Scott Lynda: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16644] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I am glad to have this call now. I wish to continue on from the speech made by my colleague Judith Collins on Supplementary Order Paper 292 which she has in her name before the Committee relating to clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill. As members will be aware the  
New Zealand Herald  
conducted a poll asking the question of whether people thought that if a girl under the age of 16 went to a doctor to seek an abortion and did not want her parents to know the doctor should inform her parents. Seventy-one percent of the respondents said yes. When asked whether they thought the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the parents 60 percent said yes. When a young girl of 13 14 or maybe 15 is in the unfortunate position of wanting to seek an abortion there are a lot of reasons why she may not want her parents to know about it. The reasons may be first the shame second the fear of violence and third incest. It may be fear of what the father will do. There are many reasons. However generally it always comes out. Generally the family—particularly a caring close family—gets to know about it. No girl should have to go through seeking an abortion without the care and support of her family. Yes the family may be angry in the beginning. It may be upset and disappointed and have all sorts of reasons for fearing that there will be disruption within the family. But in the long run young girls need the family’s support. 
I am a doctor and I have given Supplementary Order Paper 292 a great deal of thought and consideration because for me as for most doctors confidentiality is extremely important. It is one of the tenets that we work by. I would not have supported Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper in its original form but it has now been changed to the point whereby I will now support it. I support it because I believe there are a lot of parents who have to take responsibility. They have the responsibility for the care of their children but when a huge issue like this faces them they are cut out of the decision. They are cut out of being able to be supportive and we do need to have those parents involved. In this particular case a report will go to a judge. The judge will then act on the care and protection issues if there are any. If there are none then the information the judge has will be kept. Supplementary Order Paper 293 the second Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Judith Collins states that in that particular situation the Abortion Supervisory Committee will also be able to examine the causes of what is going on. 
I have had several constituents in my office whose children have become pregnant and in three of those cases incest was the cause. The mothers did not know about that and the children went through considerable trauma. At 13 and 14 those young girls are children; they are children who are having children. The parents were not informed. It all came out eventually but not at the time. Surely that needs to happen so a young girl is protected. I certainly do not want to see young girls go on the Internet and take measures into their own hands—and they do not have to do so because substantial changes have been made since Judith Collins’ earlier Supplementary Order Paper 237 which has now been withdrawn to the effect that a judge does not have to act and that a girl does not have to appear before a judge. It is just a check and a balance. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Then it’s an absolute nonsense. 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT 
: We have heard all sorts of shouting come from Government members on the opposite side of the Chamber but they are not taking any calls on this bill. This is an extremely important bill. I think I have more knowledge on this matter than they do because as a doctor I have been in the position of dealing with such situations.