te Heuheu Georgina: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
te Heuheu Georgina: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16634] 
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to state that the National Party categorically opposes the Care of Children Bill. In the course of this debate the Committee will hear a number of reasons why we do so. I want to make at least a couple of points in my contribution. First of all if we look at the purpose of the bill we see from the Bills Digest it “will replace the Guardianship Act 1968 and amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and the Status of Children Act 1969 with the aim of modernising the law relating to guardianship care of children Family Courts’ procedures and parental status.” On the face of it that is a worthy aim. But on the other hand when we look at the detail of the bill we see that there is no guarantee that the so-called modernisation of several sets of legislation will achieve one jot of difference for the children of this nation. Modernising the law is in itself of no consequence unless there is a vast improvement in what we are doing for the children of New Zealand. This bill in my view does not achieve that at all. I support other speakers from the Opposition side of the Chamber. The Government has taken almost every piece of legislation it can think of and for the sake of looking busy and unnecessarily spending money has reviewed things left right and centre. It brings laws into Parliament to change things because it wants to look as though it knows it all when frankly if we examine the detail we see no guarantee that anything contained in this bill will make our children safer make their lives more pertinent or guarantee that things will be better for them in any way shape or form. That is the first point. 
The second point is that the background to the change is a woolly-woofter explanatory note to the bill that states things like: “Family and ethnic demographics … have changed considerably …”. That is true; we know that. It goes on to state: “The 1968 Act is premised upon a traditional nuclear family model that does not reflect the diversity of family arrangements.” The thing is that the heart of the 1968 Act was exactly the welfare of the child being absolutely paramount. That underlying purpose has to remain true no matter how much the demographics of our country change. The explanatory note then states: “More modern legislation must provide a framework that recognises and supports all types of family units that care for children for example single-parent households extended families reconstituted families”—God only knows what that means under a Labour Government—“and de facto relationships … That challenge is magnified when the varied cultural dimensions of families are considered.” What does that mean? 
I would like the Minister to take the call. I ask him whether it means that for reasons of difference in culture we may accept a lesser standard of care for our children. I certainly hope not. I would have thought that an overriding underlying overarching principle that the interests of the child must be paramount should stand whatever the age whatever the circumstances and whatever period of time in New Zealand we are talking about. That sort of woolly-woofter explanation for changing a law which has stood the test of time to a large degree in my view is not sufficient. It certainly will not get support from the Opposition side of the Chamber and I see that a number of other parties will be opposing the bill as well as National. The Minister tells me to read the bill. Yet we do not have to read far in order to realise—and I support my colleague John Carter on this—that there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo in it. This legislation does not improve the situation one iota. The Minister should read the bill. He should explain to the public of New Zealand what some of these things mean. I want him to explain what is behind the statement that “the varied cultural dimensions of families” must be considered. I do not support that statement. It suggests that depending on a person’s culture a lesser standard of care for his or her children is OK. We will not accept that; I do not accept it. The child is paramount whatever the circumstances.