Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Dalziel Lianne: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16660] 
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.