Gill bill ‘unneccessary’

Press, 24 August 1976, Page 7

Gill bill ‘unneccessary’

PA Wellington

The “Gill bill” on abortion was condemned on Sunday as completely unnecessary by Ladv Patricia Harris, patron of the Abortion Law Reform Associaton.

In her first public reaction to Mr Gill’s bill, Lady Harris said it was the “clear wish” of a majority of the public and both major party conferences for abortion laws to be relaxed. She said her association had been lobbying on the bill among M.P.s for some months.

“Whether it is passed depends on the capacity of the uncommitted members to approach the bill with an open mind and understand the implications of what they’re being asked to do,” she said. Lady Harris would not say whether the association believed that the new Parliament would be any different from last year’s one which passed Dr G. A. Wall’s bill. “But it would be refreshing if some M.P. had the courage to say abortion was nothing to do with politicians and opt out of the debate altogether.” Lady Harris said she would be more impresed by Mr Gill’s claim to be prolife if he did not use his military title. “He is obviously still on the reserve list of the Armed Forces. I would have thought that to be pro-life one should be a pacifist, if anything,” she said.

Lady Harris predicted that if passed the bill would cause “complete chaos” in hospital services. “The cost to the taxpayer will be astronomical, not to mention the cost to women in compassion and understanding. You can’t do abortions by committee, not even all-male committees.

“This bill is simply an attempt to impose a particular philosophy of a minority group on New Zealand,” said Lady Harris. The Christchurch branch of the association has written to Mr Gill requesting the evidence on which he based his statement that there was a danger of the abortion situation in New Zealand eroding before the Royal Commission reported and thereby making “holding” legislation necessary.

“If a situation of such gravity exists that it requires emergency legislation pre-empting the Royal Commission’s report, the New Zealand public has a right to be told the details,” said the branch secretary, Ms Diane Roberts.

“This is especially true of the many citizens who put a great deal of time and effort into presenting submissions to the commission, in the sincere belief that the commission’s recommendations would be given serious consideration by Parliament before any further moves were made on these issues.

“They must be wondering

what is happening to the democratic process in New Zealand when they see such premature legislation being contemplated,” Ms Roberts said. “Mr Gill is concerned that the will of Parliament, as expressed two years ago in the debate over the Wall Bill, is now upheld,” Ms Roberts said, “But whatever Parliament thought two years ago, and this is debateable, is surely not binding on the present legislature anyway. Legislation should be made in the light of knowledge and conditions of the present and not the past. We would have some very strange laws on the books if this principle was always followed! “The Royal Commission has collected the most comprehensive body of information yet available on abortion in New Zealand. No new legislation on abortion should be introduced until the commission’s report has been presented and studied. “It seems that once again we will have to watch the spectacle of our M.P.s (mostly male), being given a conscience vote on this very private matter, while those most concerned with the issue, unhappily pregnant women, are still denied any such right. We wonder how long it will be before M.P.s recognise the inconsistency and hypocrisy of this situation,” said Ms Roberts.