Mapp Wayne: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Mapp Wayne: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16662] 
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 DeneseHenare’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.