Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16656] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker for the high praise he poured upon me. I say to him and members in the Chamber that it is a considerable honour to be part of a Government that is delivering good social policy around issues like this which are extremely difficult. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Just social engineering. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Dr Smith that with a judgment like his in his contempt of court case I think his interjections are extremely untimely and unwise. 
It is interesting that in the very substantial Part 2 of the Care of Children Bill which has a very large number of clauses on guardianship joint guardianship dispute resolution parenting orders cases involving violence the enforcement of New Zealand orders overseas and international child abduction—among other things—virtually no one has focused for any time at all on anything other than clause 37 with the exception of Dr Newman who spoke about her amendment. I think that it is a backhanded compliment for the work of my colleagues in the select committee. I say thank you to them now and I will be saying a list of thankyous in due course for some fine work in an area of social policy that is extremely difficult and very sensitive. I commend them for the responsible decisions they have made and discussions they have had. 
I am very sad that a number of members of the Opposition have already taken the opportunity for superficial political populism and the sorts of jousts that sadly we expect in this House at what they see as a political target. That says more about the failures of the National Party to get popular support than about the issues involved. I regret that as I am sure most members of the community do. 
I wish to make some brief comments about clause 37. It is an important issue for our community for families for mums and dads and a very important issue for young women. As I said in my second reading speech I think it is essential and the Government believes it is essential that clause 37 is retained to provide good protection for some of our most vulnerable young women. The people whom I have discussed this with in the media and around the traps inevitably—if they take a rational approach to the matter—understand why the decision that the royal commission made so long ago was the right one when they think it through even if they have had initial reservations about the issues. The key factor is that it is simply impossible to escape the conclusion that the sort of notification or judicial barrier that is suggested by some of the amendments on the table has the absolutely inescapable consequence of forcing young women to either carry to full term or to have abortions against their will. There is no way that that conclusion can be escaped. It would be nice if everyone enjoyed the situation that the majority of pregnant young women enjoy who have the love and support of their parents and families and that they enjoyed that support in such difficult times around decisions about pregnancy. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Most do. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: But as Dr Smith knows from the families that he has tried to advocate for however unwisely it is a fact that some young women do not live in that ideal situation. It is the job of Parliament to ensure that we make law on the basis of good rational decisions and not irrational cant and appeals to people’s prejudice as Judith Collins has—[ 
Interruption 
]. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The member on my left knows that under Speaker’s ruling 56/1 running commentaries are out of order. I ask the member to desist. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. Can you just clarify that if the Minister continues to shout at me am I not allowed to interject back? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Interjections are permitted but they are to be rare reasonable restrained and as one of my colleagues used to say if at all possible witty. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I have already thanked my colleagues for their professionalism maturity and rationality in developing this policy and recommending the continuation of public policy that has been successfully operating for 27 years. I will also make another vote of thanks and that is in response to the comments that Tony Ryall made earlier about media and community views on this matter. I will share with the Committee some of the comments that have come from editorial writers from around the country regarding clause 37 and that were overwhelmingly in support of the Government’s position. 
The first of these is an editorial from the  
New Zealand Herald  
printed on 15 September of this year. I will read the whole thing and only small excerpts from the others. The title is “Abortion law best left as it stands” and it states: “There is a tendency in public discussion to treat parenthood as a state that invests all who reach it with near saintly qualities of care and compassion. Sadly that is not so. Supporters and critics of the Collins amendment are talking about two different types of parent both of whom exist in considerable number. Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship— 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish to assist the Minister. He is talking about an earlier Supplementary Order Paper written back in July not the one that is currently under debate. I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry that is not a point of order. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You will know that under Speakers’ rulings members are to be referred to by their full name. I hope you pull the Minister up in that regard. Several times he referred to the member for Clevedon as “Collins”. She is Judith Collins or the member for Clevedon. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: If that occurred then I am at fault because I never heard it. If it was the case Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8 state that members are to be referred to by their full names. 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I happened to be listening to the debate on the radio in my room and heard reference to the matter of interjections and your ruling on the matter of interjections. You might care to remind the Minister that while he is in the chair he is not to interject because he is on a live microphone. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. That is perfectly correct. Can I just say that there is a convention in the Chamber that in Committee members in charge of legislation should not take unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to. I add that courtesy is contagious and that we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I continue that quote from the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 15 September: “Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship that means they would hear about it without mandatory instructions from the law. Conversely those who would not hear about it cannot blame the law for a child’s secrecy. The law is working as well as it probably can. The rest is up to parents.” Two days later the  
Waikato Times 
 under the heading “Abortion change hard to justify” stated: “We believe it is those girls in desperate straits who are in most need of the protection the present law affords. To remove that safeguard would create a new level of risk.” The  
Nelson Mail 
 on 14 September stated: “… if the law is to be changed it will undoubtedly work against the best interests of a small number of especially unfortunate individuals—young women who belong to dysfunctional and abusive families where they can expect condemnation or worse rather than support and where another family member might be the cause of their pregnancy.” The  
Marlborough Express 
 under the heading “Abortion law spectre” stated: “However the spectre of the bad old days of backstreet abortions which the royal commission into contraception sterilisation and abortion sought to overcome looms. Any law change that results in that should be rejected.” 
The  
Otago Daily Times 
 on the 16th of the same month stated: “The Government and professional medical bodies have pointed out young pregnant girls are advised by family doctors to tell their parents and seek support. That is as it should be.” 
I have two more votes of thanks to give at this time. The first is to the number of professional organisations including doctors’ organisations who have made their overwhelming support of the Government position abundantly clear. I thank them for taking the trouble to do that. Lastly I say a profound thank you on behalf of the Government to the group—some of whom are no longer with us—who made up the royal commission that sat in 1977. In 1977 it was the view of that royal commission that to remove choice for young women would lead them to be coerced into having an abortion or to consider continuing a pregnancy against their wishes. The simple fact is that nothing has changed in the last 27 years to alter that view. I am profoundly sad that the shallow populism of the Opposition has forced it to take the ridiculous position it has. 
Judith Collins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that insult of calling me shallow. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has taken offence under the Standing Order “Personal reflections”. The member is entitled to ask for a retraction. I ask the member—[ 
Interruption 
] I have ruled Mr Barker. The member concerned has taken issue under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections” and she is entitled to do that. I call on the Minister to withdraw. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: Mr Chairperson can you explain to me what I am apologising for? I did not name Mrs Collins. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Mrs Collins has taken umbrage at what the Minister said. She considers that a personal reflection. I ask him to withdraw. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I withdraw. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I note that in his contribution the Minister expressed his disappointment that most speakers were concentrating on clause 37 in this part and not on any of the other 112 quite important clauses about family law. The reason is that given the closures that were moved at an early stage by the Government there is no confidence among members who want to discuss both that issue— 
Hon Annette King 
: What’s your point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I am coming to a point of order. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Please do. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister quite appropriately spoke at some length on that issue on which members wish to make a contribution. I seek the leave of the Committee to ensure that this debate is granted at least a further 2 hours so that there can be a debate. The Minister has rightly said that there are 113 clauses. The vast bulk of the speeches have been on that single issue which is a conscience vote. That is why I seek leave so that the Committee may properly debate those other 112 changes in the law. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.