Appointments

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) Link to this

I move, That, pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway DCNZM of Dunedin, Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington, and Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch, as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway as Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. The Abortion Supervisory Committee is constituted under section 10 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, and consists of three members, one of whom is appointed as chairperson. Two of the members must be medical practitioners. They are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of this House of Representatives for a term of 3 years, and they are all able to be reappointed. The Abortion Supervisory Committee is responsible for keeping under review all the provisions of the abortion law in New Zealand, and for the operation and effect of those provisions in practice. That includes licensing institutions for the performance of abortions, and the appointment of certifying consultants to authorise abortions.

The previous members of the committee were Dr Lesley Rothwell of Wellington, as chair, Papaarangi Reid of Wellington, and Marlene Lamb JP of Morrinsville. I take this opportunity, on behalf of the Government and of the whole House, to thank Dr Rothwell, Dr Reid, and Mrs Lamb for the contributions they have made during their terms on the committee.

The qualities sought in all members of the committee are that they be sufficiently impartial and open-minded to be able to represent the needs and interests of women in a non-controversial manner, be sensitive to the needs of different cultural groups, have good communication skills, and accept a level of public scrutiny. Also, the chair should have previous experience in a leadership role. The new appointments that are proposed in the motion before the House are for Linda Holloway to be a member and chair the committee, and for Dr Rosemary Fenwicke and Patricia Allan to be members of the committee. I suggest to members that all are very capable people, and together they would bring a balance of knowledge and experience to the committee. They also bring a high degree of integrity to their respective roles as members of the committee, thus ensuring that it will be able to perform with the required diligence and competence in interpreting the intentions of the legislation.

Professor Linda Holloway, who was previously pro vice-chancellor of health sciences at Otago University, was appointed chair of the National Health Committee in 2006, having been a member of it since 2002. She is a specialist anatomical pathologist, and at an earlier stage in her career she also worked in rural general practice. Her major area of research interest has been respiratory pathology. She has served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee, and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. She has also been in many areas of community work, including the Lottery Grants Board research distribution committee and the Medical Women’s Association. She is a Distinguished Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit, in recognition of her career of dedicated service to health science.

Dr Rosemary Fenwicke is a member of the Health Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal and the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal. She was the medical director of the central region for the New Zealand Family Planning Association from 1987 to 1990. As an on-call doctor for the New Zealand Police and the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, she assessed victims of sexual abuse. She was also a medical officer at Victoria University’s Student Health Service. Dr Fenwicke also developed a general practice clinic at Waiwhetū Marae in Lower Hutt. She currently works in general practice in Wellington at the level J terminations clinic at Wellington Women’s Hospital, and she also does independent allowance assessments and rehabilitation assessments for the Accident Compensation Corporation. In 2005-06 she was the national medical officer for the New Zealand Fire Service.

Patricia Allan established her own consultancy business as a facilitator and mentor at the beginning of 2004. For the previous 20 years she had been involved in either church or council-funded social service and in ministry roles in Christchurch and on the West Coast. Before establishing her current business, she worked for the Methodist Church’s Christchurch inner-city ministry, and had previously served as the vicar of Hokitika and as diocesan mission coordinator for the Anglican Diocese of Christchurch. She has held a number of governance roles in the Methodist and Anglican churches, including as an elected member of the standing committee of the General Synod of the Anglican Church of New Zealand, and also as a member of the board of the McLean Institute, a charitable trust. She was awarded the Queen’s Service Medal for her community work on the West Coast. Ms Allan completed her registered nursing qualification in 1960 and also holds a licentiate of theology.

I can confirm that an appropriate process has been followed in selecting the proposed new appointees, in terms of the State Services Commission’s appointment guidelines and in accordance with Cabinet directives. I can confirm that appropriate inquiries concerning conflicts of interest have been carried out in accordance with State Services Commission appointment guidelines, and that any conflict of interest that could reasonably be identified would have been identified. No conflict of interest has been identified. While serving on the committee, the chair or a member must declare to the Speaker any personal or professional interests or associations that might create a conflict with his or her duties as a member of a committee. The Speaker then decides on the appropriate course of action.

I recommend that the House adopt Government motion No. 1.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent) Link to this

I move, That the motion be amended by omitting the words “Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke of Wellington”, and substituting the words “Dr Ate Moala of Wellington”. I regard the Abortion Supervisory Committee as the single most important supervisory body in New Zealand. I say that because abortion ends somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000 human lives in New Zealand each year. That is the magnitude of the task that the three people appointed to the supervisory committee are undertaking.

Thousands of human lives are directly affected. It is with that in mind that I recommend without hesitation the appointment of Dr Ate Moala to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. Dr Moala has an impressive curriculum vitae. She is an outstanding doctor and an outstanding clinician. She is Tongan. She is a mother. I have circulated information about her, and her complete curriculum vitae, to every member of Parliament on three different occasions. I only wish that I could take that process further and have every member of the House given the opportunity to meet Dr Ate Moala in person. If that were possible, I have no doubt at all that one would quickly conclude that she has a great deal to offer our nation as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

As I mentioned earlier, when I contemplate the reality of abortion I cannot personally comprehend that there are some 18,000 abortions each and every year in New Zealand. I see those lost lives as children, and I have no doubt that they would be great Kiwi kids. Our society suffers great loss through their absence. I cannot think of abortion, however, without also thinking of the women with child who are faced with the agonising choice of whether to terminate. All of us know that both a male and a female are involved in the creation of a new human life. Many times, however, the weight of the decision concerning abortion is made by the woman, and by her all alone. Not infrequently the father of the child does not want to know, and, indeed, he sometimes joins the crowd of accusers who point the finger at the woman, say she “got herself pregnant”, and demand that she “get rid of it”.

I greatly admire the many tremendous New Zealanders who selflessly offer support, emotionally and practically, to women in that situation. These women need to be right at the very centre of the abortion process and to be treated with the greatest tenderness and compassion. I also admire those churches that have programmes. For, example, the Catholic and Elim churches reach out to and minister to women both before and after abortion.

I am, of course, a man, so I cannot completely put myself, as it were, in the shoes of a woman who is faced with this serious and pain-filled decision. However, I do have a wife, and have accompanied her through five pregnancies, so at least in that second-hand sense I can begin to appreciate that an unexpected, unplanned pregnancy, particularly for an unmarried woman, must bring with it a lot of new and deeply disturbing questions, such as: “Why me? Why now? Where will I live? How will I complete my examinations? Who will support me? How will the father of the child and my mum and dad react to the news of my pregnancy?”, etc., etc.

I am, however, also prepared to acknowledge here those good men who, finding their partner or wife pregnant, immediately pledge their wholehearted commitment and support to her welfare and the welfare of their child. That is a responsible, manly thing to do, and there probably needs to be a lot more taught explicitly to all New Zealand young men concerning their responsibilities when they become fathers, even in unexpected circumstances, if we are to see an improvement in our abortion statistics.

Many people are amazed when I tell them that under present law it is not mandatory for certifying consultants even to meet the woman who has requested an abortion. Likewise, there is no legal requirement for the woman to be fully informed of her options in terms of continuing with the pregnancy or moving to abortion. That seems amazing to me, given that for many years now in New Zealand we have had a commitment to informed consent. Even those who describe themselves as pro-choice would surely agree that informed choice is always better than uninformed choice. I think all of us could also agree that a so-called choice made by a frightened and insecure mother-to-be in favour of abortion, because of demands from the father of the baby, friends, or other family members, is in truth no choice at all.

I have long since reached the view that although I would like to see some much-needed changes to the present Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act, abortion will continue in New Zealand until each and every woman with child is loved, and every child is wanted and welcome. That should be our national goal. It will take effort and education to effect that change. That is why it is so important that we have the right people on the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

As far as I can tell, New Zealand’s abortion rate is now the highest in the Western World. We have in excess of 300 abortions for every 1,000 live births, compared with, for example, the USA, where the latest figure I have is 240 abortions per 1,000 live births, and declining. Surely on that statistic alone all of us in this House could conclude and concur with the simple proposition that the abortion rate in New Zealand is now far, far too high. It is not beyond our wit, if we as a Parliament have the will, to actually dramatically improve that situation. Everyone in our society would benefit from an improvement. Certainly, the unborn child would experience life. The mother of that child would experience a much greater quality of life as there is now ample evidence that abortion dramatically affects the mental and psychological well-being of a woman. In simple terms, abortion hurts women.

I know that Dr Ate Moala would bring an experienced and compassionate view to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. The welfare of the woman with child would be at the centre of her concern. Therefore, I ask every member to support her nomination to the Abortion Supervisory Committee as a replacement for Dr Rosemary Jane Fenwicke. The composition of the Abortion Supervisory Committee would then remain roughly the same, with one doctor substituting the other one—Ate Moala for Rosemary Jane Fenwicke—Professor Linda Jane Holloway, and Patricia Ann Allan, who, as described by the Minister, we could describe as a very informed, concerned layperson. That is the proposition I put to the House, and I look forward to the support of members.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

Just before I call the next member, I ask Mr Copeland whether he intends to table the amendment. It is necessary. If he tables it, then I am happy to put the question that the motion be agreed to, but I need the member to table the amendment.

GORDON COPELAND (Independent) Link to this

I will bring my motion to the Clerk immediately, and I also have copies available for other members.

TIM BARNETT (Senior Whip—Labour) Link to this

I understand that under the rules of this debate, any amendment then becomes the sole focus of the debate unless we can move a resolution to deal with that, so I seek leave for the debate from this point on to include both the main question and Gordon Copeland’s amendment, and, indeed, any further amendments that members may see fit to move.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) Link to this

Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa. The Māori Party always recognises the value of ancestral traditions in informing the present generation. We do recognise, however, that we have been subjected to influences that include values and beliefs from other world views. We strive to ensure that we are able to distinguish between them, and in the process maintain the integrity of our respective iwi tikanga.

There are important elements of our tūpuna traditions that also shed light on contemporary issues and guide us in knowing how to view the decision that some 18,000 New Zealanders make every year in using abortion services. The traditions and concepts that I am referring to are described in concepts such ira tangata, tapu, mana, whakapapa, and wairua. These principles, which are common within Māori world views, remind me that ira tangata is more than just a collection of genetic material—a biological interest. Professor Hirini Moko Mead refers to “te ira tangata ki te Ao mārama”—literally, from the conception of life in the woman’s womb through to the world of light. There is a godlike and spiritual quality to be considered, because, as human beings, ira tangata descend from ira atua—the gods.

So when we think of abortion we cannot think of biomedical or clinical matters; we think of the mauri—the life force—that permeates the very origin of life. When we think of abortion we think of concepts of wairuatanga—the spiritual dimensions—which are to be found at conception, during the foetal stage, and at birth. When we think of abortion we think of whakapapa—the genealogical descent, the order of all living things. It is, in essence, what the Chinese call yin and yang. It is the complementary principles of balance between Māori and the wider universe in the natural environment. We think of mana—the collective authority and influence—which is considered within whānau, hapū, and iwi. Importantly, we think of whanaungatanga. Whānau have the obligation and responsibility of the duty of care among their own. Whānau therefore must be reminded of their rights and reciprocal obligations, which are consistent with being part of the collective.

This one word “abortion” evokes so much emotion, and for the Māori mind it triggers the opportunity for multilevel discourse and discussion. It gives us all an opportunity to examine the issues, without casting aspersions or making judgments of others. It is this point, more than any other, that really drives me in the vote of conscience that I must make today. I have no intention of directing moral blame or criticism of any form on those individuals and whānau who have made the choice that has resulted in abortion; nor do I say that others should vote as I would vote. We know that over the last 20 years the median age of all women having an abortion has remained stable, at around 25 years. Presumably, that is a period of life when one would expect decisions to be made, taking into account the likely consequences and impacts.

This is a conscience debate, so I willingly share my truth about this issue, while acknowledging there will be others who have a different point of view. When I listen to the voice of conscience, the voice within that guides me, I find that there are two strong elements to my thinking. The first is the simple truth that I believe every child is a loved child. The second is my view that whānau ora drives everything. I believe that it is a solemn duty of whānau to ensure that the secret life force that supports mauri—the spark of life—must extend to every child, every mother, every father—every family member. I believe also that although one may have contrary beliefs, one must ensure that judgment is not made of others whose beliefs may be different and whose decision making may be different.

When we talk of manaakitanga we must consider the heartbeat of the emerging child, alongside the heartbeat of the mother, alongside the heartbeat of the community—whānau, hapū, and iwi. In other words, whānau ora—literally, the life force of our whānau—must, as a priority, remind us that every decision to do with an individual member of a whānau will always impact on the health and well-being of the wider group. We have no interest in stigmatising and problematising fertility, and although I have incurred the wrath of some members of this House, I will continue to speak out about the joy of life that should be associated with fertility, rather than confining the discussion to the context of the problem of sexual and reproductive health.

It is because of this joy of life that I am hugely challenged by the existence of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I would never want the issue of abortion to be reduced to reporting for the sake of health statistics, the application of licences, the standards of facilities, and the performance of operations.

The concepts that I have touched on today are as relevant to the decision-making process around abortion as is the administration of abortion law. I firmly believe that access to other world views must be part of the context around considering the regulation of abortion services. I know that the Māori Party supported the appointment of the three people who have been mentioned today as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee. However, with further information provided, I am also happy to say that we support the nomination of a Tongan woman, Dr Ate Moala, who would come to the position equipped with both her own indigenous Tongan knowledge, the professional expertise of qualifications in public health, and her very recent doctorate material regarding health promotion. Dr Moala has wide experience across the health sector, as well as being vice-president of the Pasifika Medical Association of New Zealand . I am sure those skills will be of value in ensuring access to culturally appropriate sexual and reproductive health information.

The statistics and data available from the annual report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee make a strong stand for acquiring cultural competency as a vital attribute for membership. Although the majority of abortions are for European women, there are extremely high rates of Asian, Pasifika, and Māori abortions, which I believe must be considered when looking at the capacity of the committee to meet the needs of these populations. Particular consideration should be given to those most affected in this issue. Given the high rates of abortion in Asian, Pasifika, and Māori communities, one would expect their perspectives and world views to be respected, and for decisions to be informed accordingly. The committee should be expanded, and it should absolutely include Dr Ate Moala and, if possible, a doctor of Asian descent. As Māori we need to be confident that the respect we have for whakapapa, for whanaungatanga, and for tikanga, is fully understood. As New Zealanders we all need to know that sexual and reproductive health is lifelong, and that different cultural frameworks may be helpful in seeing health in a holistic way.

When we think of health and well-being we must remain focused on our concepts of hauora—“hau” literally means the life breath, the essence of humans. I will be forever proud that my position is unflinching, my stand uncompromising. There is no more important task in life and death than to safeguard that life breath, that life essence, for now and for our future in front of us. Tēnā koutou.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) Link to this

I rise to ask the House to support the nomination of Dr Ate Moala. She is an outstanding medical professional and has the kind of public health background and expertise that would be well suited to activity on the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

I have spoken in the House in the past about the operation of this law, because I believe that it was a law framed by Parliament with the intention of protecting the unborn. However, it is a law that has been observed as much in the breach, and today I want to raise a number of issues to do with the current status of the Abortion Supervisory Committee that I think are a disgrace to this Parliament, and to the Ministries of Health and Justice that interact with the Abortion Supervisory Committee. I say to the civil service organisations interacting with that committee that they are obliged to know the law and ensure it is acted upon in the same way as they ensure every other kind of law is acted upon. But the attitudes among some of the bureaucracy have to be questioned.

I can recall that as Minister of Health I authorised an information booklet to be available in general practitioner surgeries around the country, because I believed women needed information in order to be able to give informed consent. It was a long battle with the Ministry of Health, which claimed in the late 1990s that there were no suitable pictures of a foetus that could be published—as if it were some kind of pornography. In the end, I went to the library and found a picture myself. The ministry made sure that in the publication it was as small as possible. When I stopped being Minister of Health, the ministry stopped printing what was a very popular booklet and trashed the remaining copies, and the booklet has never seen the light of day again. Women, even now, can go into a general practitioner’s surgery to make a decision that is potentially lifesaving—and that should not be made casually even if it is not—yet they cannot get simple information about what is happening to the development of the foetus and about the legal process that this Parliament obliges them to go through. And that is a disgrace. I would hope that our community attitudes—or our bureaucratic attitudes—on this have developed sufficiently that the picture of a developing foetus, which is now available in beautiful representations, is no longer regarded as civil service pornography.

I now want to turn to the activities of the Crown and the Abortion Supervisory Committee themselves. The committee is involved in a legal process that I think demonstrates ill-intent towards the legislation as passed by this Parliament. A group of people are taking legal proceedings to initiate a judicial review of whether the committee has performed its statutory duties. That is not unusual; there is often legal action with the Crown. There are often Officers of Parliament and others who investigate public bodies to find out whether they have performed their statutory duties—the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the Department of Corrections is a current investigation, just this week. The Crown and the committee have thrown all the resources they can at stopping a judicial review of the committee’s activities, and I believe that that is unwise.

Parliament set up an Abortion Supervisory Committee with the full intention that its activities could be reviewed in exactly the same way as those of any other public body. Are there legitimate questions about whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee has carried out its statutory duties? Absolutely, yes! In fact, it has made a point in its annual reports of virtually saying that it does not really care whether it carries them out, because that is too complicated. However, Parliament did give the committee statutory duties. Any group of citizens have a right to see that those duties are examined, and the Crown in my view should not stand in the way. But, point by point, it has tried to get evidence thrown out, has tried to get the actions struck out, and is probably going to have another crack at preventing evidence that has come out of longitudinal studies in Christchurch from being presented to the court, as well.

My advice to the Crown today is to pull back. This Parliament does not want the executive using taxpayers’ resources or the power of the Crown to prevent the examination of a public body. It is not an unfair approach, it is not vexatious, and it will be the first time in 25 years—the first time since the committee was set up, actually—that there has been any detailed review of whether the committee is carrying out its obligations.

Some of those failures are absolutely obvious. It is quite clear from the psychiatric literature, and from the public health literature, that if women have mental health problems, which is the main ground for abortion, then the right treatment for that is medication and counselling. Even in the pre-abortion stage, the legislation obliges the committee to ensure that counselling is available—but it does not do that. It is well-known that the counselling is either biased, last minute, or far too directive. We are one of the few countries in the world that do not have some kind of independent counselling available to women who are making a choice about abortion. We should have that, and the committee should be subject to review over whether it has carried out its duties.

So that is one set of legal issues—the committee and the Crown are fighting judicial review, and they should not do that. Parliament wants to know whether this body is carrying out the tasks that Parliament has given it. If we are not serious about that, then we should change the law. If we are serious, then we should make sure that this body is subject to review in exactly the same way as every other single public body is, by exactly the same procedure. It should not be exempt from it.

The second set of legal issues is to do with the current legality of what is going on in the abortion industry. There is no Abortion Supervisory Committee. The appointments have all expired. As at 28 May, according to my information, 28 of the abortion consultants have had their appointments expire. And if their appointments have expired, then all activities they are carrying out in approving or carrying out abortions are unlawful, because the consultants are not legally constituted as abortion consultants. Well, that is a disgrace. It will be a very serious issue if Parliament—if the Minister of Justice—has allowed the legal framework protecting our unborn children to lapse because of laziness and contempt for the law, but I cannot presume anything else.

I want the Minister to stand up in this House and tell us why he has allowed this potentially unlawful situation to arise. The committee appointments have expired; they had a fixed date. Some of the consultants gave 3 months’ notice—and the Government took no notice. If the committee’s appointments have expired, then the certification of people certified by them—who are called certified consultants—has expired, and if their certification has expired, then the actions they are carrying out are unlawful. Does the Minister want to be party to the unlawful abortion of unborn children? He needs to answer the questions, firstly, as to why it has happened, but, more important, whether it is the case that, today, unlawful abortions are occurring. He must answer that question. I believe that he should answer it here, but he must also answer it to the public.

There are also issues raised about licensed facilities, because their licences have expired, as well. Apparently, the Ministry of Justice can point to a section in the Act that states that those facilities can continue carrying out abortions even if their licences have expired. That may a legal answer, but I would have to say that it is another sign of the laxity of the Minister and of this Parliament in allowing the potentially unlawful process of abortion to go on. The fact that that provision is there to protect clinics highlights the fact that there is no such provision to protect certified consultants. It reinforces in my mind that, as of now, there may well be several dozen certifying consultants out there who are acting unlawfully. Whether it is illegal, I guess, is another matter, but certainly they are acting unlawfully.

The Crown and this Parliament have not taken the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee seriously. The committee was set up by the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act as a serious attempt to protect the unborn child. We have fallen short in our duty to enforce the statutes of this House but, much more important, we have fallen short in our duty to protect the unborn child. The Minister and the Government must get on and reinstate that protection, and stop fighting the people who are trying to review the law to ensure that it is enforced.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) Link to this

Let there be no doubt in the minds of anybody in this House or anybody who is listening to this debate that we are talking about a very serious issue. As I understand it, somewhere between 18,000 and 19,000 abortions—I do not think that it has topped 19,000 as yet—are permitted per year, and that number increases just about every year. That represents 50 abortions a day, or thereabouts. That is the equivalent of nearly two classrooms of children a day. It is very difficult to believe that that is not abortion on demand—very difficult to believe.

I listened to the Minister intently. He said—and I do not think I am misquoting him—something along the lines of it being essential that we have some sort of system to take note of the interests of women, and of ethnic and cultural concerns. I did not hear him talk about potential fathers at all. Do they not count at all? Do they not count in anybody’s language? I have not heard the words “father” or “man” mentioned in this context as yet. Obviously, it is principally a women’s issue. Principally, it is a women’s matter, but not totally, and perhaps we are allowing too many abortions because there is no man on the Abortion Supervisory Committee. So New Zealand First will be moving a motion to put a male doctor on that committee.

I move, That the motion be amended by omitting Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch and substituting Dr Peter Hall of Whangaparaoa. This is a last-minute motion, and it will have caught many members in the House by surprise, but I will just mention a little bit of Dr Hall’s background. He is a graduate of the Auckland School of Medicine. He has a diploma in obstetrics. He has been in general practice from 1987 to the current time. He is a good man, by all accounts. He was the chairman of the board of directors of Coast Care Accident and Medical Clinic, a visiting medical adviser to the special needs panel of Gulf Harbour School, and a medical adviser to Pregnancy Counselling Services. I will not read out the whole of his CV, because it is slightly out of date. It was submitted to the Government some time ago, at the beginning of this term of Parliament, with a request for Dr Hall to be considered for appointment on to this committee.

New Zealand First will be splitting its vote on this motion, but none of the candidates will get total backing from New Zealand First—not one of them. Some of us will vote for the candidate nominated by Gordon Copeland, and some will vote against that candidate. But all of us will vote for Dr Peter Hall. We think the Abortion Supervisory Committee will be served all the better if there is a male on that committee, and this is the man.

Let me go back to the issue we are talking about—abortion. Abortion must be safe. We do not want to move this country back to backstreet abortions ever again. It must be safe—safe for all concerned. Therefore, it must be legal. So there must be some law that allows abortion to some degree. But, thirdly, and most important, abortion must be rare. Eighteen thousand abortions a year, or thereabouts, is not rare in my view or in the view of my colleagues. It is too many. This committee must take a more active role, must take a more educative role, and must play a part in bringing down that number.

Mr Copeland said that for every thousand births, there are 300 abortions. That is a dreadful statistic, and the way I put it, that is the equivalent of having about 50 children, or potential children—some will say children; some will say potential children—aborted every day; not just weekdays but every day of the year. This House should take this issue very seriously. We nominate Dr Peter Hall, and I hope that members have taken that on board.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) Link to this

I wish to advise the member that he needs to table his amendment in order for it to be voted on at the completion of the debate. This is in accordance with the leave granted prior to his speech for the honourable member Gordon Copeland. If the member could please table his amendment, I would appreciate it.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

I do not intend to take a very long call on this matter, as I understand my colleague Dr Paul Hutchison would also like to take a call and I want to make sure we have enough time for everybody.

To be absolutely frank, we have abortion on demand in New Zealand, in everything except name. When we look at the fact that there are 18,000 abortions a year—and have been for the last few years, give or take some increases and some slight drops in that time—and that 98 to 99 percent of all abortions are performed supposedly because of serious danger to the mental health of women, I think we do need to accept that we have abortion on demand.

I am very grateful that I was not a 14-year-old girl who was faced with an unwanted pregnancy. I am very, very grateful that I have never had an unwanted pregnancy. I am, however, deeply moved by the plight of women in that situation. However, I think we do need to understand, and accept, that abortion is not just a process. It is not just a medical procedure. For many women in particular, an abortion is something they will live with all their lives. I believe absolutely that many of those women—particularly those supposedly facing serious danger to their mental health at the time of an unwanted pregnancy—will, in fact, face even more serious danger to their mental health at a later stage, unless they get every bit of help that we can give them.

The House will remember that during the passage of the Care of Children Bill I proposed an amendment to allow either a parent or a parental figure, or a Family Court judge, to be advised if a child under 16 was seeking an abortion. The House at the time did not support that. Only one member of the then Labour Party supported my amendment. I can say to this House, with a very sorry heart, that in 1999, 56 children aged between 11 and 14 had abortions. In this last year we find that that number has almost doubled, to 105. I do not want to see a return to backstreet abortions. I do not want to see women dying because of abortions performed in unsanitary situations. I do not want to see that happen. However, I do not want to see us turn ourselves into a culture where human life is not valued.

I note that the Minister, when he was looking at the people who should be on this committee, said that one of the attributes committee members should have was to be impartial. Frankly, I do not believe that some of the members he has put forward are impartial. He also said that they should be open-minded. Well, I do not think some of them are. He said further that they should be sensitive to cultural groups and understandings. I hope I have quoted the Minister correctly. I believe we do need to take that into account. The number of Pacific women who have abortions is an utter disgrace. When I hear my colleague the Hon Bill English speak about his attempts as Minister of Health to get some basic information to women, through their doctors’ surgeries, about abortion, about their alternatives, and about the health ramifications, and see the way he was thwarted by his own politically correct ministry, I think that is a disgrace. That these people have chosen to stop women—women who are in need, women who are desperate, women who want help—from getting correct information is an utter disgrace.

When I look at the numbers of abortions performed, I wonder when the increase will stop. Are we going to be like some countries, such as China, where in some families children are aborted because of their gender, because they are women? Are we going to have children with disabilities aborted because they are different? Are we ever going to value human life?

I do not support the retention of Dr Fenwicke to this committee. I believe that we should have Dr Ate Moala on the committee, and I will also support the other amendment by New Zealand First to include Dr Hall. I believe it is absolutely important that we get some balance on this committee and that this committee finally does its job.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) Link to this

I want, first of all, to thank members for their contributions. There have been some very thoughtful contributions, and it is right that that should be the case, because this is a serious issue. It is right that we take these matters seriously and discuss them with care, as well. Some important issues have been highlighted, and I am thinking of some of the points Mr English raised around the difficult legal limbo that we seem to be in. Significant issues have been raised, it is right that we should be discussing them, and Bill English made a number of proposals around them.

I tend to agree that there should be some kind of review. In fact, when the Justice and Electoral Committee looked at the Abortion Supervisory Committee, Murray Smith and I joined in saying there should be a review, although, I suspect, for different reasons. It seems to me that the law does not actually reflect the modern world. I know that it is a difficult and contentious issue, and that it is a difficult thing for Parliament to deal with, but I think we need to look at the law to make sure that it is in tune with reality, because we would be in a difficult position if that were not the case.

Of course, this is a conscience vote, and I am speaking on my own behalf here. I put it clearly on the record that I am anti-abortion. I have some personal awareness of how traumatic those kinds of procedures can be. But I am also very strongly pro-choice. I guess my main concern is that I would not want to support anything that made the situation more dangerous for women in our country. Similarly, I would be very, very cautious about anything that appeared to restrict women’s access to abortion. Women find themselves in all kinds of situations, and anything that would lead to the kind of backstreet abortion situation that members have previously referred to is something we must absolutely reject. We need to be very cautious about any changes we seek to make. It has to be an absolute bottom line that safety for women with regard to abortion must be paramount.

Both Mr Copeland and Peter Brown mentioned the issue of men’s involvement, and they raised some important points. Although it is not just a women’s issue, in reality for many women it is. They face these choices alone, and ultimately, at the end of the day, it is the women who are likely to have to take the bulk of the responsibility for any decisions made. I think we all probably know women who have had children with men who subsequently took off and left them to take responsibility. I agree with Mr Brown that that is something we need to be talking to young men about in our country. We need to be instilling a sense of responsibility in this area.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) Link to this

To assist the House, I seek leave to table the abortion statistics for 2006, which were released just today by Statistics New Zealand. The statistics show that there has been an increase in the rate of abortions.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) Link to this

I rise to support the Government’s motion to support Professor Jane Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan of Christchurch as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and Professor Holloway as the chairman. To my knowledge, they are all extraordinarily dedicated to the best possible care of women, and all are hugely conscientious in what they do.

I also acknowledge, however, the preparedness not only of them to sit on the committee after several years where there have been only two on the committee, but also the preparedness of Dr Ate Moala and Peter Hall to do the same. I think Tariana Turia mentioned the possibility of having a further member on the committee, and maybe this could be one of the things considered if revision of the law does take place.

One of the hugely contentious areas in this somewhat polarised debate is the tightening up of the law. Having served on the committee for something like 5 years, I was very well aware of the literature. What is known is that wherever there are highly restrictive laws regarding abortion right around the world, there are very high levels of maternal mortality and morbidity. One of the distinctive features in New Zealand, after over something like 25 years of the law being enacted in this country, is that there have been no maternal deaths whatsoever. I agree with Nandor Tanczos entirely that it is very important that safety is paramount. That is one of the tasks that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has to deal with.

I note that in the 2005 report, as I said before, there were only two members on the committee. They somewhat gallantly did the various visits round the clinics. That was expected of them, but they had to work super hard for that. I note also that in that year there was a small decrease in the number of abortions, from the order of about 18,500 to 18,200—far too many for a small country like New Zealand. One of the things they stated in their report was: “The Supervisory Committee reiterates its annual request for a revision of the law.” I think that this is what we have heard in this Parliament today—that there is indeed a case for the law being revised.

If one looks at the 2006 supervisory committee report, one will see that those two members were there again but that this time they said that they were unable to go around and check the facilities around New Zealand. I believe that is very serious. In fact, they stated: “The Supervisory Committee continues to operate with only two members, placing an untenable load on those members.”, and they advised the Speaker of the House that the committee had suspended its schedule of regular visits to institutions. I believe that that was very, very concerning, and I must say that the Minister of Justice probably did not do enough at the time to ensure that there were more people willing to stand on the committee. The report recommended the improvement of quality, and Professor Peter Stone, Professor of Maternal Fetal Medicine at Auckland University was appointed to head a quality improvement unit, along with Miss Simmons. I believe this was a very good and worthwhile thing to do. Again, for a second year running, there was a small diminishment in the number of abortions, but we have just heard that the number has come up again more recently.

It is highly relevant to quote from the 2001 report of the committee because at that time the committee said: “In February 2000 the Committee met with the Hon Phil Goff, Minister of Justice, and in March with the Hon Annette King and were encouraged by their enthusiasm for a review of the abortion law. It was disappointing therefore to learn in November 2000 that the law was not to be reviewed. It is a great pity that the Government and members of Parliament do not wish to recognise that the law that was enacted in 1977 is no longer relevant to women in the 21st century. To not review the law does the women of New Zealand a disservice.” The committee then went on to say: “The Committee noted in last year’s report that the law is being liberally interpreted and is not working as was originally intended. The Committee does not have the power to alter the situation. Organisations opposed to the way the law is presently being interpreted refuse to accept this fact. Only Parliament can review and change the law. It has been said for many years and, sadly, the Labour Government has not acted on it.”

Even if Parliament is not prepared to change the law, is there one common theme that should drive both sides of this polarised debate, and that is to carry out measures that will minimise New Zealand’s far too high abortion rate. One of the keys to doing that is to have adequate and sensitive women’s and men’s health services in New Zealand where there is a well resourced reproductive health strategy. That means doing things like ensuring lifelong education in biological science, and making sure that people have knowledge of contraceptive methods so that they can carry out wise choices. It means making sure that there are excellent maternity services, that there are safe and accessible abortion services, and, of course, that there is accessibility to sterilisation services, which is not the case in New Zealand today.

One of the things that was particularly characteristic in the Netherlands when its people realised in the 1970s that the liberalisation of abortion laws was inevitable, was that their country, which was Catholic and Calvinistic and had a similar divide of views, spent a huge amount of time and effort in The Hague devising a reproductive health strategy that would serve them in the future. What we know is that whereas New Zealand did not put resources into ensuring an effective and well resourced reproductive health strategy, in the Netherlands they did, and subsequently—their abortion rate has consistently been about a third of our rate. So if there is one thing I would make a plea for, it is to ensure that that reproductive health strategy is well resourced in New Zealand.

It is highly relevant that since the law was enacted almost 30 years ago, we do have safe services in this country. There has not been one maternal death, and that is why it is so important to have professionals who understand what is required to make not only accessibility possible in New Zealand but also to make the services safe.

I must say that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has literally begged the Government, year after year, to be more active in the area of prevention. I very much hope that the committee will succeed in persuading the Government to achieve those aims. The members of the committee have a very difficult task. I trust that they will carry out their task with an overriding concern for the women, children, and families of New Zealand.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) Link to this

It is a pleasure to stand in support of the recommendation to the Governor-General to appoint Professor Linda Jane Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan. I believe that they will bring real attributes to the Abortion Supervisory Committee. These are challenging positions that require people of integrity and resilience and with a broad range of skills, and I believe that is what these women present.

Very briefly, I point out that Professor Linda Holloway, amongst her many other attributes, was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital. Dr Rosie Fenwicke worked for the Family Planning Association and has a broad range of skills. I think that with her background in family planning she will bring much skill to the council. Patricia Allan has over 20 years’ experience in either church or council-funded social services or ministry roles. I believe that that diverse range of skills will be an asset to the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

I also recognise and acknowledge the previous speakers, in terms of the journey around choice for women and their acknowledgment of the need for that. I particularly recognise and pay tribute to those women in our history who campaigned long and hard for our women’s right to choose. Those women were true pioneers, and I think it is really important to acknowledge in this House their contribution to the safety of women. I also acknowledge our society, which by a vast majority is a progressive society that has seen the need for change in the past and has supported it.

The issue of abortion is about choice. It is not about being pro-abortion; it is about being pro-choice. I want to acknowledge any woman, any relationship, and any family who has had to make that difficult and heart-rending decision. It is not a decision that is easy, it is not a decision that is made lightly, and it is probably not a decision that is ever forgotten. But by restricting access to safe abortion, we would see in our society, in our communities, exactly the opposite of that. We would see unsafe abortion, and if we look at our not too distant past, that is exactly what we see: backstreet abortions, and women’s lives put at risk and lost through unsafe practices.

In fact, other choices are important too. Women today need to be economically secure and to be secure in their careers when they make their decisions about having children—when families make those decisions. They need to know that their children will get the best opportunities in life, and that is important to them when making those decisions. This Government has been committed to supporting families to do just that. Through paid parental leave, women can now know that they will have the security of 14 weeks at home with their baby, with an income, to ensure that they bond with their baby and, in most instances, establish breastfeeding. That is really important. The introduction of paid parental leave in New Zealand under the Labour-led Government went a long way towards ensuring not only that children get the best start in life, but also that women have real choices about bringing children into the world and raising them in the best way possible.

I also want to acknowledge Working for Families. Again, Working for Families has given choices and security to families with children. So often, families were in a position where they wanted to have children but they really could not afford to. Maybe hard decisions were made because of the inability to support another child in a family and to have one of the people in the relationship not working. Working for Families has brought much more security and opportunity, in terms of supporting families in that situation by providing income through tax credits to them. I am really proud of this Government and very, very proud of the Working for Families policy. It is a family-friendly policy, as is 4 weeks’ leave and encouraging flexible working hours. All of those things go towards ensuring that our children have the best possible opportunities and the best possible security in the home, and that families are able to feel more secure in providing for them.

I also see as important the Government’s commitment to ensuring that education is out there in the community, in the schools, or in the churches—wherever it is necessary—in order to ensure that pregnancies are not unwanted, if I can use that term, or not seen as a mistake or an error, but, rather, are planned. Certainly, through the education of our young people—and of our not-so-young people—about the choices, whether they be the contraception, or the safe sex, or the no sex messages, all of those messages are going out to our young people through the programmes, such as our peer sexuality programme, that have been introduced into schools by the Labour-led Government. Those are all really good, progressive programmes that one would hope would help people to avoid having to make really difficult decisions because they have not had the knowledge to avoid being in a position where a pregnancy would be, perhaps, detrimental, or where continuing with a pregnancy could be very detrimental, to their mental health and their security.

So, I am very proud to take a call on this issue. I acknowledge other speakers, and, once again, I endorse the support for Professor Linda Holloway, for Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and for Patricia Allan as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

I am delighted to speak to the Government motion No. 1. I will be voting against both amendments and voting for the original nominees: Professor Linda Holloway, Dr Rosemary Fenwicke, and Patricia Allan. All nominees, including those nominated by Gordon Copeland and by New Zealand First, sound as if they have excellent credentials and I am sure they would do an excellent job, but I will be supporting the original three nominations. The appointees to this position should be made on ability, professionalism, and the ability to have impartial and objective views, and I believe all three candidates have those abilities. I know Dr Rosemary Fenwicke personally and professionally. She is a fine woman and she will bring professionalism to that job. I support her nomination absolutely.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee has a very serious role, which is to license institutions and to appoint certifying consultants to consider cases. I was very concerned, like my colleague Bill English, to note that the appointment of the Abortion Supervisory Committee is very overdue. Indeed, we had the resignation of Marlene Lamb in 2005, and more recently the remaining members, Dr Papaarangi Reid and Dr Lesley Rothwell, both resigned in March 2007. Dr Lesley Rothwell was reported as saying that, in giving 3 months’ notice, she felt there was plenty of time to find suitable candidates. I think it is a disgrace that we have had to wait so long to get these appointments in discussion today. The Government has had plenty of notice.

This debate is about the appointment of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, but, obviously, it has widened into other areas. The abortion rate, I have heard, has risen, then fallen, and has slightly risen in the numbers announced today. In contrast, teenage pregnancy rates are increasing. The highest rates of abortion, interestingly, are women in their early 20s. They have higher rates of abortion than teenage women. I refer members to the Youth Sexual Health: “Our Health, Our Issue” publication, produced by the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development, which states that there are still obvious problems with, and barriers to, accessing abortions, such as doctors refusing to refer women, some district health boards not providing abortions, and time delay between referral and termination. Medical abortion is available in only two locations, and of real concern is the large number of abortions carried out past 8 weeks.

Abortion is a reality, unfortunately; it is here to stay. I was a general practitioner for some time, and it is the worst decision a woman would have to face in her life. Women never enter into it lightly. We need to put much greater efforts into educating our young people so they can have the confidence to make the decisions and the right choices. It is about providing sexual education to our young people, and providing access to contraception.

I would like to see much more comprehensive reports from this committee. When I tried to find the latest reports, all I found was a paragraph in the two previous annual reports. I support the right of any New Zealand woman to have an abortion in absolutely safe conditions, and I support the ongoing role of this committee and the three nominees. Thank you.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) Link to this

I stand here today to speak to the motion before the House to appoint the new Abortion Supervisory Committee. It is a very difficult thing, actually, to speak to this motion. It is a difficult issue and a very complex one. I have to say I am quite surprised; I thought there would be much more contentious debate. Perhaps it is a sign of the times—that we have all moved through two decades of changes in attitudes in our society.

I have always been in favour of women having the ability to make a choice about what happens to them when they fall pregnant, and whether that pregnancy continues. But that has always been tempered with the fact that it is not just their decision, and it does not affect just the individual who is pregnant; it can affect whole families, and I think—as we are beginning to understand—it can have long-reaching effects on a young woman’s life.

I note that Professor Fergusson in Christchurch has, with his longitudinal study, been looking at the effects of abortion on young women—especially on women younger than 21 years. He came to a number of interesting conclusions, not the least being that we need more research on the long-term effects of abortion on teenaged girls in particular. In the results that he published he talks about how an abortion, for that particular group of women, can certainly have an effect on their educational attainments. Of course, that can then have a profound effect on the course of their lives thereafter. He states in his report that the analysis “suggests that abortion may mitigate some of the educational disadvantages that have been linked to early pregnancy, but that similar benefits are not evident for economic or partnership outcomes.” His report goes on to state: “The discrepancies between these findings and the rhetoric of both pro-life and pro-choice arguments strongly underlines the need for further research into the risks …”.

I have had in my offices in Gisborne and Whakatāne groups of people—mainly women, and mainly older women—concerned about the long-term effects of abortion on young New Zealand women, and, more important, concerned about the growing number of repeat abortions for young women. They are having to make that dreadful decision more than once, then live with the consequences.

It is disappointing to see that the statistics for abortion released today again show an increase. In the past 2 years we have seen the numbers increase; they have not been huge increases—400 in a year is not an enormous increase—but they are a reversal of the trend that we were seeing in the years 2003 and 2004. For 2005 and 2006 we have seen the numbers start to increase again.

When I stood in this House in 2001, the last time that we voted on the Abortion Supervisory Committee, I made the point that the great pity for me was that we were not standing in the House debating the reasons why so many—almost 18,000—women were having abortions. We were talking about the supervisory committee, about the overseeing of that, rather than about the causes. It is time we thought about what has reversed that decline in numbers, what brings 18,000 people to have to terminate a pregnancy, and what it is in our communities that drives women to that pretty drastic conclusion. I find it ironic that 6 years later I am still asking the same questions, and I do not think this House, in the intervening years, has actually had a debate on those issues.

I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Gordon Copeland to this House today, but I will not be supporting the amendment from Peter Brown. Should both of those fail, I will be supporting the Government’s motion. It is important that we have a supervisory committee in place, and it is important that we have a supervisory committee that carries out the requirements of the law. I look forward to this House receiving and discussing reports from this committee about how we can ensure that the law is properly applied. I personally think it is well overdue for that debate to happen. If we have laws in place, we must, as a Parliament, demand that they are adhered to and that the people we put in place to oversee that carry out our instructions. I will not say any more than that, other than to reiterate my concern that nearly 18,000 women have had to seek terminations in this country in the last 12 months.

I think it is time we started to grapple with the underlying issues for women in our community that drive them to such a dramatic decision, as it is something that has the ability to affect them throughout the next 50-odd years of their lives. On that note, I reiterate that I will be supporting Gordon Copeland’s amendment, or, should that fail, the Government’s motion.