Worth Richard: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6540] 
RICHARD WORTH (NZ National—Epsom) 
: 
 It is a privilege for National to speak in respect of this very important legislation. I was saddened to hear the Minister in the mid-point of her speech take the position—why she had to say this I do not know—that because she did not have children she was in some way fettered in offering open and frank views on the merit of this legislation. 
The reason National is opposing this bill is that within it we see some significant merit but we also see aspects of propaganda and political correctness that in the context of family issues seem to this party to be the watchwords of this Government. I have had the privilege—some might say the burden—of listening to the comments the Minister has made on the radio in respect of this bill. I have also heard the comments she has made in respect of the Families Commission Bill. I judge—as do my National colleagues and I am sure those representing the centre-right parties—that in much of what she says on behalf of her Government there is little more than political claptrap. 
 The Minister dismisses the concept of the ideal family. That family is in effect parents and their children. She dismisses that concept because she says “Well that may be an ideal plan but that doesn’t really reflect the reality of society.” and that is of course true. I acknowledge that but it is not a reason for saying that that paradigm is not worth aiming for. I am saddened that the Minister should take the particular line she has in the setting of this bill. She offers to members of this House and to those outside of it who care to listen to her comments the statement that the intrinsic merit of this bill is the interests of the child. That is a fair enough comment but it is stupid sophistry because the Guardianship Act of 1986 so many years ago said exactly that. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: 1968. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister corrects me by saying that the date is 1968 but it is a trifling point because she has not dealt with the substance of the issue. So let me repeat the point which is no more complex than this. The earlier legislation was about the interests of the child so members should not let the Minister say to us that this legislation is all about the interests of the child because that is what the Guardianship Act of so many years ago was all about. [ 
Interruption 
] I am interested to face this barrage of interjection from the Minister. She may have little experience in these issues; we have that on her own frank admission and that may be so. But quite clearly all these issues of parenting are about the interests of the child. It is complete subterfuge to talk about custody and access as being somehow antiquated concepts and to say that they do not have any real relevance in 2003. 
I reinforce the point that there is much in this bill that is of merit but there is also much that is inappropriate. I suggest that some issues need to be considered by the select committee. Those issues include— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: So you are going to vote for it? 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The Minister seems to be worried fretful and concerned to interject. She asks whether National opposes the bill and I said at the beginning of my speech that we do. The Minister was clearly not listening and she will need to listen if she is to interject in a meaningful way. 
There are some issues in this bill that need to be looked at closely. I will number those issues—[ 
Interruption 
] I will deal with the Minister’s interjections in a moment. She just needs to pause and try to rest and think. There are some issues in this bill that are worthy of consideration by the select committee. The first issue is that this legislation continues the present legislative trend of the Government to move away from support for the traditional family signalling the acceptance of other arrangements such as same-sex marriages. I see the Minister smirking. 
The second thing I will talk about is something that she dismissed as a drafting technique. Although the Government dismisses it as a drafting technique it nevertheless remains the case that the bill provides for the circumstance that same-sex de facto partners of the mother can be defined as the father. 
Debate interrupted.