Debate on Crown Entities, Public Organisations,and State Enterprises — Abortion Supervisory Committee

The Abortion Supervisory Committee has been the subject of scathing criticism for many years—from the last term of Parliament, from the Audit Office, and from this term of Parliament. If it had been any other committee except this one, this Chamber would be in uproar and the members of that committee would have been called upon to resign long ago.

In the last term of Parliament, a unanimous comment of the Justice and Electoral Committee stated: “We are concerned that the annual report of the Abortion Supervisory Committee does not present information that would enable us to form a view of how, or how well, the Abortion Supervisory Committee’s functions are being discharged. The Abortion Supervisory Committee does not consider strategic planning documents necessary or appropriate to its task, though it does continue to review and update those tasks each year. The Audit Office last year told the Justice and Electoral Committee: ‘The Abortion Supervisory Committee annual report does not present information that would enable the committee to form a view on how, or how well, its functions are being discharged.’ Since it appears that the Abortion Supervisory Committee has determined that it will not collect such information, notwithstanding the committee’s expressed views on the matter, the committee appears to have little choice other than to question the Abortion Supervisory Committee in detail on what it actually does, and to form its own view about whether or not those procedures comply with the Act and constitute good performance.” What a scathing criticism of any committee endorsed by this Parliament!

In the last review, the Justice and Electoral Committee again unanimously concluded that the Abortion Supervisory Committee did not fulfil its statutory functions. The Abortion Supervisory Committee stated that it did not need to keep performance measures to evaluate how well it was carrying out its statutory functions. It claimed it had a Crown Law opinion that said it did not have to do anything other than meet minimum statutory requirements, and that that was what it had chosen to do.

The committee pointed out that the law did not prevent it from doing more than meeting minimum statutory requirements, but it appears that fell on deaf ears. The committee said: “It appears that the ASC will continue its practice of not collecting information that would enable us to form a clear view on how—or how well—its functions are being discharged.” Section 14(1)(h) of the Act requires the Abortion Supervisory Committee: “To keep under review the procedure … whereby it is to be determined in any case whether the performance of an abortion could be justified.”

The Abortion Supervisory Committee said it sent out information to consultants, but never sought information in return, let alone monitored, analysed, or collated the results. How can it possibly say that it is fulfilling its statutory functions when it does not even collect any information? Instead of the committee taking up the challenge that the 2001-02 financial review put to it, in this year’s review it criticised the fact that the Justice and Electoral Committee had challenged it. It referred back to a 1996 committee report that said that “the Abortion Supervisory Committee and its individual members were constantly criticised for alleged inadequacies in the performance of its functions. In particular, it is asserted that in carrying out its functions, the Abortion Supervisory Committee fails to have regard to ‘the rights of the unborn child’. This criticism ignores the fact that there is nothing in the Act spelling out what those rights are.”

The Abortion Supervisory Committee, and the committee, it appears, of the time referred, in evidence of that, to the case of Wall v Livingstone, a 1982 Court of Appeal judgment in which, taken out of context, the court said “it was important not to lose sight of what must have been a deliberate parliamentary decision—the avoidance of any attempt to spell out what were to be regarded as the legal rights of an unborn child, with the consequential absence of any statutory means by which rights could be enforced.”

Now the implication that the committee took from that, which is quite clear in its report, was that because the rights of the unborn child were not defined by the Act, the requirement in the preamble to the Act that “the authorisation of abortions must have full regard to the rights of the unborn child” was meaningless.

But when one looks at the Court of Appeal judgment, one sees that it states nothing of the kind. It cites with approval the lower court decision by Justice Speight, who said, in describing the general effect of the legislation: “That Act and the Crimes Act consider not only the rights of the mother and the need to protect her even against herself, but also balance them against the ‘rights of the unborn child’ which in the course of nature must mean the right to be born.” The committee is certainly not considering anything of that nature, and I think it should be sacked.

Report noted.

Auckland District Health Board

Bay of Plenty District Health Board

Canterbury District Health Board

Capital and Coast District Health Board

Counties Manukau District Health Board

Hawke's Bay District Health Board

Hutt District Health Board

Lakes District Health Board

MidCentral District Health Board

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board

Northland District Health Board

Otago District Health Board

South Canterbury District Health Board

Southland District Health Board

Tairāwhiti District Health Board

Taranaki District Health Board

Waikato District Health Board

Wairarapa District Health Board

Waitematā District Health Board

West Coast District Health Board

Whanganui District Health Board

Health Research Council of New Zealand

Health Sponsorship Council

New Zealand Blood Service

Pharmaceutical Management Agency

Residual Health Management Unit