The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectivly, in interfering wioth the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can be rightfully excercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty’ 1859.
Much of our social legislation is based on a Victorian morality which is not only irrelevant, but often patently unjust. In some cases it even works against the attain- ment of reasonable social goals.
The Values Party believes as a matter of principle that we must allow individual freedom unless it is clearly outweighed by the interests of the community as a whole. We therefore propose reforms in the following areas.
Our policies on family planning are based on 3 premises:
Education in human relationships, in responsible parenthood, and in the social, ethical, and physical aspects of sexuality is essential for all New Zealanders. Present provisions for such education are simply not adequate, as is indicated by the fact that in 1973, 9206 live births (15.16%) were ex-nuptial ana in 1974 over 10,000 New Zealand women had legal abortions here or in Australia.
These measures would, in the long-run, reduce drastically the incidence of unwanted pregnancies in New Zealand, which is at present far too high. Other helpful measures include advising couples of genetic risk before conception, preventing the marketing of deformity-inducing drugs, and extra aid to families who would adopt mentally or physically handicapped children.
In the meantime more of the women at present opting for abortion might opt instead to continue their pregnancies if they could be sure of more caring support from the community during the pregnancy and birth, and especially during the first decade of child- rearing. In addition to free and adequate pre and post-natal care, there needs to be more community support for all families with young children. Low-cost housing within healthy active communities should be available for single-parent families.
Since the measures we advocate above are not currently being applied adequately, thousands of women annually face unwanted pregnancies and opt for abortion rather than adoption or compulsory motherhood through hastened or forced marriages, single parenthood or adding to an existing family.
The Values Party does not advocate abortion, just as it does not advocate the use of alcohol or other drugs. However, it believes that prohibition infringes a basic human right to freedom of conscience. (Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.)
An abortion is preceded by an ethical decision and a medical decision. We do not believe that either decision should be made by legislators or pressure groups. The individual woman should have freedom of conscience to make the ethical decision. A registered doctor should make the medical decision.
There is no agreement among doctors, women, churches, legislators, or the population at large on exactly when worth, personality, and rights begin in the continuum of human life. We believe that the whole community is divided on the issue. In both main pressure groups (for and against) there are people of intelligence and integrity who are motivated by a respect for life and human rights.
No-one will ever be able to prove which group is right. The ethical considerations involved in abortion are too complex and personal to warrant inflexible or intolerant judgements. Laws should therefore not be based on these considerations and should not force the opinions of either pressure group on the whole population. A Heylen Poll in May 1975 found that 56% of New Zealanders supported unrestricted legalisation of abortion. Yet one month later, 43 male members of parliament passed Dr Wall's amendment to the Hospital Act.
The Values Party endorses the statement in its 1972 manifesto (pp10 and 56) that: “Our party's stand on abortion is not based on the desire to reduce population growth. We believe that abortion is the least desirable form of birth control and should not be regarded as a substitute for contraception.” It would repeal all existing legislation on abortion (including Dr Wall's Hospital Amendment Act) because there is no need for legislators to single out one form of medical treatment for special legislation. Other laws regarding medical practices provide adequate safeguards and ensure that every abortion would be carried out by a registered medical practitioner in an approved manner.
Other reasons for repealing existing legislation on abortion are:
In addition, the Values Party would establish free outpatient clinics along the lines of the Remuera Medical Centre throughout the country. Such clinics would:
Finally, the Values Party would promote many measures to raise the status of women so that fulfilling alternatives to having children were readily available, so that women did not just drift irresponsibly into motherhood, and so that respect for women and children would deter men from irresponsibly fathering children.
The Values Party believes that censorship inhibits the development of responsible adult citizenship. We would encourage the principle of individual responsi- bility for moral behaviour. Although we accept that in our present society some censorship may be necessary in the interests of children, we would prefer to see this responsibility left with parents rather than assumed by the State.
With the increasing scale and complexity of our society, there has been a trend towards collection by government and private agencies of data relating to the affairs of individual citizens. Where data collection relating to identifiable individuals is necessary, we believe that extensive safeguards should be provided to ensure that it is available only for the purpose for which it has been collected.
The Values Party does not believe that the State has any role in regulating sexual practices between consenting adults in private.
In relation to current arguments for and against homosexual law reform, it should be noted that:
We do not advocate the use of drugs in any form, but we believe ‘that existing drug laws are hypocritical, inconsistent and often make the problem worse.
While the average New Zealander tends to think of drug abuse largely in terms of those drugs which produce a strong physical dependence, such as narcotics, there is overwhelming evidence that the drugs which are causing harm to the greatest number of people are alcohol and nicotine.
On evidence presently available it appears that marijuana is less dangerous to health than either alcohol or tobacco. It is thus hard to justify the prohibition of marijuana when we don’t prohibit alcohol or cigarettes. It is no argument to suggest that we should not allow yet another social evil. As a matter of principle we must allow individual freedom unless it is outweighed by the interests of the community as a whole.
Nor is it an argument to suggest that marijuana should be prohibited because it leads to the use of more dangerous drugs. This would be the same as pro- hibiting social drinking because it can lead to alco- holism. In any event there is no evidence of a causal re- lationship between marijuana and “hard” drugs.
The relatively minor penalties now imposed by the courts for a first offence of private possession and use of marijuana are no deterrent and, given the widespread disregard for the law and the cost to the community of attempting to enforce it, the provision of any penalty is pointless.
However, as with alcohol and tobacco, we do not believe the use of marijuana should be encouraged, and we are opposed to its commercial exploitation and promotion.
We believe that the objective in dealing with those addicted to drugs should be rehabilitation rather than punishment. Apart from having little apparent effect in combating drug addiction, the existence of criminal penalties hinders rehabilitation by deterring addicts from seeking help; leads to drug pushers with a vested interest in increasing the number of addicts; drives addicts to criminal activities to obtain drugs and/or money to buy them. The policies outlined below would to a large extent eliminate the drug pusher’s market. Evidence suggests that there are many more people addicted to legally prescribed drugs than to drugs illegally obtained.