Mackey Moana: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Mackey Moana: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16430] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am very pleased to be able to stand and support this bill. I also was a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee that looked at it. We spent a large number of hours considering all the very complex issues that have been raised already around guardianship and the best interests of the child. In total we spent 34 hours considering the bill so we certainly did not take the issues lightly. There was plenty of robust debate particularly when Mr Jones was present. 
First I think that the select committee has come up with a much improved bill. The Minister gave us a lot of leeway to look closely at a lot of the issues. In particular we had a great look at all the issues surrounding shared parenting the openness of the Family Court and clause 37—a clause that has caused some controversy. In no way I believe did we feel constrained by ideology as some people have suggested. In fact we gave due consideration to all the issues and we thought about them very carefully. 
The most important part of this legislation is that it puts the child firmly at its centre. That means—and I can speak for the Government members on the committee—that no matter what family situation children find themselves in through no fault of their own we need to make sure that they have all the adequate protections that the children born into traditional nuclear families were granted under the old Guardianship Act. That is really what we mean when we say “putting the child at the centre”. Many of the submitters focused overtly on the relationships that parents had no matter whether they were good parents supportive parents or loving parents or whether the child was doing particularly well. One child actually came to the select committee—a young boy of 14 who was being raised by a lesbian couple. His message to the committee was very strong: “If you really care about me stop telling us we’re not a legitimate family. Stop telling us that we don’t count and that in some way my relationship with my parents is worse than someone else’s.” For the Government members on the select committee that came across very strongly. We thought that if we were serious about putting children at the centre of this piece of law then we needed to stop obsessing about the type of relationship their parents were in. 
One thing that did come across—and Dr Muriel Newman was a strong advocate—was a concern that the court was biased towards mothers when granting custody. We heard from a lot of fathers and about a lot of really sad situations that had occurred—situations that made us worry about what the law was doing. We have put in the legislation that there should be no assumption that one parent according to his or her gender should have custody. The reality is and the Family Court judge said this that often the parenting order or custody order reflects what the day-to-day care or parenting was while the parents were together. The reason that fathers are often the ones who do not come out as the person holding that order is that it is more likely to have been the mother who was at home looking after the child and that is reflected in the custody order. Unfortunately when families get to the stage of needing to have their affairs sorted out by a court it is never easy. It is important to reiterate what was said by Judith Collins and MetiriaTurei—that we are dealing with people at the extreme end of the spectrum who have lost all ability to talk to each other and who often use their children as a pawn in their particular game. 
One big change that we made in the select committee related to the concern we had about the abuse of ex parte orders made under the Domestic Violence Act. In fact the suggestion was made that they were being used to alienate fathers from their children for a significant length of time so that when the order was eventually made the father had been away from the child for so long that the court considered that the mother should have custody of the child. We have put a time limit on those orders so that they cannot be dragged out to the extent they have been. I think that is an important change that we have made. 
The openness of the Family Court was something we talked about a lot. The previous Family Court judge and the present one came to the committee and they supported the opening up of the court to accredited media. I heard what Judith Collins said about opening it to all media. If I recall correctly the concern we had was to keep out of the court people who might be there to intimidate or to try to cause some offence to one of the parties coming to the court. If “accredited” media was not stipulated other people might be able to come along and say that they were from a particular newsletter blah blah and we would not have any control over that. That could be a back-door way in for people who wanted to intimidate either party to the proceedings or the child. That is why we stipulated “accredited” media. We did give that issue some consideration. 
We also considered the matter of shared parenting and it was a real shame that Dr Newman was not able for quite valid reasons to be there for some of our discussions. Where we parted ways was over the fifty-fifty time. I personally do not believe that fifty-fifty time is a good arrangement for children. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Not time. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Dr Newman said: “Not time.” This is somewhat of a replay of our discussions in the select committee. If I am correct in stating the member’s position then she believes that fifty-fifty time should be the fall-back position if something else cannot be sorted out. I completely agree with fifty-fifty responsibility and I believe that that is what this bill supports but I do not support fifty-fifty time. I do not believe that is in the best interests of the child. I think it is in the best interests of the parents which is exactly what we were trying to get away from in this legislation. 
Probably the most important change the select committee made was in recognising that families come in all different shapes and sizes. Under this bill that will be supported. No child will be born into a family that cannot have the same protections as any other family. On the select committee we were accused often of social engineering. I finish by saying that I find it ironic that the people who were accusing us of social engineering were the very ones who were asking us to legislate what a family was.