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:16668] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I firstly want to compliment both Dr Paul Hutchison and Judith Collins for the way in which they have presented a very balanced thoughtful amendment about the intense issue of women under the age of 16 wanting abortions and the respective role of parents. 
I want to make a contribution on another issue that is equally important and that is in respect of the way in which this Minister and this Labour Government are proposing the appointment of guardians. What we have in clauses 21 to 23 is a recipe for parents coming in and out of children’s lives like one would not believe. I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair Mr Benson-Pope. Why is it that it takes 3 years for a de facto relationship to result in property rights—rights to home car and assets—but only 1 year to be able to become the guardian of a child? That is right—under this bill if one shacks up with a woman for 1 year one has the ability to get full guardianship rights over the child. There is no need to get married. In fact the bill states that it actually makes no difference whether one is married. As Dail Jones correctly points out it does not even matter what sex one is when it comes to picking up these rights as a guardian. What sort of recipe is that for children? If there is anything that stands out in the social research it is that stability of parent-adult relationships in children’s lives is one of the most important elements in those children’s lives. 
 I ask the Minister in the chair and the member for Rotorua why children are less important than property. Why is it that under this Labour Government a person in a de facto relationship can have half the property after 3 years but can get all those important rights as guardian after only 1 year? Those members opposite have absolutely no respect or understanding about what is important to children succeeding. Those long-term relationships are absolutely pivotal. The reality of that clause is that there will be children with dads in and out of their lives like a rotating circus. There will be children with one two five or 10 guardians. Some are responsible for the tragedies that go on in homes and the Minister in the chair thinks that is OK. [ 
Interruption 
] He has confirmed it. He thinks that it is a good idea. He thinks that it is appropriate to shack up for only 1 year and pick up the same rights. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: That’s not what I said. Don’t misrepresent me. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I notice that again when I made my contribution in this debate the Minister in the chair has breached a longstanding convention that members do not interject on a speech and I ask you to correct him. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Yes I have corrected him. Please continue. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister in the chair is saying that cars houses and household goods are more important than children. Only a Labour Minister would try to impose that sort of insult on the children of New Zealand rather than say that children are the most precious thing in our country. They deserve protection. 
Hon Marian Hobbs 
: They’re not property. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: They are not property—so Ms Hobbs should get to her feet contribute to this debate and explain to me why this bill states that one can get full rights of guardianship after shacking up for only 1 year but for property one can get full rights after 3 years. Children are far more important than property. One has to go to court to get access to property but one does not even have to go to court to be able to have full rights as a guardian. This will impact on hundreds of thousands of children in New Zealand. I ask any member of the Labour Party to explain that contradiction.