Hutchison Paul: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
Hutchison Paul: Appointments — Abortion Supervisory Committee 
[Volume:639;Page:9918] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 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 18500 to 18200—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.