THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1977. Referendum or bill?

Press, 26 May 1977, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, MAY 26, 1977. Referendum or bill?

Any hope that the members of the Royal Commission on contraception, sterilisation and abortion would find a middle path on abortion which would quell controversy on the issue has been swept away by the criticism of the commission’s recommendations. A referendum would do nothing further to still the controversy, for the result of a referendum could not be any more acceptable to everybody than the commission’s recommendations have proved to be. A law which has the support of the great majority of the people in the country would be more respected and better observed than a law which reflects the opinions of any narrow segment of society. But such a law is a pipe dream on any such issue as abortion because minorities with strong feelings will oppose any law which offends those feelings. The sanction of support in a referendum will not reconcile people to a law with which they profoundly disagree. One purpose of setting up the Royal Commission was to spare the political parties and individual politicians having to take sides until a sufficient volume of up-to-date information had been gathered, and an informed analysis of this information had been made. Temporarily this meant that many legislators could stand aside from the debate. The referendum plan has something of the same effect for parties and politicians who are anxious to avoid alienating those on either side of the debate over abortion. Voters to whom abortion is a pressing issue, outweighing all other considerations in voting, are probably few. Were the parties and individual politicians to take forthright stands on either side of the abortion question,

they would probably both lose a little and gain a little in support. They would also be giving a lead which might help resolve a major question of public policy and would earn credit for not sidestepping. The goal of the soundest, most generally acceptable law on abortion will be achieved just as satisfactorily by leaving the matter to the country's legislators as by submitting it to all voters, very few of whom will have had a chance to study the commission’s report. The report of the Royal Commission has enough information in it to enable any conscientious member of Parliament to make an informed decision even if the member disagrees with the recommendations. If the report, as some have charged, comes to conclusions which the evidence it contains does not justify, the legislators should be urged to draw the proper conclusions Those who believe that the report is self-contradictory and biased already have the opportunity to persuade members of Parliament on what they believe are mistaken conclusions. Members of Parliament are to vote on the bill according to conscience and the Government should firmly state what it has so far only hinted, that the second reading debate on the bill will be delayed to allow interested groups and individuals to make further representations to individual members of Parliament. Popular opinion on abortion is uncertain and framing the question in a way that ensures a referendum will give a clear view of public opinion would be extremely difficult. One simple question would still leave many vital details to the legislators, and many of these might prove to be of considerable consequence in public opinion which had not been tested on them.