Scott Lynda: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Scott Lynda: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16637] 
Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 The National Party is not supporting the Care of Children Bill. I have to say that this bill is a wasted opportunity. The reason the Care of Children Bill is before Parliament is that we know we have a problem in New Zealand. We have a major problem with the care of some of our children. We heard from Dr Paul Hutchison just recently of a case that was an example of the sort of thing we see time and time again. We see too much of it in this country. I am sure that if those adults had acted towards another adult in the way that they acted towards a defenceless child they would not have got 280 hours of community service. Somehow we seem to excuse the abuse of children whereas we do not excuse the abuse of other adults. It seems to me that children are defenceless and that penalties for abusing them should be harsher rather than being dumbed down. 
This bill is a wasted opportunity because although it is good to see that we are improving the rights of the child in custody disputes we need to see the Family Court being more open. It is good to see that a lawyer is to be appointed to act for the child. I always thought that we had a lawyer act for the child. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that it is now put in legislation that the lawyer actually has to see the child. I would have thought it was paramount that a lawyer who was acting for a child in a custody dispute should bother to go and see that child. It seems absolutely self-evident to me that that should be the case. This bill includes a provision that says that has to happen. These people are being paid. What on earth have they been doing to represent the child? It would seem that they and the courts have been relying on psychologists’ reports which can be quite biased in favour of one or other parent depending on whom the psychologist spends the most time with. It is good to see that the lawyer will actually have to see the child he or she is acting for to make some determination for him or her. 
It is also good to see that the child or children will be able to have their views expressed by themselves in a court situation taken far more into account. Children may not be able to express with articulation in a court situation all the ins and outs of what they believe and why they believe it but they do know whom they want to spend their time with. They are the ones who know who the nurturing parent is and will often choose to be with both parents. Most children when a family breaks up do not want it to happen. They want their parents to stay together. If it does happen they want to have access to both parents without any recrimination from either parent without any feeling of guilt and without either parent talking about the other partner in a derogatory sense. 
I am very sad that Muriel Newman’s bill on shared parenting which she introduced to this Parliament years ago and Labour defeated did not pass at that time or even get to a select committee. We heard that some of those issues would be dealt with in the Care of Children Bill but what we have here are changes to guardianship definitions of de facto and very little about the rights and responsibilities of parents. In fact I am not sure that “parent” gets mentioned much in this particular politically correct bill from the Labour Party Government. It talks about de facto relationships and guardianship. There can be more than one guardian; there can be several guardians under this legislation. But what children in this country want is their mum and their dad and ready access to both. 
The fact that shared parenting has not happened is sad. I believe that the emotional trauma of fatherlessness has caused many people in this country immense suffering. I have had father after father in my constituency office who has been denied the right to see his children. One day those fathers were 50 percent of a parenting partnership and involved in the lives of their children and the next day that was gone.