Collins Judith: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Collins Judith: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16686] 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 Part 4 has some quite good provisions in relation to tidying up the law on paternity for children born as a result of assisted human reproduction. However yet again there is an opportunity missed. It seems to me that it is great to have some acceptance that the definition of blood tests will now include not only blood samples but also buccal samples and DNA profiles. 
 That is really important for children because under the old law blood testing for parentage could only really say whether the alleged father for instance was not the parent. It could not say that the father was the parent. It was always in the negative. But with the new technology in relation to DNA that sort of certainty can now be given with about 99.9 percent accuracy. It does not require a blood test; now only a buccal sample is needed. For the benefit of people listening that just means a swab in the mouth with a cotton bud for some saliva. That is all that is needed. 
I would like to hear from the Minister whether that will be something that a child or a mother can require someone who claims to be a father to undergo—not just in relation to the assisted human reproductive technology but also in relation to paternity generally because this country has a problem with fatherless children. We are constantly told that Mum does not know who the father is. The last time I heard the total there were 36000 children in this country who do not have any father registered for them on their birth certificates. One of the awful things is that those children—and those children’s children and their children after them—do not seem to have any right to know for certain who their father is. 
One of the problems at the moment as I understand the law is that fathers are not required to undergo those paternity tests. The old restriction on the fatherhood test has been because of what is considered the invasion of blood testing. We do not need blood testing now so I would like to hear from the Minister whether there will be a change to the requirement so that someone whom the mother claims to be the father of her child can be forced to undergo buccal testing. Perhaps the law has been changed since I last looked at it but I recall and Mr Jones from New Zealand First just told me that he also recalls that we discussed the issue during the select committee process. However in the end nothing was actually decided about it. 
Perhaps the Minister could look at the issue because it seems to be a real anomaly. On the one hand we stand up in Parliament day in and day out talking about the need for children to know who their fathers are—well some of us do—and on the other hand we have an opportunity with this law to change the rules so that those people who do not want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood even though they should do not get away with it. 
That is very very important. It is for the benefit of children for the benefit of mothers and of course for the benefit of generations to come because as I constantly say in this Chamber and will continue to do so every child needs to know his or her whakapapa. Every child needs to know where he or she comes from—even if that might cause some people some embarrassment—because the child should be first and foremost in our minds. One thing the child needs is a father. 
I am pleased to see there is some attempt to deal with assisted human reproductive technology and with the way parenthood needs to be established for the benefit of children. Having said that I think the wording around some of these things is very complicated and fuzzy. I note there is still provision for the lesbian fathers’ clause. I see that Mr Jones from New Zealand First has put forward an amendment which I will suggest we should look at because it deals with the absurdity of that.