Parental Notification: Where MPs Stand
Author: 
Category: 
Created: 05:10 PM, Wednesday 25 May, 2011
Comments:
ATTACKING TEENS' PRIVACY
You’ll know the issue of parental notification for under-16s seeking abortion care has been in the news lately, sparked by The Sunday Star Times seizing on one mother’s anguish over her 16-year-old daughter’s so-called “secret” (we prefer “private”) abortion. ALRANZ supports the current law in this regard, which protects teens’ right to privacy and to make their own decision about whom to consult on personal, private matters.
It’s worth pointing out that that doesn’t mean under-16s have the right to make their own decision about abortion. Like all women – young and older alike – they, too, must get the approval of 2 certifying consultants under the Crimes Act before they can get an abortion. That’s certainly a piece of legislation ALRANZ does not support. As well as wanting to protect teens' privacy, we believe the decision as to whether or not to continue a pregnancy should be up to the pregnant person. Yes, that's either way. We are, of course, as ferociously opposed to coercion toward abortion as we are to coercion against it.
There have been a lot of great blog posts on the question of parental notification, and here’s a selection (we’re sure to have missed some…email safeandlegal@gmail.com for any we should have included).
Parental Notification is de Facto Parental Consent by Julie at The Hand Mirror
Minister backs action on secret, spy, CIA, murders of little tiny babies that just want to liiiiiive! by Boganette
SST and Their Scenarios by Anthea at The Hand Mirror
SST’s Illusion of Objectivity by LudditeJourno at The Hand Mirror
“Secret” Abortions by Life is a Feminist Issue
The support we choose by Scubanurse
A Timely Reminder by No Right Turn
There is no Pendulum by Ideologically Impure
Pregnant Teens Need Privacy and the SST Needs a Remedial Journalism Class by Ideologically Impure
UPDATE: New Posts/Posts We Missed:
I'd Prefer to Live, Thank you by Sarah at The Comfort
Secret Abortions! by La Ranita
In addition ALRANZ blogged about the issue last year when Family First began its push on the issue with one of its headline grabbing opinion surveys, with a post on the broad issue of parental notification and a briefer fact sheet on the issue.
Media Releases
Media releases were issued by ALRANZ and Mothers for Choice and various members and supporters were contacted by the news media, including an appearance by Rebecca Matthews on TV7’s Backbenches.
What The Politicians Said
Since the bloggers and press releases have done such a good job, we thought we’d offer readers a look at some of what our elected representatives said when this issue was last debated in parliament, in 2004. There were two main votes, and this is how ALRANZ’s parses them in its Voting Record of MPs:
(i) November 2004. An attempt by conservatives to amend Clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill making it compulsory for parents to be advised when an under 16 year old was seeking an abortion. The amendments by National MP Judith Collins were in two Supplementary Order Papers 292 (mandatory notification) and 293 (research by ASC) and most MPs voted the same way. The exceptions were Bill English who voted for 292 and against 293, and Paul Hutchison who voted against 292 and for 293. This meant that both amendments failed by the same margin 75-45. The voting given in the table is for the principal amendment on mandatory notification. One surprising vote for the amendment came from Maurice Williamson, usually liberal.
(ii). November 2004. Clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill. This is the voting for the amendment proposed by United Future’s Murray Smith making it illegal for a Certifying Consultant to approve an under 16’s abortion unless satisfied that a parent or guardian had been notified. If not, the Certifying Consultant had to apply to a judge of the District Court or Family Court to gain approval. This was stricter than Judith Collin’s amendment and failed by 94-26. Those 26 can be considered hard liners, 7 remain, Carter J, Collins, Dunne, English, Heatley, Smith N, Turia.
Following are excerpts only, from various debates during various stages of the main 2004 bill’s passage (with links to the online Hansard). As usual, ellipses …. indicate lots of stuff has been cut out... etc.
Care of Children Bill
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) …
Clause 37 re-enacts law that has been in place and worked well since 1977, and makes no change to the existing law. A number of organisations with expertise in adolescent health issues have voiced their strong support for retention of this provision. Those organisations include the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, the New Zealand Medical Association, Unicef New Zealand, and the Family Planning Association. It is important that clause 37 is retained to offer a protection to some of our more vulnerable young women. The inevitable consequence of any proposed amendments involving parental notification is that some of those young women might be forced either to have abortions, or to continue a pregnancy against their own wishes. For the majority of pregnant young women, the love and support of their parents and families will be an important factor when faced with decisions about their pregnancy. However, it is a fact that some young women do not live in such a supportive environment and may be placed in danger if, without their consent, their parents or guardians are notified of a pregnancy, or of the intent to seek an abortion. Research consistently shows that confidential health services for adolescents are an essential ingredient for improving their sexual and reproductive health. …
METIRIA TUREI (Green) : …
The Greens do not support the amendment that Judith Collins has suggested to clause 37 regarding the consent for abortion. I listened very carefully to the submissions from experts in that field during the select committee process—medical practitioners and people who were involved in counselling and family planning. I and the Greens are confident that the current law, along with the experience and practice of the medical practitioners, strongly supports young women to advise their parents, and ensures that they do have the support they need if a young woman, for whatever reason, chooses not to tell her parents about her situation.
The Greens agree that mandatory notification could put these young women off getting assistance during pregnancy and that the consequences of increased young and solo parents, and of dangerous and illegal abortions, are too high. The Greens support the current situation and will not support any changes to the existing legal framework.
******
Care of Children Bill
...
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) … This brings me to the controversial clause 37, and the question of whether young women under the age of 16 years should be required to inform their guardians that they are going to have an abortion. Naturally enough, I have wrestled with this issue considerably, having been an obstetrician-gynaecologist and having also been on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. One of the things that does concern me is that we have only anecdotal evidence of what the real situation in New Zealand is. I am very pleased that my colleague Judith Collins is putting a further amendment that recommends that the Abortion Supervisory Committee, under its Act, be required to collate data on matters relevant to informed consent in this very, very sensitive area. Unless we have good data, it is unlikely that we will be able to make wise legislation.
I think it is also important to point out that one of the great difficulties that face any medico such as myself is that, as I have said, I would rather be grinning from behind bars than divulge secrets that patients had given me. On the other hand, we heard earlier in the year that something in the order of 29 Government departments and agencies have the power to look at private medical records. Indeed, that makes this particular clause a very difficult one.
I have certainly heard the arguments on either side of the coin. On one side, if the information is withheld and the woman goes on to have an abortion and her parents do not know, there can be hugely severe repercussions if there was an incestuous relationship or if the woman returns to a situation of family violence. On the other side, if disclosure ofthis information is to be forced on the woman, it may well prevent her from seeking medical attention. I heard just recently of a case whereby a young woman decided to keep her baby, but having delivered it, smothered it a few days after birth. This is an extremely exquisitely sensitive and unpredictable area that requires wise legislation. That is why I would ask the House to support the second amendment that my colleague Judith Collins is presenting to the House on this issue….. [Ed Note: Hutchison voted against mandatory notification but for the amendment calling for research by the ASC]
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : ….
I would like to say that I could never have supported Judith Collins’ first amendment that she proposed, which involved mandatory reporting to, and involvement of, parents when young children come to a medical practitioner seeking advice on pregnancy, and seeking support for a possible termination of pregnancy, because it would not have worked. It would have been an appalling thing to do. It has been in legislation for 35 years, and has been largely unchallenged for that time, and I am very pleased that we will be voting as a majority not to support that amendment.
********
Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee, Procedure, In Committee
Part 2 Guardianship and care of children
...
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : The people of this country have spoken about under-age abortions. In response to a New Zealand Herald poll that asked whether people thought that if a girl under the age of 16 went to a doctor to seek an abortion, and did not want her parents to know, the doctor should inform her parents, 71.1 percent of the people surveyed said yes, and that does not even take into account those who were not parents. When those people were asked whether the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the girl’s parents, 60.7 percent said yes. What is the Government’s response to that? It has said that the law is working nicely, thank you. The Government likes 400-and-something girls under the age of 16 years to have abortions every year. It likes to know that the parents may or may not even know about that, because it thinks that parents do not need to know.
I have put forward two Supplementary Order Papers on this matter. Supplementary Order Paper 292 requires three things. First, it requires notification to a parent or guardian, but if the girl objects to that—and this is very important—there is written notification through to a judge. The reason for written notification is that under the current law judges are not involved where those girls are living in abusive homes, or maybe are pregnant because of incest. In fact, I am told by some general practitioners that some of them already speak to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and refer a matter to the police. That is a good thing, but unfortunately there is no requirement on them to do so.
I had a meeting today with the Family Planning Association—a group that we would think would know all about this issue, as it works with it all the time—and the association said to me that there are some really good protocols that are used in the UK in respect of under-age abortions and notifying parents. It said we could have that here. Then I pointed out to the association that we are already supposed to have that here. In fact, I have here the recommended referral process for general practitioners for suspected child abuse and neglect, which includes sexual abuse. The Family Planning Association did not even know about that—I had to show it to the association. I said the recommended referral process had been around for only 2 years, so maybe that was why the association did not know about it. That is the sort of level of commitment that we have in this country to this issue. We have none, and the Government says that that is fine.
My Supplementary Order Paper goes on to state that if a judge believes that a girl is in need of care and protection, or considers she is the victim of crime or sexual violation, then the judge has to act. She must be referred to a social worker or to the police, or to both. That must happen, because the current law does not protect those most vulnerable girls. I have taken into account the concerns that many concerned professionals have conveyed to me. They said they did not want those girls to have to turn up in front of a judge, and I have taken that into account. That is why I have changed my July amendment to an amendment that requires written notification.
The other point is that the current law affects good parents as well as bad parents—it ignores good parents as well as bad parents. I take it as a real issue when people say to me that any good parent would have a good relationship with his or her child. Well, how many young girls of 14 years would want to go home and say to their mum: “Oh, by the way, Mum, I am pregnant and I want to have an abortion.” Who would want to do that to her mother? No girl that I would want to have! The fact is that young girls do not want to say that, but the trouble is that they need to say it because they need to be able to have the love and support of their parents. Dad may even shout about it, because men often do shout about those things when they are really crying inside, and that is what they want to do. So what if they shout about it? The fact is that they have to know. Those girls are so vulnerable—if they were not vulnerable, they would not be in that situation. The current law states nobody cares, and girls can make those decisions because the general practitioners will do abortions. It is not a general practitioner’s role to be a parent.
• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : I am glad to have this call now. I wish to continue on from the speech made by my colleague Judith Collins on Supplementary Order Paper 292, which she has in her name before the Committee, relating to clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill. As members will be aware, the New Zealand Herald conducted a poll, asking the question of whether people thought that if a girl under the age of 16 went to a doctor to seek an abortion and did not want her parents to know, the doctor should inform her parents. Seventy-one percent of the respondents said yes. When asked whether they thought the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the parents, 60 percent said yes. When a young girl of 13, 14, or maybe 15 is in the unfortunate position of wanting to seek an abortion, there are a lot of reasons why she may not want her parents to know about it. The reasons may be, first, the shame, second, the fear of violence, and, third, incest. It may be fear of what the father will do. There are many reasons. However, generally it always comes out. Generally, the family—particularly a caring, close family—gets to know about it. No girl should have to go through seeking an abortion without the care and support of her family. Yes, the family may be angry in the beginning. It may be upset and disappointed, and have all sorts of reasons for fearing that there will be disruption within the family. But in the long run, young girls need the family’s support.
I am a doctor, and I have given Supplementary Order Paper 292 a great deal of thought and consideration, because for me, as for most doctors, confidentiality is extremely important. It is one of the tenets that we work by. I would not have supported Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper in its original form, but it has now been changed to the point whereby I will now support it. I support it because I believe there are a lot of parents who have to take responsibility. They have the responsibility for the care of their children, but when a huge issue like this faces them they are cut out of the decision. They are cut out of being able to be supportive, and we do need to have those parents involved. In this particular case, a report will go to a judge. The judge will then act on the care and protection issues, if there are any. If there are none, then the information the judge has will be kept. Supplementary Order Paper 293, the second Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Judith Collins, states that in that particular situation the Abortion Supervisory Committee will also be able to examine the causes of what is going on.
I have had several constituents in my office whose children have become pregnant, and in three of those cases incest was the cause. The mothers did not know about that, and the children went through considerable trauma. At 13 and 14 those young girls are children; they are children who are having children. The parents were not informed. It all came out eventually, but not at the time. Surely that needs to happen, so a young girl is protected. I certainly do not want to see young girls go on the Internet and take measures into their own hands—and they do not have to do so, because substantial changes have been made since Judith Collins’ earlier Supplementary Order Paper 237, which has now been withdrawn, to the effect that a judge does not have to act, and that a girl does not have to appear before a judge. It is just a check and a balance.
Steve Chadwick: Then it’s an absolute nonsense.
Dr LYNDA SCOTT: We have heard all sorts of shouting come from Government members on the opposite side of the Chamber, but they are not taking any calls on this bill. This is an extremely important bill. I think I have more knowledge on this matter than they do, because as a doctor I have been in the position of dealing with such situations.
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) : I want to speak on clause 37, and for the benefit of all members of the Committee I think we ought to clarify just what the current law does. In the current law there is an exception, in the case of a girl under 16 who wants an abortion, to the general rule that no medical procedure can be performed on a child without parental consent. So the law takes a very broad, consistent view that those girls are children who are subject to parental oversight and parental consent. In fact, the law is so broad that if complications arise from an abortion and a girl has to have a D and C later on, parental consent is required for that. That is how broad the presumption is, and that is why I cannot understand the view that somehow this amendment is a huge, retrograde step. The law has long made that presumption in every case of a procedure relating to a child, except for one single procedure: the act of performing an abortion on a child. That is couched as an exception to the general law; let us remember that.
The second thing is that the current law does not prevent notification. What the current law states is that an abortion can occur without the consent of the parents. It gives the girl the right to consent to that. Doctors, or anyone involved with a case, are not prevented by law from notifying parents. What they are prevented by is the code of ethics of the professional groups to which they belong. No one came and asked me, as a parent, whether I agreed to a profession’s code of ethics taking away my parental rights. The professionals have never asked that. When I go and ask them how they got to the conclusion they reached, they do not even realise that that is what has happened. So a group of counsellors sat in a room somewhere, and said they would bind themselves by a code of ethics that excluded parents. And health professionals—doctors and nurses—have done the same. I am not accusing them of bad will, but I am saying that these provisions in the law show the limitation of that process.
It was not a debate of Parliament that took away my right to know about my daughter having an abortion. It was not debated here—
Darren Hughes: In 1977.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is where the member is wrong. The law does not prevent notification; it is the ethical codes that prevent it. The reason we are having this debate is that on behalf of the parents of New Zealand we are saying to the professionals that they do not have totally free reign to remove the rights of parents at their behest. Parliament is going to debate whether the right of a parent to know about an abortion should be taken away, because it has never debated that issue. It was not debated in the royal commission, nor was it debated in 1977. It has not been debated, ever, in this Parliament in terms of the law of New Zealand. It is time that we debated that issue.
I have been disappointed with the inability of the professional groups to understand the issue. In fact, the attitude they have taken has confirmed for me that they misunderstand a parent’s role. They have not even made an attempt to come to grips with what parents may be on about, but have made an arrogant assertion that whatever they have done must be right. I remind the Committee that in the whole time no one has ever come to a parent and said that the medical profession will consult with parents about the extent to which its ethical codes roll back parental rights. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty in proceeding with this speech, because of the constant barrage of interjections from the Government side of the Chamber. I would ask you to bring those members to order.
…
Hon BILL ENGLISH: After that interruption I just want to reiterate the point that the current law does not prevent notification. It is the ethical codes of the professional groups that prevent notification. That is why we need to pass Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins, because it will then protect the doctors and the other health professionals who are involved with abortions.
…
Hon RICK BARKER: The point that Dr Nick Smith makes, I would endorse 100 percent. Parents are the most important people in the lives of children, but, sadly, there are exceptions. A parent has beaten a child to death before today. Parents have done some terrible things to their children before today. The responsibility of this society is to protect the children, not see them as parental property rights. If I had mistreated my kids, I would expect my neighbours, the court, and everybody else to step in and say: “You, Rick Barker, have mistreated your kids.”, and defend my children first. Because children are our future. That is what I would expect. [Interruption] I say to the member opposite, from my own personal experience, that I was at a school when one of my kids’ friends fell over, seriously ill, and was rushed to hospital. It turned out that she had had an illegal abortion. Why? She had done so because she could not tell her mother or father, whom I knew personally, of the circumstances in her life. That young woman will struggle forever to have children. Her life has been scarred because she would not tell, or could not tell, her parents. Because of the law, she felt driven to go to a backstreet abortionist.
That changed my attitude, and I say to members that, when it comes down to the kids and their future, and when it comes down to choice of a life for that young woman, because she could not deal with her parents, then we have to look after her interests first. That must be our concern, on every occasion. I say to Nick Smith that, yes, parents are important. I agree with that statement, absolutely. But when it comes to the most important issue, it is the interests of the young woman herself that must always be paramount.
I say to members opposite that if a young woman cannot go and talk to her parents, despite the best advice of the counsellors, the doctors, and all the rest of them, and the circumstances are such, whose rights then predominate? Is it the rights of her mother or father to know, or the rights of that individual young woman that are paramount? In certain circumstances, and it is very, very rare—this law has been in place since 1977 and there have been no problems—the young woman’s concerns have to be paramount.
I stress that point. On too many occasions in this country we have looked at parents’ rights as being paramount, and young kids have suffered, as a consequence. Too often we have turned our back on the circumstances of young children, because we have said that parents have the responsibility; that parents are in control. But those children have suffered. I say to young Nick Smith, and other members opposite, that we have to consider the young woman’s interests primarily.
Brian Connell: The child.
Hon RICK BARKER: Now they are saying “the child”, but I say to Brian Connell that young people today are very savvy; much more savvy than that member will ever be at the age of 65, and certainly vastly more savvy than he was at 16.
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I will be voting tonight in favour of the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by my colleague Murray Smith, and also for the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Judith Collins. I want to congratulate both members on the considerable effort they have put into them. It is difficult for me to imagine a more intimate moment in a child-parent relationship than the decision to terminate a pregnancy through abortion when a girl is less than 16 years of age. It is tragic, of course, for the life of the unborn child, which is brought to an end. It is traumatic for the girl having to make such a serious decision at such a young age, as she is physically a woman but psychologically and mentally still a child. It is emotional for the parents who, as adults, are so aware of all the ramifications that will flow from that critical situation.
It is very wrong for the State to intrude into the affairs of a family at such a time. But that is exactly what we do if we do not change the law tonight to permit parental notification in those circumstances. A family needs to draw together in love at such a time, and the parents do not need to be kept in the dark.
I want to share with members a story from my own experience, and I mention it for the benefit of those who claim there is no problem with the present law. I am very good friends with a solo mother, a wonderful woman, who discovered, some time after the event, that her daughter of 14 had had an abortion. When she came to talk to her daughter about that, her daughter said: “Mum, when I found myself pregnant I felt very guilty. When I had the abortion I felt very guilty. But the greatest burden of guilt I have been carrying with me, mum, is the fact that you didn’t know.”
That is exactly the situation that applies in this country. The framers of the existing law, which has been here since 1977, did not envisage State sanction, and in fact State-created deception and secrecy at such a time. Yes, the law does uphold the right of the girl herself to make the final choice and not be forced into an abortion against her will or forced to give birth against her will. But the presumption was always that, either way, the parents would be involved. Never in those lawmakers’ wildest dreams—and I have spoken to people who were here at the time—did they envisage that a veil of secrecy would descend in such situations as the one I have described tonight, and that such situations would even actually occur. It never crossed their minds.
From that point of view, those who claim that this law is settled law, that it should not be changed, and that it has had no problems are either completely out of touch or, having made up their minds, do not want to be confused with the facts.
Hon Rick Barker: Oh! That’s rich.
GORDON COPELAND: Judicial bypass, which is suggested in the bill, I say to Minister Rick Barker, would solve the problem he has alluded to tonight. I do not know whether Minister Barker has read the Supplementary Order Paper, but he did not mention the fact that the Supplementary Order Papers of Judith Collins and my colleague have a judicial bypass system. I believe that that is vitally important, especially in the case of violence or incest. Such heinous crimes against young girls must not be left in the dark or swept under the rug, as they used to be in the Pitcairn Islands. The culprits must be brought to and made to face the full force of the law in such circumstances, and I tell members tonight in this Parliament that that is not happening. We have a problem in this country with incest, and it is swept under the carpet, and this existing law is being used as a means of keeping that information from the police and from the authorities involved.
Hon David Benson-Pope: Claptrap! Absolute claptrap!
GORDON COPELAND: It is absolutely correct, and I can give the member case histories showing that that is exactly what has happened.
Finally, let us not forget tonight those brave young women who chose to give birth against the wishes of their parents. If we visit the Susan Baragwanath school in Porirua, we will find many magnificent young women who are now mothers and whose parents wanted them to abort their children.
….
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : I take the call in order to do a number of things. Firstly, I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Judith Collins, the MP for Clevedon. I have some numbers for the most poll-driven Government in the history of New Zealand. Let us listen to what the polls say about what Judith Collins is saying. The Government basically runs according to what the polls and the focus groups say, so let us see what it will do once it hears this information from the New Zealand Herald. Its poll asked people whether they thought a doctor should inform the parents if a girl under the age of 16 went to the doctor to seek an abortion and did not want them to know. Seventy-one percent of respondents said yes; 23 percent said no. The poll also asked people whether they thought the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the girl’s parents. Sixty-one percent of respondents said yes; 34 percent said no. That is a clear message from the people of New Zealand.
….
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : …
Rick Barker stood up in this Chamber and said he cared about children. If he does—and I challenge the member on this—then he will find that he has no alternative but to vote for Judith Collins’ amendment. I suggest that he read it. What Judith Collins is suggesting is that a young girl who finds herself in a position where she may want an abortion has the right to either go and tell her parents or have a medical practitioner go on her behalf to a judge and make sure that her position is clearly articulated. Now, it seems to me that that is fair and reasonable. The member opposite, Mr Barker, is looking at me very blankly, which is what he normally does. This time I think it is because he has not read the amendment. This legislation suggests that parents and fathers do not have rights. They are playing second fiddle to the politically correct aspirations of the Government. I say that it is wrong.
Rick Barker banged on about young women who are under 16 having an abortion, without even suggesting that they should talk to their mother or father in their hour of crisis. For goodness’ sake! He calls them young women. Thirteen or 14-year-old girls are simply that—girls. They are confused, and what they need is for their mum to put her arm around them and say “Darling, I understand. You can talk to me about this issue, and I will help you through it.” How traumatic must it be for a child to find herself in that circumstance? The heartless Labour Government would have us believe that in the best interests of children we should cut them loose, and leave them to their own devices to swim or drown. How heartless and ignorant is that? Only powerful women in the Labour Party who are childless could think that is a good idea. The fact that those women are surrounded by a whole bunch of weak, namby-pamby men just makes it worse. David Parker—the “Parker Pimpernel”—is making a guest appearance in the Chamber tonight. He is interjecting. That member has, by my reckoning, 38 flights left to Wellington.
…
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have already thanked my colleagues for their professionalism, maturity, and rationality in developing this policy and recommending the continuation of public policy that has been successfully operating for 27 years. I will also make another vote of thanks, and that is in response to the comments that Tony Ryall made earlier about media and community views on this matter. I will share with the Committee some of the comments that have come from editorial writers from around the country regarding clause 37 and that were overwhelmingly in support of the Government’s position.
The first of these is an editorial from the New Zealand Herald printed on 15 September of this year. I will read the whole thing and only small excerpts from the others. The title is “Abortion law best left as it stands”, and it states: “There is a tendency in public discussion to treat parenthood as a state that invests all who reach it with near saintly qualities of care and compassion. Sadly that is not so. Supporters and critics of the Collins amendment are talking about two different types of parent, both of whom exist in considerable number. Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship—
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to assist the Minister. He is talking about an earlier Supplementary Order Paper written back in July, not the one that is currently under debate. I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the Chamber.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, that is not a point of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will know that, under Speakers’ rulings, members are to be referred to by their full name. I hope you pull the Minister up in that regard. Several times he referred to the member for Clevedon as “Collins”. She is Judith Collins, or the member for Clevedon.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If that occurred, then I am at fault because I never heard it. If it was the case, Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8 state that members are to be referred to by their full names.
John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I happened to be listening to the debate on the radio in my room and heard reference to the matter of interjections and your ruling on the matter of interjections. You might care to remind the Minister that while he is in the chair he is not to interject, because he is on a live microphone.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. That is perfectly correct. Can I just say that there is a convention in the Chamber that in Committee, members in charge of legislation should not take unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to. I add that courtesy is contagious and that we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I continue that quote from the New Zealand Herald on 15 September: “Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship that means they would hear about it without mandatory instructions from the law. Conversely, those who would not hear about it cannot blame the law for a child’s secrecy. The law is working as well as it probably can. The rest is up to parents.” Two days later the , under the heading “Abortion change hard to justify”, stated: “We believe it is those girls in desperate straits who are in most need of the protection the present law affords. To remove that safeguard would create a new level of risk.” The on 14 September stated: “… if the law is to be changed it will undoubtedly work against the best interests of a small number of especially unfortunate individuals—young women who belong to dysfunctional and abusive families where they can expect condemnation or worse, rather than support, and where another family member might be the cause of their pregnancy.” The , under the heading “Abortion law spectre” stated: “However, the spectre of the bad old days of backstreet abortions, which the royal commission into contraception, sterilisation and abortion sought to overcome, looms. Any law change that results in that should be rejected.”
The Otago Daily Times, on the 16th of the same month, stated: “The Government and professional medical bodies have pointed out young pregnant girls are advised by family doctors to tell their parents and seek support. That is as it should be.”
I have two more votes of thanks to give at this time. The first is to the number of professional organisations, including doctors’ organisations, who have made their overwhelming support of the Government position abundantly clear. I thank them for taking the trouble to do that. Lastly, I say a profound thank you on behalf of the Government to the group—some of whom are no longer with us—who made up the royal commission that sat in 1977. In 1977 it was the view of that royal commission that to remove choice for young women would lead them to be coerced into having an abortion or to consider continuing a pregnancy against their wishes. The simple fact is that nothing has changed in the last 27 years to alter that view. I am profoundly sad that the shallow populism of the Opposition has forced it to take the ridiculous position it has.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that insult of calling me shallow.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has taken offence under the Standing Order “Personal reflections”. The member is entitled to ask for a retraction. I ask the member—[Interruption] I have ruled, Mr Barker. The member concerned has taken issue under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, and she is entitled to do that. I call on the Minister to withdraw.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Mr Chairperson, can you explain to me what I am apologising for? I did not name Mrs Collins.
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mrs Collins has taken umbrage at what the Minister said. She considers that a personal reflection. I ask him to withdraw.
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I withdraw.
…
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : It is 35 years since the Guardianship Act was passed. It was 1977 that saw the amendments that introduced the section of the Act that is simply repeated in clause 37 of the bill. No changes have been proposed to the clause from what has been the law since 1977. Has anyone produced any evidence to support the need for change? No. I know that some members will vote for the Supplementary Order Paper, not because they think it will pass with their support—in fact, they are confident that it will not pass—but because they want to show support to a colleague. That is not good enough. There are stories of MPs who stood by the lobby doors counting the numbers as they went through so they could be seen to be opposing homosexual law reform, even though they supported it. There is no credibility in adopting that position.
We need to vote on principle. The principle is to be found in the report of the Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report upon Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion, because the clause comes from its well-considered, balanced report that gave us the legislative framework to work within an area that is hard. It is hard. No woman or girl, no matter her age, wants to find herself in the position of choosing to either terminate or continue a pregnancy that was unplanned, and it is unplanned pregnancies that are the problem.
I know there is not one mother or father in this Chamber who would not want to know if his or her daughter were pregnant, nor would we want any child or young person to have to make a decision about that pregnancy on her own. We all know that when most families are confronted with hard situations—that call on them to suspend the judgment of moral behaviour that sex before marriage, let alone before the age of consent, requires them to do—they will do so, and offer all the love and support they can. They will almost always respect their daughter’s choice, whether she wants to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it. I do not believe there is a single parent in this Chamber who would force his or her daughter, against her will, into either an abortion clinic or a birthing unit.
But please let us not judge by our own standards what others would do. Much has been said about good parents being the majority, and that we are legislating against good parents. We are not. In 1977, we legislated to protect the minority. The good ones are not punished by this law. The good ones will be told. The good ones will support their children making good choices. We know from the New Zealand Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the Family Planning Association that doctors advise those young girls and young women to talk to their parents, and almost all do speak to parents or to another significant adult in their lives.
I heard Judith Collins say she would not want to have a daughter who came home and told her that she was pregnant at age 14 and that she wanted an abortion. If anyone’s daughter felt like that, and there was a risk of a violent reaction to the news of the pregnancy, or of being forced into an abortion or giving birth against her will, then would she even go to a doctor if she knew that the doctor would be required to notify her parents? If she were to go home and be kicked and beaten by an angry parent who called her a slut and a whore, would she even go to the doctor? That is the issue here.
Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is bad enough having my speech misrepresented in that way without having the words “slut” and “whore” thrown around in this debate on such an incredibly sensitive issue. I think the member should not go ahead with that sort of language.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. The member has said nothing that needs a point of order ruled on.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order!
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Does the member have a new point of order? I have ruled on Judith Collins’ point of order. There is nothing to rule. It is not a point of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a longstanding convention, which has been ruled on by Speakers on a number of times, that family are not to be brought into debates in the House. I find it quite offensive that on such a sensitive issue—and I understand there are strong passions—for a member to make assertions about what a parent in this Parliament would do in the unfortunate situation of having a child who was considering an abortion. If the Committee this evening is going to—[Interruption] She did. The member on her feet made direct assertions about what my colleague Judith Collins would do if her daughter—
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. There was nothing to rule. The member is quite wrong. It was not—
Hon Dr Nick Smith:It is a different point of order.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member—
Hon Dr Nick Smith:If you want to bring the Committee into disorder tonight, I say that I heard, very distinctly, Lianne Dalziel referring to what my colleague Judith Collins would do in the event her child was to have an abortion. I do not think this Committee can have a quality debate if it is not based on the longstanding convention that we do not bring our children into such debates in this Chamber.
LIANNE DALZIEL: If she were going to go home and be kicked and beaten—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order.
Hon Dr Nick Smith:I notice Damien O’Connor over there. If we are to have children brought into this debate, it is a two-sided game, and I do not think the Committee wants to go down that track. I ask you, Madam Chair, to make a strong ruling to ensure that our families are properly protected in this Chamber.
Hon Mark Burton: I think I can assist the member. Lianne Dalziel was not referring to the children of any member in the House. I was listening very carefully. The member was referring to a hypothetical child going home and having that experience. I think this is a serious debate, and I think the member should listen carefully. We all should listen to each other’s viewpoints and treat them with respect.
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member makes a good point. That is exactly what I heard.
LIANNE DALZIEL: I have made it very clear that there is not a member in the Chamber who would behave in that way. The issue, though, is that I would rather that young girls and women knew that the doctor-patient confidentiality that applies in all other cases would apply here. Otherwise they will seek advice from people who are not doctors. The result will be increased back-street abortions and botched attempts at abortion, as well as more births of children to children. We cannot have that on our consciences as a Parliament. The royal commission developed the principle that should be applied, and I really cannot believe that the 1977 Parliament was more enlightened than the one we have today. The bottom line is that we do have to legislate to protect the interests of the minority. The majority of parents—loving, good parents—will support their daughters when they are in that situation, but, unfortunately, there are many who will not.
…
Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : Yesterday in the United States there were a number of elections. In one state, one of those elections was, in fact, a referendum. It is common practice in the United States for the people to decide these kinds of issues directly. That is something this country could learn from. In Florida, on the issue of parental notification, 65 percent—4.5 million voters—of the people said there should be parental notification, and 35 percent said no. That proposition was not just blanket parental notification; it referred to the state of Florida providing proper exemption provisions and waiver of notification. It was a nuanced approach. Those numbers are remarkably similar to the poll in the New Zealand Herald. Seventy-one percent said yes to parental notification, and 23 percent said no.
Listening to members of the Government, including Lianne Dalziel and the Associate Minister of Justice, I have to wonder whether they have even read Judith Collins’ amendments. She has put a modest proposal specifically designed to reach the widest numbers in this House. The amendment to clause 35, which inserts a new subclause (6A), states that, prima facie, there must be a notification. But whom is that notification to? It is to the doctor. The doctor must be advised, and that is what her proposed clause 37A states. If the child says: “No, I do not want my parents notified.”, then the only process that takes place is that the doctor notifies a judge of the Family Court in writing. Ultimately, in fact, the young person, whose medical practitioner must keep the matter in confidence, gets to make that choice. If we listened to Government members, we would have no sense that that is what these amendments propose. They are reasonable and modest amendments, and I just wish that Government members would read them and consider them carefully.
The Minister talked today about the royal commission. I have spoken to a member of the royal commission. I will be honest: my wife was a member of that royal commission. At that time she was a young woman, and she has said the consent issue was dealt with carefully. No one on that commission considered that the consent of the young child would be required. But on the issue of the notification the commission was silent. It is certainly DeneseHēnare’s view that notification, certainly in the terms framed by Judith Collins, is entirely within the intent of the royal commission’s report.
Hon David Benson-Pope: That’s not true. That’s not right.
Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister simply has not read these amendments, because if he understood them, he would realise they are actually designed to meet the very objections and concerns that he has raised and that Lianne Dalziel has raised. People on this side of the Chamber and in other parties do understand the tremendous difficulties that a young girl in this situation is faced with. We have to provide reasonable opportunities for her to be able to express her view without intimidation, in some cases, and to be able to put it in a way that there is a sense of confidence that the young girl’s wishes will be recognised. These amendments do precisely that. Frankly, I cannot see why these amendments do not have pretty much the universal endorsement of the Committee. My colleague Judith Collins has laboured long and hard on these amendments. She has talked to a huge number of people, including medical professionals and the professional bodies, and they support them.
END. And if you made it this far, let us know and we'll send you 20 copies of our fabulous lobbying Post Card. email: safeandlegal[at]gmail.com