Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16649] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I want the Committee to note that we are in urgency on a Thursday night on Part 2 and looking at passing 113 clauses about family law in a mad rush. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Who’s rushing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I will tell the Minister who is rushing. I sought to take a call on Part 1 and Damien O’Connor and that Minister voted for closure to prevent me from making a contribution and he has the cheek to ask this Committee who is rushing. I ask the Minister: “Who moved that this House be in urgency?”. The Labour Government moved that we be in urgency. That Minister wants to socially engineer the most important institution in our nation—that being the family—without the proper scrutiny of this Parliament and the people of New Zealand. 
Firstly I compliment my colleague Judith Collins on bringing to this Parliament rightly a small element of this legislation which is the issue of parents having the right to be informed if their daughter who is under the age of 16 is to have an abortion. I would have thought that if there were even the most minuscule respect in this Parliament for the role of parents every member would support the amendments of Judith Collins. But so deep is the disrespect in this Government for the role of parents that not only with this clause but right through this part we see an undermining of that most basic relationship between a mother and father and their child. The Minister is not— 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: What’s wrong with it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Is that not a cheek? 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: It says it all though doesn’t it? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The dirty Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —the absolute scum in the chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I know that members have some passionate views on this debate but that does not mean that we have to lower the tone in the Chamber. Unparliamentary comments are not necessary and I ask both members to come to order. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The  
Hansard 
 record will show that Dr Nick Smith said: “the scum in the chair” and on behalf of this Parliament I take deep offence at the denigration of the position of the Chair of this Parliament. When that member denigrates the Chair of this Parliament he denigrates us all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member has made his point. He has taken umbrage under Standing Order 116 “Personal reflections”.I ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair the Hon David Benson-Pope made an interjection that was grossly inappropriate. Are you going to ask him to withdraw as well? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member also has taken objection under Standing Order 116. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What we see in this bill is a whole number of increased rights—increased powers for the courts increased powers for lawyers increased powers for social workers increased powers for school counsellors increased powers for iwi increased powers for family groups increased powers for partners. All these groups have increased powers—at the expense of parents. What the Minister in the chair ignores and what is completely ignored by Government Ministers and members responsible for this legislation is that the most important people in a child’s life are its mother and father. This Parliament has it all wrong when it passes legislation that undermines the rights of parents. 
Last year I saw fit to draw attention to the fact that perfectly good parents—a mum and a dad—in my electorate were shockingly denied the right to raise their own child. What this bill will do is create so many more injustices of that sort: mums and dads locked wrongly out of their children’s lives; and in the case met by Judith Collin’s amendment locked out of one of the most important critical sensitive decisions in the life of a child and a family. 
I challenge members of the Government to get to their feet and debate these issues because there is no area of law as important as family law and there is no institution as important for children as the relationship they have with their mother and father. 
This bill is just dripping with PC nonsense. We see for instance a radical provision whereby we no longer refer to “parents” but to family groups—whanau hapu or iwi—as if those vague phrases are somehow going to ensure that children in this country will get a better deal.