Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16629] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First opposes this bill essentially because it does very little that is new but millions of dollars will be spent to try to achieve its purpose and in so doing it can only confuse well-established legal principles. For example if the Government wanted to do something about making the courts more open that could have been the subject of a simple amendment. Otherwise this legislation is really hidden around the construct of the Labour Party as part of its gender-bending agenda to have lesbians homosexuals and other forms of relationships get formal legal recognition. That is absolutely unnecessary. As we heard from so many witnesses the courts already recognise lesbian relationships as being relationships that are capable of being granted custody orders. We had one of those extraordinary matters before the select committee where it appeared that a lesbian relationship had broken up and one of the lesbians had got custody of the other lesbian’s natural children and was living in yet another lesbian relationship. One wonders what would happen if that lesbian relationship broke up and how many children one lesbian would end up being the mother and the father to. But that is all possible under the existing law. 
There is no need for this legislation as far as that is concerned and it was explained to the many lesbians and homosexuals who came before the select committee that we had witnesses who said yes they had had court orders from the court it took time it was difficult and that is the court’s role but currently under the existing law they could get those orders for custody. 
 So what is the point of this bill other than to put into legislation the Labour Party’s gender-bending attitude to relationships? The court already knows what a de facto partner is; that is common sense. We know what a de facto partner is. We know what a de jure partner is. We do not need some legislature telling us what that means. But this Minister in particular and his Government feel they must dictate everything to the country and tell people what they ought to do and what they ought not to do. 
In fact the existing legislation—the Guardianship Act of 1968—states that the welfare of the child is paramount. That provision goes back to 1926. It has worked well at least since 1926 but this interfering busybody Labour Government must interfere in people’s lives to the nth degree and overturn well-established legal views set in place as far back as 1926. 
When we look at section 23(1) of the Guardianship Act it covers almost everything—in a few lines—that is currently contained in Part 1 of this bill. It states: “(1) In any proceedings where any matter relating to the custody or guardianship of or access to a child or the administration of any property belonging to or held in trust for a child or the application of the income thereof is in question the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount 
consideration.” That has worked perfectly for almost 80 years. Yet here we have this interfering Labour Government trying to window-dress a change to suggest that it has brought things up to date; that things are all very much more modern now. But all it has done is waste everybody’s time in getting back to virtually the current situation but using different names.  
There will be awful confusion as I believe Judge Mahoney said at the Justice and Electoral Committee as to the use of words like “day-to-day care” in an order. The terms “custody order” and “access order” have worked very well. But “day-to-day care order”—itwill take a long time to work out what that means. Now we have the term “parenting order”. Well do we have to tell a parent that he or she has a parenting order? Parents know they are parents. But now we have parenting orders. Is that something for the lowest common denominator in our society? Is that the Labour Government saying that it knows best and it will call it a parenting order? But a parenting order sounds just like a custody order and everyone will call it a “custody order” for a long time yet because that is really all it still is. Is the “day-to-day care order” an access order or not?  
This Minister has absolutely no legal training. In fact hardly any Labour member of Parliament has legal training. I do not know whether any of them have actually been in a Family Court in the last 10 to 15 years to see how the court works. They have no idea whatsoever. Of course that includes the Attorney-General who I suspect has never been in a court at all yet she accepts responsibility for this type of legislation. 
This bill is complete nonsense. It is a waste of time and it is confusing. Part 1 adds nothing to the existing law apart from taking up so much important time of this Parliament and this country. No one should support it.