Too hasty bill on abortion

Press, 26 July 1976, Page 16

Too hasty bill on abortion

One need not favour relaxing the law on abortion to deplore the action of the Minister of Health (Mr Gill) in bringing before Parliament a bill restricting abortions to public hospitals while the Royal Commission on contraception, sterilisation and abortion is in the middle of considering the question. Mr Gill's measure is not only impracticable because it would put intolerable strain on public hospitals and doctors. It is a slight on the commission and to people who have taken time and trouble to make submissions to it.

Their expectation was, surely, that their efforts would help ensure that the best, most generally acceptable law would eventually be passed by Parliament If Parliament acts precipitately and passes Mr Gill’s bill, the members of the commission, and those who have presented evidence and opinions to it, will be left doubting whether their efforts were worth while. A Royal Commission cannot infringe the sovereignty of Parliament: but a commission is a recognised and respected means of assessing knowledge and opinion before law on technical or highly controversial questions is framed. Most commissions are a useful supplement to Parliament and the Government would be most unwise to undermine or discredit this one

The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child has argued that Mr Gill’s bill is necessary because the existing law is not being properly

enforced. If it were unenforceable, there might be reason to pass temporary legislation. But no allegation that the existing law is being widely flouted can be entertained after the failure of the Crown to win its appeal against the acquittal, last year, of a medical practitioner who performed abortions at the Medical Aid Centre in Auckland.

If the law is being broken, the proper recourse is to bring a case to a court of law. Those who are complaining that the law is being ignored are really arguing that the law is not as stringent as they would like. Whether it is a proper or adequate law is, in part, what the commission has been asked to decide.

Whether the law is made more or less stringent, the decision of the Court of Appeal has emphasised that a clearer, more definite law is needed —one that will give doctors and patients a more exact idea of when it is legal to recommend or seek an abortion. Legislation based on the Royal Commission’s recommendations cannot be presented to the House before next July, according to Mr Gill. That is not a long time to wait if the result is a more satisfactory law which will calm the public controversy and uncertainty ’ about abortion for a few years at least. Members of Parliament should readily see the sense and fairness of delaying further legislation on abortion until after the Royal Commission has reported.