Controversy in New Zealand

Controversy in New Zealand

A quick overview reveals a satisfactory situation in New Zealand for supporters of abortion rights. Any girl or woman, who tells her GP, or a referral agency that she wants an abortion, is likely to get one in the first trimester of pregnancy.

Should her GP be personally opposed to abortion, he or she is required to refer the woman to another doctor.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee admits that 98% of first trimester abortions are performed on "pseudo legal grounds".

What this means is this: An abortion is legal provided the certifying consultants and the operating surgeon believe that the woman's mental health would be at risk if she had to continue with the pregnancy.

Nobody really believes this would be the case, but the abortion can be approved on those "pseudo legal grounds".

A senior politician explained the situation as it existed in 1999. "The law itself is reasonably strict but in reality any woman can get an abortion if she wants one. Sure it's hypocritical, but it suits people in the House [Members of Parliament] to have it that way." In other words, abortion is such a 'hot' issue that most politicians would prefer to leave the matter alone.

Access to abortion
All District Health Boards are required to fund lawful abortions, as part of their coverage under the national minimum service coverage requirements. This is classed as providing a "core service".

In New Zealand, nurses can find themselves rostered on to assist with second-trimester abortions. There is the protection of a conscience clause in the CS&A Act, but nurses placed on the roster can be under professional peer pressure to assist.

Surgeons can regard the high fee they receive per abortion, for what is on average fifteen minutes work, as good motivation to perform them, but there are no such incentives for the clinical staff.

Certifying consultants

Certifying consultants receive $89 [as at July 2004] to examine each referral for an abortion and then either decline or approve the application. An average of 1% of referrals are declined, which led to the then Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, publicly musing as to whether the whole process was a waste of resources and money.

For example in 2002, one doctor approved 1,666 abortion requests and did not decline any [at $89 per referral that comes to $148,274].

Voice for Life, formerly the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, claims that the certifying consultants "rubber stamp" referrals. However, the organisation refrains from calling for their abolition, in the hope that a future revamped Abortion Supervisory Committee might insist on rigorous due diligence on each referral, according to the requirements of the CS&A Act.

The Abortion Supervisory Committee (ASC)
This is an independent statutory body that has its performance reviewed each year by Parliament's Justice and Electoral Select Committee.

According to the Associate Minister of Justice, the ASC does not have control, authority, or oversight of the individual decisions of its certifying consultants.

The ASC has a statutory function to appoint certifying consultants, but according to the Associate Minister of Justice, does not have control, authority, or oversight of the individual decisions of its certifying consultants.

This interpretation has been recently challenged by Voice for Life, who argue that Section 14 of the CS&A Act requires the ASC to ensure the effective operation of that Act and the procedures thereunder.

Responsibility for ensuring that there are lawful grounds for an abortion rests with the certifying consultants.

The ASC is also required to "keep under review, all the provisions of the abortion law" and is entitled to recommend to Parliament, or the Government, possible amendments to the CS&A Act.

SPUC has repeatedly accused the ASC of being "cheerleaders for the abortion industry."

This is the heart of the controversy with Voice for Life, who have repeatedly accused the ASC of being "cheerleaders for the abortion industry."

Voice for Life disagreed with the ASC's 2000 report, which stated that abortion should be decriminalized and become an integral part of women's health services. The ASC's recommendation was that the decision to have an abortion should be made only by a woman and her doctor.

Voice for Life argued that the ASC was going completely beyond its brief, by attempting to strike out completely, the law giving rights to the unborn child. Voice for Life also noted that the ASC in its annual reports never refers to the unborn child.