Safe access zones (also called exclusion zones or buffer zones) were first established in Tasmania in December 2013 under the Reproductive Health (Access to Terminations) Act 2013 [2].
These zones create a 150-meter buffer around abortion clinics where certain behaviors like harassment, protesting, and recording patients are prohibited.
The specific event referenced in the original source appears to relate to a parliamentary motion in November 2015, not an attempt to "remove" existing exclusion zones.
At that time, Victoria was in the process of establishing safe access zones—they did not yet exist to be "removed." The Coalition MPs who opposed the legislation were voting against the *creation* of these zones, not their removal [5].
The claim omits several critical contextual facts:
**The legislation ultimately passed with bipartisan support.** While some Coalition MPs opposed the Victorian safe access zone legislation, the bill was passed with support from "Government, Greens MPs, Fiona Patten and some Coalition MPs" [4].
This was a conscience vote for many MPs, meaning they were free to vote according to their personal beliefs rather than party lines [6].
**Safe access zones were a new legislative development in 2015.** Tasmania was the first jurisdiction to establish them in 2013.
The concept was novel and controversial, involving a balance between protecting patient privacy/safety and the implied constitutional freedom of political communication [8].
**The High Court upheld the constitutional validity of safe access zones in 2019.** In the landmark case of *Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery* [2019] HCA 11, the High Court unanimously upheld the validity of safe access zone laws in Victoria and Tasmania, finding that protecting women's safety, privacy, and dignity when accessing abortion services was a compelling objective compatible with the Constitution [9].
The original source, Daily Life, was a Fairfax Media online publication targeting women with a focus on women's issues, lifestyle, and feminist perspectives [10].
While the factual reporting in the article appears accurate based on the parliamentary record, the framing—particularly the headline "Labor and Greens narrowly defeat government motion"—suggests a partisan angle emphasizing opposition rather than the ultimate bipartisan passage of the legislation.
The source is generally credible for factual reporting but readers should be aware of its editorial perspective favoring women's rights and progressive social policies.
**Did Labor take similar positions on abortion-related issues?**
Labor's position on safe access zones has been generally supportive across jurisdictions where they have been introduced.
* * * *
In NSW (2018), the safe access zone legislation was introduced by Labor MP Penny Sharpe and co-sponsored by Nationals MP Trevor Khan [12].
Under the Hawke and Keating governments (1983-1996), abortion remained in the criminal code in most states, and Labor did not pursue decriminalization at the federal level.
It was only in the 2000s and 2010s that Labor shifted to stronger pro-choice positions.
**Key comparison:** Both major parties have had members with mixed positions on abortion-related issues.
The claim singles out Coalition opposition while not acknowledging that:
- Some Coalition MPs supported the legislation
- This was an issue where conscience votes were permitted
- Labor governments in the past had not prioritized similar protections
More accurate would be: "Some Coalition MPs voted against the creation of safe access zones around abortion clinics."
**What the claim gets right:**
- Some Coalition MPs did oppose safe access zone legislation in Victoria in 2015
- The opposition was based on concerns about limiting protest rights and potential constitutional issues regarding freedom of political communication
- The vote was close enough that Labor and Greens combined to defeat opposition amendments or motions
**What the claim gets wrong:**
- The Coalition did not "try to remove" zones—they didn't exist yet in Victoria
- The legislation ultimately passed with bipartisan support (some Coalition MPs voted in favor)
- This was a conscience vote issue, not unified party policy
- Safe access zones have since been established in all Australian jurisdictions and upheld by the High Court
**Context on why some MPs opposed:**
Opposition centered on concerns about:
1.
Whether 150 meters was the appropriate buffer distance
These concerns were legitimate legal and policy considerations, not simply anti-abortion activism, though motivations varied among individual MPs.
Some Coalition MPs voted against the *creation* of safe access zones, but the legislation ultimately passed with bipartisan support including some Coalition MPs voting in favor.
Some Coalition MPs voted against the *creation* of safe access zones, but the legislation ultimately passed with bipartisan support including some Coalition MPs voting in favor.