Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16635] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate having a second call on this matter which is very seriously regarded by New Zealand First. 
One of the matters that has been raised from time to time by Labour Party members in support of this bill is their view that this bill has a provision that regardless of the age of the child there should be no presumption that the placing of a child in the custody of a particular person will because of the sex of that person best serve the welfare of the child. I have heard Darren Hughes and the Associate Minister of Justice make that remark from time to time. They obviously mean to refer to clause 4(4) but the phrase that I have just read out is from the Guardianship Act 1968 and was inserted in 1980. That provision is perfectly satisfactory and has been around for 24 years. Labour members are trumpeting it as a new idea that the courts must not let the sex of the person applying for custody in any way influence the decision. It is not a new idea. It has been around a long time. 
The wording as one sees when one considers it carefully applies already to the lesbian and the homosexual situation. I am totally opposed to that sort of behaviour but it states: “there shall be no presumption that the placing of a child in the custody of a particular person”—it does not say male or female—“will because of the sex of that person best serve the welfare of the child.” That provision was drafted when I was in the House in 1980 with the assistance of Marilyn Waring. Members can be sure that that type of wording would have been gender-neutral. The current law is entirely gender-neutral and the matter is totally well covered under the existing law by simple wording in a straightforward Act that has been around for a long time. This Labour Party Government tries to trumpet something that is absolute nonsense. 
Another reason that the first part of this bill is invalid is that the Government should have made it clear in clause 3 “Purpose of this Act” that it intended to ensure that the courts would not make ex parte orders without the other side which usually is the father being heard would not grant custody which usually is to the mother of the child—that is the fact of the matter in 85 to 90 percent of cases—without hearing any evidence from the other side and would not totally rely on hearsay evidence from one party who clearly has a very strong vested interest in the matter. This clause should have had a statement that the existing domestic violence legislation was being incorporated in this bill so that there was one codified piece of legislation relating to the care of children. More decisions about the care of children are made under domestic violence legislation than ever will be made under this legislation. The domestic violence legislation will supersede this bill time and time again because under the provisions of the domestic violence legislation an interim custody order will be made the father will lose custody of the child and the child will be without the benefit of having both parents. 
Even Family Court judges have been critical of the changes made in for example 1995. Justice Doogue’s article stated that the decision that had been made—regrettably by the Government of the day which I will not mention—was too much of a reflex action to one case. There was one bad case that took place at about that time. The Government rushed ahead with its viewpoint of the day and decided it would rush through new domestic violence legislation which included things like psychological evidence. We should not be continuing with the 1995 legislation which even judges have criticised for its severity and the way it inevitably works against one party. Reference to that legislation should have been made in the principles and purpose provisions in Part 1 of this bill. That legislation should have been incorporated into this legislation making one law. 
But this Labour Party Government really does not care about all those fathers out there who are unable even to get access rights to their children on a regular basis. Those fathers are made to go through supervised access procedures to sit in supervised access places with in many respects the worst cases in our society who have justifiably had supervised access orders made against them. I have seen cases where 5 and 6-year-olds have had to go to a kindergarten to meet their father and have wondered who the heavy-looking people wearing leather and with all sorts of tattoos over their arms were. Members can imagine the type of behaviour that those people exhibited. Young children were being exposed to that as a result of the domestic violence legislation. 
This bill is rubbish.