Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6669] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill will be opposed by New Zealand First. As I read the bill it really has only one agenda. That is to continue the Labour Government’s agenda of destroying family life in New Zealand by introducing to the concept of family life things that normally would have been regarded as deviant behaviour in our society giving them some sort of recognition by statute and saying oh well now that that behaviour is recognised by statute it must be normal. As the  
New Zealand Herald  
so aptly pointed out on 11 June this bill is really only about same-sex partners getting the rights of parents. I have read the bill from my own experience of doing legal work in this area. I started in 1962 as a clerk in the destitute persons section of the Auckland Magistrates Court and worked on family law through the 1963 Matrimonial Property Act the 1967 legislation the legislation of the late 1970s—and I took part in enacting that as a member of Parliament—and then worked in practice again from 1984 until last year in the family law area. 
This bill really has only one new aspect about it and that is confirmed in my view by the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society in  
LawTalk 
 No. 606 of 30 January 2003. All that this bill really does apart from introducing the same-sex agenda of the Labour Party is to change the terminology for various matters in the procedures before the Family Court. Where we used to have a custody order we will now have a parenting order. Really that is about it. The guardianship provision stays the same as it is now. The rule defining guardianship is much the same as it was way back in 1926; the Guardianship Act 1968 was much the same as that. This bill with its reference to the child’s welfare and best interests being paramount is the same as the legislation was in 1926 and 1968. Nothing has changed insofar as that is concerned. The only thing that has changed is that instead of having a custody order we now have a parenting order. 
This bill—if it is passed—and other legislation such as the particular wording in the Families Commission Bill reminds me of the way that the family will be destroyed in this country. Many people thought that the concept of the family was here to stay would last forever and was unsinkable. But in many respects one is reminded of the  
Titanic 
. No one thought it would sink—it was unsinkable—but then it was driven into the wrong waters too far north and came up against an iceberg. As a rule with icebergs only one-tenth of an iceberg is above the water and it is the nine-tenths that is part of the hidden agenda that does the real damage. That is what we are looking at with this legislation today. On the face of it we have just the normal family law - type legislation. In reality we have a bill that is hidden there like the hidden nine-tenths of an iceberg intending to do damage to the unsinkable the  
Titanic 
 and achieving that end. That is what this legislation is intended to do. 
Apart from changing the terminology and apart from its emphasis on same-sex marriages there is really not much difference in practice under this legislation. Of course I would have hoped that if the Government intended to do something worthwhile it would do something about the situation that applies say in the Family Court with regard to orders and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act of 1995—as referred to in clause 49 of the bill. But there is no change. There will still be an application to the Family Court an interim protection order and an interim parenting order. It will not be called a custody order any more; it will be called an interim parenting order. The mother will once again be granted interim custody of the child—as she is in 91 percent of the cases—on no evidence other than an affidavit which is never backed up by anything until 2 months later. She will be granted custody of the children and once again the father will be locked out from that custody. It is a great shame that this bill does not confront that issue at all. It reinforces it. This bill does nothing in practice in family law that does not happen today. All that we have are a few fancy names for it. 
Certain clauses of this bill are badly drafted. I look at clause 49(2). I think the reference to section 45 there should possibly be a reference to section 44—to children under 16 rather than to children over 16. That is what seems to be consistent with sections 12(1A) and 12(6)(a) of the Guardianship Act. So I believe this bill is badly drafted. We have seen the great furore that has developed over the dreadful way of setting out that a mother is a father and suchlike in clause 17(2) and that is all I will say about that. But that type of clumsy way of defining things indicates the rushed manner in which this bill has been put together to achieve absolutely nothing other than the Government’s agenda with regard to same-sex marriages. That is a great shame because for years lawyers in the family area have been waiting for this legislation to come forward in order to bring a ray of hope a ray of light a Shekina to us all in order to show us that something can be done in this area. 
 But this is a very difficult area. It will never be resolved by legislation. It can be resolved only by the people who are involved exercising a degree of common sense. It will not be resolved by the parties shouting at and abusing each other when they go to court and being encouraged by lawyers to shout at and abuse each other. They need lawyers who are prepared to aim at reconciliation and none of that can be achieved by legislation. We can have as much legislation as we like but we will not achieve what we want to achieve if people continue to shout at each other. 
One aspect of the bill that I think is useful and that I believe should be extended is clause 131(2) regarding the publicity that may be made available. That is a small step in the right direction but I think the select committee should consider the Australian legislation as it gives more publicity to what has been happening in the court. So often I found as a lawyer involved in a protection case that a father would come in and say he was really up in arms about receiving a protection order. About 80 percent of the time fathers did not want custody of the children but the whole thing becomes blown out of all proportion. About 20 percent of the cases are defended. I have defended protection orders at an early stage and have been successful. I was successful on one occasion when the judge stopped the case halfway through the hearing and discharged the protection order straight away. I believe the lies and the perjury that are committed in the filing of interim protection order applications are utterly disgraceful and if a little more publicity was given to the types of things that are said in some of those affidavits then I suspect the applicants would be a little more ashamed about those procedures. 
Of course the question of legal aid has been touched on. Members should not forget that now we will have the father the mother the lesbian side the homosexual side all the whanau and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being able to lodge an application. The amount of legal aid that may be required to give effect to this bill is colossal. I am sure that the Government has not given full thought to that. There is not only the question of legal aid but of the time it will take to resolve these cases. In a family law matter—or in any other legal matter—the sooner that people can sit down and try to resolve it the better it will be. The longer a case lasts the more expensive it is the more bitter people become and the harder they find it to get over the situation. 
We passed an amendment to the Guardianship Act stating in effect that fathers should not be disadvantaged. Today fathers are grossly disadvantaged. I had a case a little while ago where the father was not given custody because the mother had said she would commit suicide and take the child with her. That was a disgraceful statement. Three psychologists had reported on the case before finally I took it over. It was a year before I could get it to a hearing. The father had been granted access to the child only if it was supervised and he had to sit through supervision of that access by Mongrel Mob people and suchlike. Finally we took the case to court and we had no problem in convincing the judge—it was the first time a judge had actually heard the case—to grant the father access to the child. It was too late by that stage to get custody. The few fathers who really want to do something are greatly disadvantaged in my view in that situation by this type of legislation. 
I do commend the Government on the last aspect of this bill Part 4 which inserts new Part 2 into the Status of Children Act. The new part deals with the new artificial human reproduction procedures. It is a brave move and I will be interested to see what happens.