Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Turner Judy: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6135] 
7.  
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Is she satisfied that the Care of Children Bill safeguards the interests of those who want to play a part in a child’s life? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes but the primary and overriding focus of the Care of Children Bill is that care arrangements for children must be in the best interests and welfare of those children. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that the proposed bill enables a biological father to be shut out of a relationship with his child because a guardian may be appointed without his knowledge if he is unaware of his paternity? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes that can happen and it can happen under the existing law. This law provides access for paternity orders in the Family Court which will make them much easier to obtain.  
Tim Barnett 
: How has the bill addressed concerns expressed by fathers who have faced difficulties establishing guardianship? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The bill improves the provision of automatic guardianship for biological fathers and when they are not covered by the automatic rules they will be able to apply to the Family Court and be appointed guardians unless it is contrary to the best interests of their children. So the presumption is in favour of guardianship for fathers.  
Richard Worth 
: What safeguards has the Associate Minister put in the Care of Children Bill that will ensure that parents who seek parenting orders in respect of their children will not be edged out by the four other groups that can make competing applications? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: They are not competing applications because with respect all decisions in these areas have to take into account the best interests and welfare of each individual child. I believe that the intention of the legislation is to take into account those who might otherwise not be able to have ongoing contact with a child—for example when a parent has died and the grandparents want to maintain ongoing contact with a child. It is right and proper that the best interests of the child are taken into account when decisions are made. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister not think that everyone’s interests would be best safeguarded by recognising basic biological facts; if not how does it help people’s interests to have this House and the law declaring that contrary to biology a woman can be a child’s dad or does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that this is a trivial issue? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Clause 17(2) of the bill is a drafting technique. The bill does not provide for a woman to be the father of a child as has been—[ 
Interruption 
] It might be helpful if I make it clear. The statement in clause 17(2) is a drafting technique that means we do not have to repeat 35 separate words every time the expression “father of a child” appears in the bill. It is a minor technical drafting matter and I am sure that the select committee will look at it. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: I seek leave of the House to read clause 17(2) so the House can be clear.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is. I am now going to be enforcing very strictly the rule that questions are to be heard in silence. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister agree that this bill will be truly effective only if the Family Court is adequately resourced so that all cases are heard in a timely manner; if so what steps is she taking to ensure that the Family Court can meet the demands of this new legislation? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: When the Budget was announced in respect of the Family Court there was a contingency with regard to the implementation of this legislation. There is also work happening on the part of the Law Commission in respect of the status of courts and that will require additional resourcing as well. I am happy to give the member the undertaking she seeks.  
Judy Turner 
: How can the bill protect the interests of biological parents when it does not compel the disclosure of the identity of both parents; given that situation will the Minister support mandatory disclosure with suppression orders when appropriate? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The difficulty that we are confronted with I guess in the real world today is that not everybody is aware who the father of the child is—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is quite unacceptable yahoo-ish behaviour. I want to say to members that as far as I am concerned I want to hear the Minister’s answers. She is entitled to give an answer too and she is then entitled to be questioned on the answer. That is why we have supplementary questions.  
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister recognise the discrepancy when guardianship is not subject to a minimum time period in terms of a relationship with the custodial parent yet the Property (Relationships) Act defines a significant relationship as of at least 3 years; or does she think that the division of furniture is a more important decision than the welfare of a child? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I understand the point that the member is making and I am aware this is a concern that has been raised within United Future. There has to be some consideration given to what this bill can and cannot achieve. It cannot change people’s behaviour. What I hope comes out of this legislation is that parents will understand that the best interests of their children are served by setting aside their own interests and putting the kids first.