Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:609;Page:6711] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill will be opposed by National because it is part of Labour’s dangerous social engineering that has the State assuming more and more control and power over children’s lives at the expense of parents. The Minister stated last week: “This legislation is getting away from the language of parents having rights. Parents have responsibilities towards their children.” We take a very different view. [ 
Interruption 
] Only a Minister like that member who is interjecting a member who does not have any children could make a statement in this Parliament that parents do not have rights. 
Is it not interesting that members opposite are all very keen to have gay rights they are all very keen to have workers’ rights they are all very keen to have human rights and they even want to have prostitutes’ rights but when it comes to parents’ rights this Government is not interested? It is so revealing when looking at this Care of Children Bill to see whom the Government consulted. It consulted the Law Society the Principal Family Court Judge Barnardos and the New Zealand Association of Children’s Supervised Access Services. But why did it not consult parents? If there is anybody who is important in the lives and care of children it is parents. Where is the Federation of New Zealand Parents Centres with regard to this bill? Why did the Government not talk to that organisation? Why has the Government not talked to any organisation that is representative of parents’ organisations? No wonder the Government came up with a bill that neglects the rights of the people who are most important in children’s lives. 
National believes that rights go with responsibilities. They belong together like glove and hand. Judith Tizard can laugh all she likes. But I say to Judith Tizard that the people who get up in the middle of the night to attend to a sick child like my wife last night have rights. People who change dirty nappies day in day out have rights. People who work day in day out for the well-being of the children of this country have rights and members opposite need to start thinking about that. 
Ruth Dyson is trying to interject but I want her to get to her feet. The question of whether the State can make a better parent than the parents themselves goes to the core of the bill. This bill is all about extending the powers of the State. The Minister makes much of the bill’s stated purpose—the best interests of the child. Well this is one of those warm fuzzy statements that it is impossible to disagree with. It reminds me of a candidate who once stood against me and said: “Well I’m going to do what’s best for Nelson.” That does not say a lot does it. It does not say anything at all. All it does is abrogate the responsibility of this Parliament to say how the best interests of children will be served. 
The key issue is who decides what is in children’s best interests? The Minister says the State does. That is why this bill gives increased powers to social workers counsel for the child psychologists cultural advisers and the courts. The National Party says that that is mistaken. These people are just momentary visitors in the lives of children they can never make as important a contribution to the lives of children as parents do and that is why they should be mentioned. The real way to get children a better deal is to strengthen families and that will not come about by a bill that diminishes parents to being bystanders in the decisions that affect their children. 
The second issue on which National takes a very different view is the Minister’s statement that the sex of parents is irrelevant. Whether a child has a mum a dad two mums or two dads in the Minister’s mind it does not matter. Well I have a different view. We do not live in some sexless society. Men and women are equal and they are different. No amount of wishful thinking from Government bureaucrats or politically correct Ministers will change those facts of life. This bill completely ignores the importance of children having relationships with their mother and their father. That is the significance of this debate. 
Every MP in this Parliament will have had instances of responsible dads coming to see them who are desperate to play a role in their children’s lives but are beaten by the costs the bureaucracy and the bias of the court. This bill ignores their plight and makes things worse. The parent not providing the day-to-day care of the child previously known as the non-custodial parent may in fact find it even more difficult when trying to get a role in the upbringing of his or her child. That is not in children’s best interests. 
I want to make plain National’s position in respect of same-sex de facto and reconstituted families. We take issue with the ridiculous notion that this bill creates female fathers. That is a nonsense. However there is a need to make better provision in the law for the wide range of family arrangements that exist today. Step-parents gay parents and de facto parents need to be recognised in law. However an underlying principle needs to be recognised. Children need long-term stable relationships. The way in which the Department of Child Youth and Family Services moves children around willy-nilly is a total disgrace. The extent to which these parents have a say in the lives of others needs to reflect the degree to which they have contributed to a child’s well-being. The step-parent who has attended the odd birthday party has a lesser right to a say on the welfare of a child than a step-parent who has been the full-time caregiver for years. This bill makes absolutely no distinction in that regard. 
National further notes other concerns. We think that clause 5 which requires a child regardless of age to express a view on whom they might like to live with and the requirement of the court to take this into account reflects an impractical obsession with the rights of the child not with the well-being of the child. We see no need to move from the current law that conditions this with the age and maturity of the child. We also believe there are some real risks in opening up the court to so many more parties—aunties uncles stepbrothers stepsisters grandparents. The more parties that are involved the more difficult it is to get resolution and in many cases it will make worse the work of the Family Court in resolving such issues. National comes from the perspective that the Family Court is a far from ideal environment in which to resolve family disputes and that as much as possible issues should be resolved outside of that legalistic environment. 
I want to say what is missing from this bill. It is noteworthy to look at the equivalent Australian law which recognises the rights that parents have. It recognises that children’s most important players in their lives are the family around them. They almost do not exist in this particular bill. We note that the Australian law specifically connects responsibilities with rights so that those parents who pay child support have rights of access. The Australian law also makes it plain that it is in the child’s best interests to have ongoing and regular contact with both parents whether or not they are living with each other and we should adopt those same sorts of principles in our law. 
The last point I want to make is in respect of the secrecy of the Family Court. The Family Court needs to be opened up to the disinfectant of sunlight. Our present closed-court environment does not work in the best interests of children or our country as a whole. Again I look to the Australian model which provides for confidentiality of the parties but provides for an open court. We are far more likely to have successful outcomes in a Family Court environment in which there is openness. 
This bill is a politically correct job of social engineering and this Parliament should reject it. We need to go back to the drawing board and concentrate on a bill that puts the family at the centre around the child.