COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL THE SEX QUESTIOXS-A TALE OF TWO LOBBIES

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33610, 12 August 1974, Page 12

COMMENT FROM THE CAPITAL THE SEX QUESTIOXS-A TALE OF TWO LOBBIES

/By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY)

WELLINGTON.—The “vote of conscience” is a comparatively r.u. in New Zealand Parliamentary practice—but we may see it at lea<t :w i<f again during the currency of the present Parliament. Already, on Wednesday, July 21. both the Prime Minister (Mi Kirk) and the leader of the Opposition (Mr Muldoon) allowed ten members a free vote on whether or not the controversial ('rimes Amend ment Bill, a private member’s measure sponsored by Mr V. S Yourg (Nat., Egmont) should be admitted. A measure amending the present law relating to abortion mav well be introduced. If so there is no doubt that it would be treated similarly.

After the recent National! Party conference, the Social! Credit leader (Mr B. C. Beetham) gained some publicity by his reference to the National Party conference: being “sex-oriented.” I Actually fewer than onetenth of the remits discussed] were in any way related to sexual behaviour — but there was no doubt that the remits on homosexual practices and abortion attracted most attention. This was plainly because, they were already in the ; public mind. This has not, died with the conference. Ini some way the public con-] science has been aroused.] Perhaps the existence of] deeply-committed groups on ( both issues has been a contributing factor. The two party leaders have declared themselves quite clearly on these issues. Mr Muldoon said in Auckland that he was a supporter of Mr Young’s bill (which at that time had been assured of critical examination by a Select Committee); but that he was opposed to any change in the law relating to abortion. 1 Mr Kirk has been deeply stirred by both issues. More

[than a month ago he declared that he would not vote in favour of any rneas:ure which treated homosexual behaviour as normal. Last week, having studied the bill, he told interviewers: “I would vote against it in jits current form. In fact 1 [feel even more strongly having seen the bill. If 1 had been in Parliament when it was introduced 1 would have voted against it.” Free vote The bill will be examined in open session by a comImittee containing members [from each side of the House. [There is always a chance that it will not be referred I back (as other measures, including the late Mr Hanan's Bill of Rights, have been “lost”) — but this is most] unlikely. “When returned it will pass through its stages on a free vote,” Mr Kirk said. “One of my responsibilities is to decide the order of the business. It will not be denied discussion.” Talking over the possibilities with members of the Press Gallery, Mr Kirk soliloquised: “It will be dealt with entirely on a free-vote basis.

“Those of you who have witnessed free votes in the House, other than the one on capital punishment, will have a fair idea of what a shambles that can be. There were free votes on liquor questions once. I well remember one occasion when members thought they were voting to limit the

amount of liquor that could be taken away in containers, and actually voted for its increase. They misled themselves and went into the wrong lobby . . . “It is not a tidy proce- > dure. If there are a lot of ! amendments, one never quite ‘ knows . . . But no Governi ment member will be required to vote other than I how he feels.” Mr Kirk made it clear that he would at least give 1 the bill a second-reading ■ debate. “What the committee ’ does to the bill will be for ! the committee itself to deI cide,” he explained. “If it is ’ referred back it will go on i the Order Paper — and its • position will, of course, be • my responsibility .. ' He made a plea for careful handling by the news I media. “It is proposed that i the whole of the hearing I should be open to the hews media. If I might make one special plea here — I know I the difficulty of television i coverage of committee proi ceedings. Obviously you i can’t cover the 'whole day’s ■ affairs verbatim — but could ■ some care be taken to cover : a complete section of evi- ■ dence rather than just a sen- : fence or two? It is difficult ’to cover evidence briefly : without appearing to give a i weighted report . . .” : Asked if it would not be ' better to close committee I sessions to television, Mr : Kirk said: “We could not discriminate against any

group. Indeed i would think that television 'coverage of this bill would be something that would be I watched fairly carefully [lt is not easy to do when a man has a limited amount ot film, and limited time to cover everything." Mr Kirk could give no undertaking as to when the committee would finish its deliberations. "1 would not expect them to lay back on the job — on the other hand II wouldn’t hurry them They [should- take as much time as lit takes to do the job properly." [Abortion reform ' Mr Kirk's attitude to reform of the abortion laws was best summed uj in his answer to a question suggesting that it was inequitable that abortions could be purchased in Australia and hot in New Zealand. “There is a certain amount of inequity in being [killed before you are born,” I said Mr Kirk. He commented pungently on the emotive statements [of the pro-abortion groups, "it never seems to be admitted that there are such things as legal abortions in this country,” Mr Kirk said. “Were you aware, for instance, that some 200 legal abortions are performed annually in Christchurch?”

After some discussion, Mr Kirk said he was not convinced that the present law was not reasonably meeting the general need. Abortion in certain circumstances, particularly involving the effect of a birth on the mother in specific cases, has been permitted for a number of years. The scope of the law has been considerably widened, even to the admission of psychological factors.

On the clinic established by Auckland doctors at Remuera he was non-com-mittal. He answered some questions on the deputation from the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child which had visited him earlier. “The information brought by Dr Diana Mason’s group is being considered quite seriously by the Health Department and the Crown Law Office.” But he indicated that there would be a report or reports. The question of the legality or otherwise of the clinic would have to be decided by law. After further questions, Mr Kii;k expressed concern that statistics on abortions were not available. To set up such statistics would take some time. He added: “One of the things this Auckland clinic has pinpointed is that there may be more scope in the existing law than has been believed hitherto. If everything that is being done there is being done legally, it could reduce the demand for change . .” The abortion argument is likely to be a long one. But it could lead to a bill, a free vote — and to Messrs Kirk and Muldoon visiting the same voting lobby.