English Bill: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
English Bill: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16645] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I want to speak on clause 37 and for the benefit of all members of the Committee I think we ought to clarify just what the current law does. In the current law there is an exception in the case of a girl under 16 who wants an abortion to the general rule that no medical procedure can be performed on a child without parental consent. So the law takes a very broad consistent view that those girls are children who are subject to parental oversight and parental consent. In fact the law is so broad that if complications arise from an abortion and a girl has to have a D and C later on parental consent is required for that. That is how broad the presumption is and that is why I cannot understand the view that somehow this amendment is a huge retrograde step. The law has long made that presumption in every case of a procedure relating to a child except for one single procedure: the act of performing an abortion on a child. That is couched as an exception to the general law; let us remember that. 
The second thing is that the current law does not prevent notification. What the current law states is that an abortion can occur without the consent of the parents. It gives the girl the right to consent to that. Doctors or anyone involved with a case are not prevented by law from notifying parents. What they are prevented by is the code of ethics of the professional groups to which they belong. No one came and asked me as a parent whether I agreed to a profession’s code of ethics taking away my parental rights. The professionals have never asked that. When I go and ask them how they got to the conclusion they reached they do not even realise that that is what has happened. So a group of counsellors sat in a room somewhere and said they would bind themselves by a code of ethics that excluded parents. And health professionals—doctors and nurses—have done the same. I am not accusing them of bad will but I am saying that these provisions in the law show the limitation of that process. 
It was not a debate of Parliament that took away my right to know about my daughter having an abortion. It was not debated here— 
Darren Hughes 
: In 1977. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No that is where the member is wrong. The law does not prevent notification; it is the ethical codes that prevent it. The reason we are having this debate is that on behalf of the parents of New Zealand we are saying to the professionals that they do not have totally free reign to remove the rights of parents at their behest. Parliament is going to debate whether the right of a parent to know about an abortion should be taken away because it has never debated that issue. It was not debated in the royal commission nor was it debated in 1977. It has not been debated ever in this Parliament in terms of the law of New Zealand. It is time that we debated that issue. 
I have been disappointed with the inability of the professional groups to understand the issue. In fact the attitude they have taken has confirmed for me that they misunderstand a parent’s role. They have not even made an attempt to come to grips with what parents may be on about but have made an arrogant assertion that whatever they have done must be right. I remind the Committee that in the whole time no one has ever come to a parent and said that the medical profession will consult with parents about the extent to which its ethical codes roll back parental rights. [ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty in proceeding with this speech because of the constant barrage of interjections from the Government side of the Chamber. I would ask you to bring those members to order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I just say to members regarding interjections that strictly speaking a member can be heard without interruption. But members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. I ask members to consider that. 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think there is another ruling as well which is that interjections must be rare and reasonable. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes it is Speakers’ ruling 56/1. 
Dail Jones 
: I am glad that I referred that to your attention because you did not mention it before I pointed it out to you. The interjections from Ms Chadwick and Mr Hughes have been very frequent and very unreasonable—words such as “sell out” “no political principles” and suchlike were constantly badgered at previous speakers. The interjections were neither rare nor reasonable; they were constant and persistent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I think the message has been well relayed to the members on my right and I ask them to desist from that. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I think that the other thing that the Chair could consider under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings is the fact that all the Government members apart from the acting senior Government whip are sitting out of their usual seats. They have moved to places that are closer to the speaker than they would ordinarily be. You should take that into account when you allow such a breadth and volume of interjections to occur while a senior member on the Opposition side of the Chamber is speaking. That in itself is out of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Yes that is in Speakers’ rulings 57/1 and 57/3. If people move in order to interject then that is out of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: After that interruption I just want to reiterate the point that the current law does not prevent notification. It is the ethical codes of the professional groups that prevent notification. That is why we need to pass Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins because it will then protect the doctors and the other health professionals who are involved with abortions.