By DIANA McCURDY
On the phone from Wellington, the voice of National MP Judith Collins has an edge of fatigue. She's had a busy week dealing with the fallout from her proposal that parents of girls under 16 should be informed if their daughters seek an abortion.
She has just finished a long meeting with irate doctors. But, she says brightly, the response from parents has been overwhelmingly positive. "And there are a lot more parents out there than doctors."
The medical profession gave Collins a public flogging this week when she proposed changing the rules surrounding abortion in the Care of Children Bill.
Both the New Zealand Medical Association and the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners came out warning the law change might drive girls to seek dangerous illegal abortions.
Doctors, they say, already encourage girls to tell their families. Forcing them to do so by legislation could create a dangerous situation.
Collins remains unswayed. She doesn't have a moral stance on abortion, she says. The issue here is that the current law interferes with parents' ability to fulfil their responsibilities to their teenagers.
"These are kids we are talking about. It's important they have every chance to get the support they need, even when they feel they don't need it ...
"There's a feeling from many parents that they are being left out of the loop with regards to their children. There's certainly a fight back from parents - that they have rights as well as responsibilities."
Collins - a mother of an 11-year-old boy - says she was "stunned" to discover that abortion is the only non-urgent medical procedure that doesn't require parental consent (it's been that way since the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act was passed in 1977).
Under Collins' proposed law change, teenaged girls who believe they have good reason not to tell their parents about an abortion will be given a chance to appeal to a Family or District Court judge within 24 hours of being seen by a GP. Otherwise, their parents will be informed.
New Zealand Herald columnist Tapu Misa expressed sympathy for Collins' stance this week, saying: "As the law stands, my 14-year-old, who finds it difficult to decide what to have for breakfast, could choose to have an abortion without my permission, much less my knowledge. Her right to privacy, even as a frightened, vulnerable 14-year-old, would be respected over my right to know and decide what was best for her."
As a mother, Misa says, it doesn't make sense that she can be prosecuted for failing to provide the necessities of life, or not making sure her daughter attends school, but can be deprived of critical information that could affect her daughter's mental and physical wellbeing.
Similar issues were raised in August when a mother spoke out in the Sunday Star Times newspaper complaining that a school had kept secret the rape of her 14-year-old daughter. The girl had been treated for a sexually transmitted infection after the rape, without her family's knowledge. However, because of her learning difficulties, she had not known how to take her medication.
These aren't isolated cases. Parenting with Confidence co-founder Ian Grant believes there is growing concern among parents about the clash between children's rights and parents' responsibilities.
"The state is jeopardising parents' ability to do their job," Ian Grant says. "I think some sincere politicians haven't realised that they are replacing parents and the state can never be a parent - there is no way. I think somebody has got to declare that: laws and policies cannot be parents; human beings are parents."
Ian and his wife Mary have spent 32 years working with teenagers. Over 11 years, 131,000 parents have taken part in their organisation's parenting programmes.
Ian Grant reckons he's learned a fair bit about how families work. "A family is as sick as its secrets. If you've got a 14-year-old who has had an abortion, there are not enough facilities in the state to handle her emotional welfare. A family can."
Being a parent of teenagers is becoming increasingly difficult, Mary Grant says. Teenagers are well aware of schemes such as the Independent Youth Benefit, which help to support 16- and 17-year-olds who have lost the support of their parents.
Though the intention of the scheme is laudable, often it is misused. "We speak to parents all the time who are battling with a child who actually needs to live with the consequences of their own behaviour," she says. "Parents are committed to this child, but the child can walk away because they can go and say: 'my parents are mean to me and I don't want to live at home' and they can be rescued, so they don't have to work through the family dynamics."
One mother told the New Zealand Herald that her daughter gained the Independent Youth Benefit after she ran away from home after an argument about her having sex with her boyfriend.
When her parents went to Winz to find out why she was being given the benefit, they were informed that the Privacy Act prohibited them being told. Desperate to maintain contact, the girl's parents continued paying school fees, inviting her for dinner and taking her to musicals and shows.
However, they no longer had any control over whether their child attended school and were distressed to discover that Winz checked her progress only at eight weeks and 26 weeks.
The couple's older three children - who are in support of their parents - were also devastated. One wrote to Winz and the Ombudsman in their parents' defence, but it had no effect. "It's horrifying," the mother says. "We were really distressed, and I've questioned the counsellor about it and we just can't get any answers. It's taken months and months of writing letters and we just can't get any information."
It was only after the parents went to the Ombudsman that they discovered their daughter had told a counsellor her father had hit her (a claim the teenager later denied making). That counsellor is under investigation by the Association of Counsellors.
Mary Grant accepts that procedures need to be in place to deal with situations where teenagers are in danger, "but let's treat the mainstream good families, and where families will pull together we'll work out the best outcome".
Similar views have been championed by right-wing, Christian groups for years. But the Grants believe the backlash is moving beyond those groups into the wider community. Says Mary Grant: "I wouldn't be surprised if this bill is a little bit of a focus for parents to stand up and say: yes, we want rights and for it to be brought out in the open a little bit."
Children have never had as many rights as they have today, says Michael Reid, a researcher with conservative think-tank Maxim Institute. Reid has a doctorate in history from Canterbury University and is writing a book on the changing perception of children's rights in modern history.
In colonial times, children were widely regarded as chattels of their parents and had few social rights, Reid says. This changed in the mid-20th century, with the influence of educational psychology and educational studies. Children came to be viewed as psychological beings with developmental needs.
"Then, from the late 60s and early 70s we start to see another view ... The child is a citizen, it has rights. And I would go a step further and say from the mid-80s we are starting to see a view of a child as almost an autonomous agent, fully empowered, waiting for more state-given rights."
Reid was a primary and secondary teacher for 15 years. During that time he saw the attitudes of teenagers changing. "They are bush lawyers, they know their rights, but they don't really understand responsibilities very well."
Reid says he's not dismissing the children's rights movement; he wants it debated, rather than blindly accepted. Trish Grant, manager of advocacy at the Office of the Children's Commissioner, sighs in frustration at such comments. If you give one group rights, it doesn't mean they have to be taken away from somebody else. "It's just not a useful argument."
In New Zealand, schemes such as the Independent Youth Benefit (IYB) are intended to assist at-risk teenagers rather than penalise parents, Trish Grant says. "The IYB has quite rigorous standards of evaluation, it's not an easy benefit to get. They're quite high thresholds. There's quite a process. I think parental claims that it's easy to get are unfounded."
According to United Future MP Marc Alexander, who has been openly critical of the IYB, almost $110 million has been spent on the benefit since 2001. There were 328 applications for the benefit in the first six months of this year, of which 205 were granted.
Grant says the Office is aware parents have concerns. "A lot of parents say: 'It's all very well having rights, but what about their responsibilities?' We agree with that. But if a young person isn't accorded dignity and respect ... it's unlikely they will act responsibly either."
And, just because parents have a responsibility to ensure young people receive adequate health care and education, doesn't mean youths don't have the right to seek out confidential health services if they want it. If teenagers feel they can't discuss something with their parents, there is probably a reason, she says.
Right now, Trish Grant feels comfortable with what's happening in New Zealand. "I think the systems, the laws, the processes are enough to ensure that the young people have the support, the information to be making the best decisions for them."
Youthlaw solicitor John Hancock doubts that Collins' proposed change to the abortion laws will go ahead. The legal background for the status quo has built up over the last 25 years. "This is a radical departure from that ... and also, I guess, from the right of young people to confidentiality and privacy in relation to medical procedures that could affect them."
He acknowledges there is a backlash against children's rights, but says it is misguided. Too often the debate is portrayed as an issue of rights versus responsibilities - that people should be taught their responsibilities before their rights. That misses the point, he says. "Adults have to be responsible for children. And, as human beings, we are all born with rights."
Children's rights are not about allowing children to talk back to their parents or fuelling teenage rebellion, he says. "It's about ensuring children are given a fair go.
"The law has recognised that the welfare of children is always going to be the paramount consideration."
Judith Collins has heard the arguments but remains convinced the state is moving too far. Most parents know what is best for their children, she says. Yes, there is a need for legislation to protect children from parents who don't have their best interests at heart, but the state should step back and allow the rest of New Zealand's parents to do their job.
"I think there's a bit of common sense required. I know that as a mother I would die for my child ... That's the way I see it."
Collins at centre of abortion storm
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.