We already have protections where we do respect people's privacy for many good reasons—not just child protection but for others as well.

You do not have the right to go and film people and invade their privacy everywhere in this state. There are quite strict laws around that through various acts, but including the Surveillance Devices Act, so it is simply a nice balance, I think, that respects the right of this person to that privacy and ensuring their dignity and their access to health care without the fear of it being splashed on a social media page to their stigma, shaming and humiliation. Indeed, we do have humiliating and degrading filming laws for that very purpose as well, which were put up by the former Labor government.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Could I reiterate the points the honourable member made. She made a number of references to privacy-style legislation. We do not have strict privacy legislation in South Australia, but under the Health Care Act we have very strict patient confidentiality provisions. It would be completely incongruous to say that you have to maintain people's confidentiality inside the door but outside the door you can film and publish. I think this is a responsible provision.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I do not necessarily have a problem with this provision, but I do want to clarify whether there are any unintended consequences. My thinking is, as far as I am aware, and I am happy to be corrected, that other laws around that usually refer to the purposes for which you are distributing or whatever and not to a particular area. I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken in that.

Opposite the abortion centre at Woodville, for example, there is a cafe or a restaurant now that has outside chairs. If someone totally unrelated to abortion in any shape or form is sitting there and takes a selfie or films a video of themself going out for their wedding anniversary or whatever it might be, and there are people approaching the clinic, and you naturally put that on Facebook—

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Really? Do you want to?

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Your own wedding anniversary—

Members interjecting:

The CHAIR: We are not having conversations across the chamber.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I think it is not unusual when people go out for an event that they film themselves, either with a video or a photograph, and they post that on social media. This is a public cafe that has outside seating. All I want to know is: are there unintended consequences of this? This is totally unrelated to abortion or the fact that it is an abortion centre in that sense, in that this creates a zone, a geographical area, which as I understand it is unusual in this kind of legislation.

As I said, I do not actually have a problem with this clause in terms of how it applies to people who—not that we have had any evidence of it, although we have asked for it—deliberately film people who are going in for an abortion, even though we have not seen that happen here. My question is nothing to do with that because I support that provision in the sense of not allowing that to happen.

My question, which I think is a reasonable one, is: are there unintended consequences if you are taking a selfie, having a photo and you put it on Facebook because you happen to be within that zone? You might accidentally get someone who is entering the abortion clinic. I just want to know how that would be addressed.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: You may accidentally capture them and then it is an invasion of their privacy, so this would account for that and would allow them to ask you to take that down, for example, or give them some rights around their privacy if they are approaching, entering or leaving that protected premises. The example given of sitting in a cafe is not approaching, entering or leaving the protected premises.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: To further tease out that hypothetical that has been raised, if I am taking a photograph of myself at a cafe as a selfie and there is an abortion premises across the road 20 or 30 metes away, you are not going to be able to identify the stick figure that is in the background of the picture and you will not, therefore, be captured by this clause because a person would not be identified. However, if you sit at the cafe with an extension lens on trying to capture those people, then you will be. That is the distinction.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: Certainly, I hope that is the case, as the Hon. Mr Hunter has said. However, I am not sure that it necessarily is when you are on outside seating, the width of a road and someone is approaching. So I am not convinced of that but let's hope it does not occur.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I want to pick up on something the health minister said in relation to breaching of privacy that if somebody came out and it just so happened that their photograph had been taken or there was a camera there or whatever that it would be an invasion of their privacy. Is that what you are saying, health minister?

The Hon. S.G. Wade: Do you want to finish your comments?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: All I wanted to say is: what happened when you had TV cameras and other people filming people coming out of COVID testing clinics without even seeking their consent? Would that have been a breach of their privacy?

The Hon. S.G. WADE: The legislation I was referring to was the Health Care Act at section 93(2) which provides:

…a person engaged or formerly engaged in connection with the operation of this Act—

in other words, healthcare services—

must not disclose personal information relating to a person obtained while so engaged except to the extent that he or she may be authorised or required to disclose that information…

The honourable member made a number of comments in relation to privacy related legislation. I was making the point in relation to health care. We have some of the strictest legislation to say you shall not disclose personal information. Primarily, that relates to the internal operations of healthcare services but, to me, it makes logical sense if you cannot identify a person receiving a healthcare service inside the door, why would we not protect their privacy outside the door?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I just wanted some clarity on that, health minister, not so much in this matter but in relation to COVID testing where people's privacy would have been breached. You would have been able to identify them. They would have seen themselves lined up, going in to have a test, so would that apply in that case under that section of the act?

The CHAIR: I will call the minister but we have explored this one a great deal. I think we will move on to the amendment after the minister's response.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I think the Chair is suggesting that I do not need to give account for the Health Care Act. The honourable member is bringing up another bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Scriven–1]—

Page 2, lines 18 and 19 [clause 4, inserted section 48B, definition of health access zone, (b)]—Delete 'protected premises' and substitute 'boundary of the property on which the protected premises are situated'

In a letter to members of this place, the Hon. Tammy Franks had a section entitled 'How is a health access zone defined?' She stated:

The health access zone begins at the perimeter of a premises where an abortion is being legally performed and applies to any public area located within a 150 metre radius.

The reason for this amendment is quite simple. As it is clear to members, I do not agree that these exclusion zones are necessary or appropriate. However, if the bill does pass, I think it is entirely reasonable—indeed, I would say it is essential—that it should be absolutely clear where these zones begin and end. It is a fairly simple amendment, simply because I think it is reasonable for people to have clarity. That clarity was provided by the member in a letter and, therefore, it pretty much replicates that, except I think the word we have used is 'boundary' rather than 'perimeter'.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: I just want to reiterate, in relation to this amendment and all subsequent amendments, the comment I made in my second reading speech. Without entering into the debate about the merits of the amendments, a successful amendment here tonight will have the effect, I believe, of sending this bill back down to the lower house to go through their processes of private members' legislation, and my fear is that it will disappear and we will be back here next year with a brand-new bill trying to get this thing done all over again.

Whilst there may be meritorious arguments about the amendments, I will not be supporting any of them. I want this bill passed as it came up from the lower house, so we do not have to deal with this issue a third time next year. If there are amendments that are so meritorious, then let them be introduced in a private member's amendment bill at a later stage.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: I was actually about to sit down, but while I am on my feet, can I just echo the same sentiments that were expressed by the Hon. Ian Hunter and agree that I think there is merit to some of the amendments, particularly in relation to the review provisions, but it is not something that I think needs to be dealt with today and to hold up this debate. I am comfortable with the undertakings that have been given by the Hon. Tammy Franks in terms of dealing with those separately to this piece of legislation.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: I would like to echo the comments made by the Hon. Ian Hunter and the Hon. Connie Bonaros. Certainly, I will not be supporting any of the amendments. As I indicated in my second reading speech, I think most of the amendments have very little value or merit in terms of being considered in this legislation. We need to pass this bill and start moving on. If there are particular issues that some of the members here want to pursue—I did not know we had such civil libertarians—then I would suggest that they pursue them at another time with their own bill.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: For the record—maybe the Hon. Mr Hunter can enlighten me—under what circumstances would we be coming back next year with a different bill? Are we intending to prorogue?

The CHAIR: I will go to the Hon. Mr Hunter, because I think he is the one who possibly raised that matter. The Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Many of us in the chamber have been in this situation before, where we have pinned our hopes on a bill going down to the lower house, or coming up from the lower house, and in a spirit of compromise adopted amendments, which had to go back to the lower house once again, and because they have an amazingly arcane process down there, which I cannot fathom, in how they deal with private members' legislation, those bills disappear for all time and never get back up to the top of the Notice Paper to be dealt with again.

In that situation, if that happens, if the amendment is successful tonight—and it may well be, depending on the will of the house—then my prediction is that that is exactly what will happen with this bill, and someone in the lower house will have to, once again, for a third time, construct a new bill to bring it back to our attention. I really do not want to see that happen.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: Very briefly, I think the other factor that might feed into the consideration of members is whether matters that are raised in this bill might be more appropriately picked up in the Termination of Pregnancy Bill tomorrow, for example, the review provisions. If we have a review provision in that bill, it does not need to be in this one.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I will not be supporting this amendment. I note that the bill we have before us is something that is in accordance with the SALRI recommendations but is also in accordance with the pieces of legislation interstate that have been tested in the High Court, so the language that we have used in the bill that is before us being debated is language that has been used in those other jurisdictions. I am averse to straying from that language.

We should also not just send this bill off to the Bermuda Triangle of the other place, where legislation strangely disappears, never to be seen again. Potentially, should it even pass that particular test, it would open it up for another High Court challenge or, indeed, difficulties around where boundaries were not necessarily clear on these properties on which the protected premises are situated.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I will be supporting the amendment. It is a very simple amendment. It really just seeks to define what the boundary is. That is the thrust of this bill: to create an area around which protest or whatever it is cannot actually occur. To have that area clearly defined is actually very important, and I think this amendment serves to clarify that.

I do accept the argument that has been generally made that the other place has strange and convoluted processes by which private members' bills are passed. I accept that. It never ceases to confound me. But I do not accept the argument that that is a good reason not to amend the bill before us.

Our job as legislators is to make the best bill we can, surely. We amend government bills all the time. We amend other private members' bills all the time. I do not see why this would be any different. Surely my fellow legislators would like to see it being the best bill it can be. I think this amendment makes clearer what the boundary should be, and for that reason I think it is a worthwhile addition to the bill, which I disagree with, as I have outlined in my second reading speech. Nonetheless, this will improve it, and for that reason I will support it.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I wish to note that when the Hon. Dennis Hood just made a contribution, he noted that this bill bans protest outside healthcare services providing abortion. I draw his attention to 48C(2), ' To avoid doubt, nothing in this Part prevents a person from' and specifically (b) in that section 'engaging in lawful protest, or otherwise engaging in lawful behaviour, within a health access zone in relation to a matter other than abortion'.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hood.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Last one from me, sir, thank you, just very quickly in response to the Hon. Ms Franks: I agree with her. She is right. I used the wrong word, but I think she understands my intent.

The Hon. I. PNEVMATIKOS: Point of order: there is a man sitting in the gallery. Is that man filming? I certainly want to clarify that issue, because there is no right to filming.

The CHAIR: The only filming in the gallery that is allowed is with my permission, and no-one has sought my permission, not in this evening session. So I make it clear to anybody that there is to be no filming unless there has been an application to me, and I am not aware of that. So there will be no filming from the gallery.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I was just going to sum up before the amendment is put, if I may. I admit I did not go into much detail because I thought this was a fairly straightforward amendment, but it appears I do need to go into it a little bit more. At the moment the wording is 'protected premises means any premises at which abortions are lawfully performed'.

The premises would often be interpreted by a layperson as being the building in which abortions are performed, and someone could therefore rightfully think that they could protest or whatever they might want to be doing 150 metres from the wall of the building. I think that would be a not unreasonable assumption, but my understanding is that the intent of this is that it should be from the perimeter or the boundary.

Whilst I realise that this means that anyone who is going to be engaging in behaviour at an abortion centre under this amendment will actually need to move further away, I think it is only reasonable that that is very clear and that people have the right to know. Given that the Hon. Ms Franks actually included this in an explanatory paper, clearly there is some doubt around it, so I think it is worthy of being supported.

Amendment negatived.

The Hon. N.J. CENTOFANTI: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Cent–1]—

Page 3, after line 37 [clause 4, inserted section 48C(2)]—Insert 'or'

(c) engaging in silent prayer within a health access zone.

I made it clear in my earlier remarks why I feel I need to move this amendment standing in my name, so I will not speak at particular length on this amendment except to say that this is an argument about the fundamentals of freedom of expression. I feel somewhat comforted that the Hon. Tammy Franks has stated in her second reading speech, as well as tonight, that this bill does not prohibit silent prayer. I would hope that, if this bill is successful in its current form, judiciary officers will come back to this debate to understand the intent of the legislation. However, based on the experience in the ACT, I do not think an assumption can be made that silent prayer will not be deemed to be prohibited behaviour.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the member for her explanation of why she has been motivated to move this amendment. Indeed, I reiterate that this bill does not prohibit silent prayer, even within the safe access zone. What it does prohibit is the prohibited behaviours, and it ensures that claiming silent prayer as an alibi for enacting those behaviours is not given to people as a way to get around the law. Indeed, I have not based this on the ACT; I have based it on the Victorian example, where, I am told, there is silent prayer still around abortion health care. As long as it is not harassing, threatening or intimidating, it is not seen as prohibited behaviour and is responded to accordingly.

The Hon. C.M. SCRIVEN: I will be supporting this amendment. I note that in the other place, and also in the media, the Attorney-General stated that she does not consider that this bill bans silent prayer. If the Attorney-General does not think that, and other members do not think that it bans silent prayer, it would seem to me that making that clear by accepting this amendment would be the appropriate direction.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Very quickly, I indicate that I will also support the amendment. I think that this is a very small bar, and in fact it seems everyone is in agreement that this bill will not prohibit silent prayer. In that case, I would argue: why on earth would we not make it crystal clear for the courts, who may have a different view, or for a particular judge who may have a particular view? As we all know as legislators who have been doing this for some time, sometimes courts do not pay particular attention to Hansard—sometimes they do and sometimes they do not.

If we all feel as I do, and as I believe the mover of the amendment does, that this is something that we should not be prohibiting, why on earth would we not enshrine it in the bill, which looks like it will pass, to be sure that that is the case? I will certainly be supporting the amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Very briefly, I will note again that this is legislation that has seen the test of two High Court challenges. It does not prohibit silent prayer, but it does prohibit its use as an alibi to threaten, harass, intimidate and impede somebody either working in these healthcare centres or seeking to access that health care.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: On that point, my understanding of what the honourable member has said is that if silent prayer is conducted in a way that is intimidating or harassing, it would be an offence under the act and to put this provision in would actually excuse intimidating and harassing behaviour.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: I thank the Minister for Health and Wellbeing for clarifying that concern. For those who are not familiar with the history of this legislation, of how it has been tested, there could be an assumption made that there needs to be that exemption to protect that particular religious freedom. Indeed, we are aware that sometimes people may not even be religious or be people of faith, but they could potentially use this, for example, to have 20 or 30 people in a row praying while blocking passage to that particular healthcare service. We do not want to open the door to allow that sort of behaviour.

Indeed, I think to allow silent prayer to be used in that way denigrates those people of faith. I am certainly, as I mentioned in the second reading explanation, an agnostic person. I have studied comparative religion; I have an interest in some religions more than others. I noted in my second reading explanation that I am not a monotheist, but certainly this bill does not prohibit people of faith from engaging in their faith, but it does prohibit, for example, 20 or 30 people, which would be quite an intimidating presence, all praying with a visible presence to that person.

Let's get back to this: this is a person who has made a very difficult decision. Often they may not have ever thought they would be in that situation. When we access health care of any sort it certainly provokes anxiety in me. Simply going in for knee surgery earlier this year provoked a lot of anxiety in me, and I know that I was in need of the most calming and supportive environment, which I thanked the medical staff for providing me.

The receptionist in particular calmed me down and gave me that sort of comfort, and that is what we want people engaged and accessing a healthcare service to feel: we want them to be relaxed, able to have their dignity preserved, have good access to that health care and not be put in a position where they are feeling shamed, stigmatised, anxious or stressed in that situation. That is the least level of dignity that we can afford them.

Ayes 7

Noes 14

Majority 7

AYES
Centofanti, N.J. (teller) Hood, D.G.E. Lee, J.S.
Lucas, R.I. Ngo, T.T. Scriven, C.M.
Stephens, T.J.
NOES
Bonaros, C. Bourke, E.S. Darley, J.A.
Franks, T.A. (teller) Hanson, J.E. Hunter, I.K.
Lensink, J.M.A. Maher, K.J. Pangallo, F.
Parnell, M.C. Pnevmatikos, I. Ridgway, D.W.
Wade, S.G. Wortley, R.P.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: I move:

Amendment No 1 [Hood–1]—

Page 5, after line 9—Insert:

48G—Review of Part

(1) The Minister must cause a review of the operation of this Part to be conducted and a report on the review to be prepared and submitted to the Minister.

(2) The review and the report must be completed after the second, but before the third, anniversary of the commencement of this Part.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report submitted under subsection (1) to be laid before both Houses of Parliament within 6 sitting days after receiving the report.

I think this amendment is self-evident. It really just requires a review of this act, should the bill pass, sometime after the second anniversary of it passing and before the third anniversary, and for the report to be laid on the table of the parliament six days after it is received by the minister. It is pretty straightforward. I do not think it needs a lot of explanation. One thing I would say, though—

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Hood would be helped with a much lower level of conversation in the chamber.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: Thank you for your protection, Mr Chairman. It was quite intimidating there for a moment. One thing I would say is that this is not done in any skulduggery sort of way. I understand the comments that have been made to that effect. I think this bill, should it become an act, genuinely deserves a review. It is very unusual. Even those who are supporting it would acknowledge that.

I acknowledge the comments of the Hon. Ms Franks earlier in her summing-up. She is somewhat supportive at some level, although she will not support it on this occasion because she does not want to see the bill return to the lower house. I would say to her, respectfully, that it seems to me that this bill will pass comfortably. It is not my choice, but that is the will of the house. I suspect it is the same in the lower house. I do not think there will be any problems. Not that that is my will, but that will be certainly the will of this place, by the looks, and I expect it will of the other place.

What harm would a review do? I would say none. In fact, what are pretty extremely powers in the sense that we have discussed about police anticipating behaviour that contravenes the bill, I would say, are worthy of a review. For that reason, I move this amendment.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: As I indicated both in my second reading explanation and earlier on this evening, I do support a review, and I support a review for many reasons. I think I have always supported reviews in legislation as they have come through. A review may well find that, indeed, there are ways that this law perhaps could be more effective to protect workers and patients. Some may believe that it would find that police have been given powers that are too great in this situation, but I am strongly supportive of a review. What I am not supportive of is sending this bill in an amended form to the other place, because a year and a month ago we did that and it never came back. The other place is indeed a little—

The Hon. C.M. Scriven interjecting:

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: The honourable member interjects, but I note that when you prorogue and you have reached the second reading on a bill in one house, you can actually restore it to the Notice Paper, and we did that. We tried again, and yet we could not get it to a debate. It languished at the bottom of the Notice Paper while people talked about car parks. For some reason there was a great obsession with car parks in debates about abortion safe access zones. Goodness knows why, but it seemed to be flavour of the month every time we sought to get the legislation that passed this chamber debated in the other one.

A year and a month later, here we are. The member for Hurtle Vale and I, working together, gave up on that previous bill because it did hit the Bermuda Triangle of the other place—the legislative Bermuda Triangle—of private members' business, which is a conscience vote, not party vote, and deemed controversial because it deals particularly with women's bodies and reproductive rights. We know the reality is that even with the smallest of amendments, the games that can be played in the other place mean that it will not come back to this place to then pass the parliament.

There is an easy remedy and I am happy to bring a private member's bill forward tomorrow and have that sit on the Notice Paper to effect a review. I imagine it would pass both houses of this parliament very quickly should it have that support. I imagine that games would not be played with it, because I think it would be in everyone's interest to have that review. Both the opponents of the bill and the supporters of the bill would probably come together.

Taking a risk with this piece of legislation tonight, amending it and seeing the other house be able to stymie and impede debate yet again, to play games behind the scenes, to sink its chances of ever actually reaching a vote in the other place—I am not willing to take that risk. I am not willing to further sacrifice the protections that we could have afforded those patients and those healthcare workers a year ago had the other place actually had the respect of this chamber to debate that bill that we passed a year and a month ago.

In this case, I cannot support this particular amendment. I possibly should have thought of a review clause myself and we should have added that at the start. I acknowledge that that is something that we should have inserted in, but tomorrow we will debate that termination of pregnancy bill and we have every chance in that particular bill to put that review clause to look at this particular issue or we can progress that private member's bill with great haste.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: I also propose to move an amendment on the floor. I just want to make it clear that I am supportive of this bill that has come up through the House of Assembly and into the Legislative Council and I appreciate the passion that both the Hon. Tammy Franks and the member for Hurtle Vale, Natalie Cook, have about this.

The CHAIR: To clarify, the Hon. Mr Pangallo, we already have an amendment that has been moved. Are you seeking to amend that amendment?

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Yes, I am. I would like to move an amendment on the floor. I move to amend the Hon Dennis Hood's amendment as follows:

Delete 'two years' and substitute 'four years'.

I think it is important that we do have a review in this bill. I know there are concerns that have been raised here tonight that they do not want to see it go back to the House of Assembly with a view that it may well be stalled there. I do not hold that view, because they had the majority numbers there and it came up, and I am sure it will come up now. I cannot see them objecting to having a review, particularly for four years.

We know that legislation that has good intent sometimes has unintended consequences. We have seen that with several bills. There are bills that we have debated in this place that have resulted in unintended consequences. I am not going to go through any likely scenarios of those unintended consequences, but I think having four years is acceptable.

We can come back and have a look at it in case something has arisen in that period of time that perhaps warrants a tweak to the legislation. That is not saying that the legislation will not pass; I am just saying that it is fair that we do have a review, just like we do with many other pieces of legislation.

We see this often in this place, where there is legislative table tennis that goes backwards and forwards with significant bills. We will have significant bills coming up before the end of the year where there are going to be amendments that are going to be moved, and it will mean having to go back to the House of Assembly and then having to come back here before they finally get passed to the other place. With that, I wish to move that amendment in my name to the amendment of the Hon. Dennis Hood that a review be conducted after four years.

The CHAIR: Just before I call any other member, we are just trying to work out your amendment off the floor.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: That we substitute the two years for four years.

The CHAIR: What my great assistants here have proposed is that your amendment to the amendment would be in proposed subsection (2) leave out 'second but before the third' and insert 'fourth'.

The Hon. F. PANGALLO: Four, yes, Chair.

The CHAIR: The Hon. Mr Ridgway.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: I will be very brief. I had indicated to the Hon. Mr Hood that I was somewhat supportive of a review and then, in discussions with the Hon. Mr Pangallo, we talked about four years. I am still committed to that but I put on the record that I think the best thing we can do tonight is to pass the bill as it is and look at the private member's motion, or if it is possible—and I am not sure that it is—tomorrow, when we are dealing with the other bit of legislation, whether we can incorporate it. However, I have some sympathy: I have been here for probably nearly longer than everyone else except the Hon. Mr Lucas and I have seen the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon before, where things disappear.

I have always been a strong advocate, even though I had some texts tonight about am I really a right-winger? I have always been a strong advocate of pro-choice, and it is a woman's choice to do whatever she chooses to do and not be impeded or harassed, even by the physical presence of somebody at a clinic. I am happy to support a review but I apologise to the Hon. Mr Hood and the Hon. Mr Pangallo because I did give them some indication earlier that I would support it, but I think in the interests of making sure that this legislation passes, I will look at supporting a review in another format either as a private member's bill or in conjunction with tomorrow's bill.

The Hon. S.G. WADE: I intend to be very brief. I hear no voice against a review in relation to this matter. I stand with the Hon. Mr Hunter in asking: how best do we deliver that review? I think it is best to consolidate the consensus between the two houses in relation to safe access zones tonight. I certainly will not be supporting a private member's bill to institute a review. I am very attracted to a review in the Termination of Pregnancy Bill.

This bill is part of a conversation, if you like, between the houses on these very important issues. I am confident that through these two bills we will have both reform in relation to safe access zones and reform on termination of pregnancy, including a review. I support a review established through that second bill.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS: Could I just clarify that a private member's bill was the second-best option. I strongly support amending the other piece of legislation that we are currently debating. I think that would be the most appropriate place for the review. That is a five-year review, however.

The Hon. C. BONAROS: The Minister for Health and Wellbeing effectively took the words out of my mouth. There is nothing on the face of it that prevents us from combining the review of health access zones and the debate that we are going to be having tomorrow into the one. They effectively directly and indirectly deal with the same issues, and ordinarily we would—I would anticipate that any review of the bill that we will be debating tomorrow would involve a review of the access zones as well.

I think there is overwhelming support for a review, it is just where that review ought to be placed. The overwhelming view seems to be that it is best placed in tomorrow's debate because we face less risk of complications with this bill.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD: As I am the mover of the amendment that is being amended I would like to respond. My strong preference is for my amendment. I am not sure that that will be carried. In that case, the Hon. Mr Pangallo approached me just a few moments ago with the idea of a four-year review. I am happy to support that on that basis, support his amendment to my amendment, if you like. I think this bill does need review. I think two to three years is a more appropriate time frame but I am happy to accept four.

The CHAIR: The first question I am going to put is that the amendment moved by the Hon. F. Pangallo to the amendment moved by the Hon. D.G.E. Hood be agreed to. I put that question.

Amendment to the amendment negatived.

The CHAIR: The question I will now put is that the amendment moved by the Hon. Mr Hood be agreed to. I put that question.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (21:56): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

There being a disturbance in the strangers' gallery:

The PRESIDENT: No, order!

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT