Salient: What is the significance of the report of the Royal Commission?

Sparrow: Parliament is relying upon this document of considered opinion. The general impression is that with the approved committee having been set up to look at the whole question impartially Parliament will adopt this attitude, so that they can get themselves off the hook and put through legislation. I think that this is a wrong assumption because the Royal Commission has not turned out to be an imprtial body.

Salient: How much in line with public thinking were they?

Sparrow: With regard to Contraception and Sterilisation they were not too out of kilter with public opinion. Most of the recommendations are either endorsements of things already being done or are pushing for things that people have been pushing for some time. For instance, sex education in schools — it's nothing new but it's good to see it coming out again in the Commission's report. Also most of the recommendations that they have made on Contraception are in line with what is being done already; they don't break any new ground at all. It is the same for sterilisation except for the controversial area on compulsory sterilisation of the handicapped. In the area of voluntary sterilisation they really clarified the law, or suggested that it be clarified. While they are not progressive they were at least keeping up with the trends in society. Apart from the two areas of the compulsory sterilisation of the handicapped and the law relating to sex education for under 16 year olds, there is general acceptance of the recommendations.

Salient: What is the next step for the Abortion Law Reform groups?

Sparrow: We will have to concentrate on the politicians at the moment because that is where the next stage will take place. And in order to influence the politicians we also have to influence their electorates. This means that between now and when the legislation is introduced we will have to alert the general public to the fact that the Royal Commission report is out of line with public feeling. The public will have to tell their politicians. It is really in the hands of the people who feel strongly about the issue.

Salient: What do you think of the view that politicians should not interfere in the abortion issue and leave it to the people concerned to make the decisions?

Sparrow: There is really no consensus of opinion in ALRANZ on this. However, a large number would support what has been done in Sweden for instance where they have taken the matter out of the hands of the politicians and given it over to those concerned.

Salient: On the question of state interference. Do you think that there is any prospect of getting the politicians out of this area and removing the criminal restrictions on abortion?

Sparrow: I think that women will show by their behaviour what they think of the restrictions. It doesn't really matter what happens — whether the laws become more liberal or very restrictive and with a punitive approach like the Royal Commission. The fact is that people will make their own private decisions regardless of what society or the law says, and women actually make very private decisions. That is the main reason why I most want law reform, because I know that this will happen. If it is not possible to legally obtain an abortion then we are going to see a return to the ugly days before the Auckland Medical Aid Clinic opened, when women were more inclined to experience and revert to self-induced abortion, or cross the Tasman to Australia if they had the money and these are considerations which the Commission has not handled at all. They acknowledge this will happen, they acknowledge that women do make these private decisions but in the final analysis they seem to have ignored this completely. However women will always find loopholes and they will continue to make their own private decisions. This is the point that the Commission has completely neglected.

Salient: Do you think that the Commission and many of the Anti-abortion groups have failed to see the abortion issue in the social context?

Sparrow: The Commission has quite clearly not looked at the issue in social terms. They have certainly looked at it in moral terms but not in a realistic way regarding the social implications of women needing abortions. To a certain extent they have categorised people who they think should have abortions, but in fact each case must be looked at on its individual merits. I don't believe that you can categorise in absolute terms who should and who should not have abortions.

Salient: How do you think the abortion laws should be formulated?

Sparrow: There is a lot of sense in just letting the taw evolve as it was doing until the Royal Commission came along. The present law has been on the statute books since 1961 and without a single change of wording and without a single alteration by the courts there was gradual evolution. This was shown quite clearly by the number of abortions that were being performed by the public hospitals, the different attitudes that doctors were expressing, mainly the pressure from people and the growth of the Women's Rights movement, and all of these culminated in the establishment of the Auckland Medical Aid Centre. And then another stage of evolution took place when in fact the Centre was thought to be too extreme and a court case took place. The judgement came out in favour of the Clinic which was clearly responding to the needs of doctors and people — it is used by over 80% of doctors in New Zealand and 15% of Catholics, and this gradual evolution led to a position where without any change in the laws and the one court case, the Woolnough Appeal Court decision, we were left in a much more comfortable position than we had been in for years. Then along comes the Royal Commission and takes this rotten step backwards and it's up to people to say that we want the status quo. Don't do anything, don't pass any new laws. We have the Woolnough decision, even though many of us in ALRANZ don't think that this goes far enough on the matters of danger to mental and physical health at least we can work with it and the process of evolution can continue. People will take a more humanitarian view in the end and I would hope that this would be the best way.

Salient: Mr Gill sent out statements to the effect that he believed that the laws should be tightened up. Do you think that these may have affected the Royal Commission's decision?

Sparrow: They may have come to the same decisions independently. After all they did rigorously deny any political interference in their report, and one must assume they are being honest. But it is interesting that people with very strongly held views independently come to the same decisions.

Salient: Are there any other parts of the report that should be highlighted?

Sparrow: The two most important areas where the Commission's findings are out of line with public thinking are rape and the panel system. Both these need to highlighted. The latter is a bureaucratic indignity to women. It's also bad medical practice and shows social workers in a bad light. It is a system that depends upon real political domination and this comes back to a statutory committee of three people that has to oversee the whole abortion regulations. This is where the commissions goes even further than Gill. He wanted to protect against the abuse of abortion and wanted to place it in the hands of the Department of Health which I would approve of. I think that their recommendations for avoiding abuses that operate in other countries are well worth while. But the commissions has come up with the independent statutory body of three people appointed by the Minister. People regard this sort of bureaucratic approach as inhumane. The person most able to make the right decision is the woman herself in close consultation with her doctor.

Salient: If the recommendations become law then New Zealand will rank as one of the most backward in the world?

Sparrow: If the Commissions's proposals become law then New Zealand will become the laughing stock of the world. In the last 10 years, 36 countries have liberalised their laws, and only three have made the laws tighter. But most countries have liberalised their laws, the last one being Italy, the home of the Roman Catholic Church, and one which many thought was the stronghold of anti-abortion movements. And the same can be said for France, which has virtually abortion on request up to 10 weeks. There are many countries that have not liberalised their laws to that extent but on the whole the trend is towards a much more humanitarian approach. The only three countries that have tightened up the laws are Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia — which were all pretty liberal anyway. So I think that we are going in the face of world opinion.

Salient: What prospects are there for blocking this legislation?

Sparrow: It depends largely on two factors — public opinion, and parliamentary debate. From the experiences of the Wall Bill, and the Gill Bill they can make a difference. There are MPs who are committed to one view or the other but there is also a large number who are not obligated at all.

Salient: What should the reform organisations concentrate on in order to get public support?

Sparrow: One can't force people to think about an issue. Even the reform movement can't move too far ahead of public opinion. It will really depend upon public opinion but judging from the reactions so far I would say that most people who have looked at at the report, have not been favourable to the Commission's recommendations and I just hope that this reflects the bulk of public opinion.