Kirk abortion bill faces first test

Press, 16 May 1978, Page 3

Kirk abortion bill faces first test

Parliamentary reporter

When the Labour caucus meets today one of its most important tasks will be to decide whether to approve th? Law Reform (Abortion) Bill, a private member’s measure sponsored by Mr N. J. Kirk (Sydenham).

The over-all intention of Mr Kirk's legislation is to give statutory effect to the views expressed in the Woolnough case — leaving the decision on an abortion to the wohian and her medical adivsers, subject only to the criminal law. The chances of the bill’s acceptance have been strengthened considerably by last week’s Labuor Party conference decision to support repeal. The situation has been brought about which Mr Kirk predicted last week when he said: “Politicians will have to be clear and precise. The time for being devious is past. This thing is like a carbuncle — either it has to be lanced and got rid of forever, or it will be forced back under the flesh of New Zealand society . . .”

Mr Kirk has doubts about the value of a referendum: it would tie the hands of Parliament, which should make the ultimate decision, he savs.

He hopes that the Labour caucus will approve his bill, but suggests that the timing of its presentation will be equally important; it might be most effective to introduce the bill after the giant . .epeal petition is retorted back to Parliament by the Petitions Committee. This will not be for several weeks at least, however. Mr Kirk’s bill has five clauses, the first of which concerns definitions. Clause two would have

the effect of abolishing the supervisory committee and the certifying consultants, removing the licensing system, but leaving sections 44 and *.6 untouched. (Section 4 concerns a woman’s procu.ing her own miscarriage; section 46 deals with conscientious objection to the performing of abortions).

Clause four follows the majority decision in the Woolnough case, which would in effect reinstate the criminal law as it was before September 1, 1975, (the effective date of the Hospitals Amendment Act 1975, “the Wall Bill.”) Clause five enlarges the grounds for legal abortions in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy by including

pregnancy resulting from rape, and also examination of the socio-economic circumstances of the woman or her family. ' Whenever it is brought forward, Mr Kirk’s measure will face the fate which hangs over all private members’ bills: 't may be rejected out of hand because it involves a financial appropriation.

There is ample precedent in recent years, however, for the Government to permit full discussion up to and including a second-reading debate.

The result of this might be that discussion about the issue would move the Government to sponsor a measure of its own.