Smith Murray: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Smith Murray: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16647] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 On 6 March 2004 a 14-year-old girl with a learning disability was raped by a 22-year-old male. Not only was she raped but a second male held her down while the rape took place. The two of them threatened the girl that if she told anybody about it they would attack her. She was scared. Not only that but she contracted a sexually transmitted disease and she went to a school nurse to try to get medication for it. The school nurse referred her to a school counsellor who then referred her to a doctor who gave her some medication. However because of the girl’s psychological state she did not take the medication. She became very moody. 
Her mother and her grandparents who were her guardians knew absolutely nothing about it. They were not told. The police were not told even though clearly an offence had been committed. Two months later her mother not knowing what had happened to the girl and assuming her moods were something to do with her school environment went to withdraw her from the school. It was only during the course of the mother withdrawing her from the school that the school counsellor said: “Look I had better tell you something that happened 2 months ago.” and informed her about the circumstances. That is absolutely reprehensible. What is worse is that following this revelation the school principals association upheld the fact that the school had kept it from the child’s guardians the New Zealand Association of Counsellors upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child’s guardians the health board upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child’s guardians and the Minister of Education Trevor Mallard also upheld those steps. 
 Section 134 of the Crimes Act states that everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has or attempts to have sexual intercourse with any girl of or over the age of 12 years and under the age of 16 years not being his wife. The counsellor the school and the doctor totally ignored the fact that a serious criminal offence had been committed. They told nobody. They did not tell the parents and they did not tell the police. Nothing would have happened and nobody would have known if the guardian—the mother—had not approached the school with a view to withdrawing the child. It was very fortuitous that that happened. 
The mother said her daughter was very withdrawn and kept running away that she was not the same girl. Did the doctor know that? No because the doctor had no ongoing concern. The mother said that coincidentally a birthday outing for a family member was at a restaurant where one of the alleged attackers worked. The girl would not eat was shaking and froze when she saw the man. The mother had no idea whatsoever why that should have happened why it went on and why the girl was acting in that fashion. 
It appeared that the daughter had been given medication for the infection but had not taken it because she could not understand the instructions. Who was helping her take that medication? Who was there to ensure that the medication which she needed was being taken? Was it the school counsellor? No. Was it the school nurse? No. Was it the doctor? No. The only person who was in a position to oversee it was the parent and the parent did not know. 
It is astonishing that we now have a situation where those same authorities are saying that that process was OK there was nothing wrong with it and given the circumstances again they would have done exactly the same thing. Have we forgotten that schools are in loco parentis which means that they fulfil the role of parents unless the parents are there? Schools have usurped the role of parents in terms of making decisions about their children. The chief commissioner of the Families Commission got it right when he said: “Parents should be shut out of their children’s lives only in exceptional circumstances.” He did not believe that schools were capable of deciding when parents should be excluded. 
That is what the position should be but that is not the position we have and section 37 needs to be amended to ensure that that occurs. If the circumstances of that girl were serious a termination of a pregnancy is just as serious. It is something that could lead to serious complications. It is a life-threatening procedure. Relevant information that only a parent might know is very relevant.