Franks Stephen: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19086] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I want to comment on or ask the Minister to explain one of the amendments proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope. There is a reference to clause 46 and to a schedule that changes parts of the Marriage Act. Reference is made to the terms “stepfather” and “stepmother”. The Justice and Electoral Committee very sensibly I think when looking at the cumbersome words being used to try to express the concepts of “stepfather” and “stepmother” in a whole raft of Acts decided that they were perfectly serviceable terms that everyone understood that the English language had evolved them over a very long time and that in statutes it was easy to read them and to know what was and was not being referred to. So the committee decided to reinstate those words in a whole lot of places where there was a proposal that they be replaced with a whole lot of more politically correct words. 
 That I think may not have been completed and it might be the explanation for the Hon David Benson-Pope’s amendment to stick the terms back into the Marriage Act; and if so I could support it. But what I am not clear about is why in the same Supplementary Order Paper we are touching the Care of Children Act and that has not been similarly amended. 
At the select committee we had prepared all the amendments that would be required to ensure that the Care of Children Act was once more easy to read in this respect—that it referred to the well-understood concepts of stepfather and stepmother—then at the very last minute in fact I think it might have been the last day before deliberation the officials came to the committee and said: “No we don’t want to do that because our computer program for the forms would have to be changed.” It would be fair to say that the majority of members on the committee said: “Well that seems to be a bit of an odd reason to afflict our law with a myriad of incomprehensible jargon words politically correct words when we could just use ‘stepfather’ and ‘stepmother’ and wouldn’t the forms look better if they were made more simple with ‘stepfather’ and ‘stepmother’?”. There was a gap to allow the officials to go back and consult and it appears that they got instructions from the Minister that no they wanted to stick with their politically correct forms and obscure wording instead of “stepfather” and “stepmother”. 
At that stage the committee had a clear chance. I can tell members that the committee divided clearly on party lines. The Labour members did as they were bidden by the Minister and we find that the care of children legislation does not have the words “stepfather” and “stepmother”. All the other legislation that this committee touched does but the reason the care of children legislation does not is that the officials apparently would need to change their computer so that it does not have all the gobbledygook jargon words that are in there now instead of using a simple old term. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Good grief political correctness run riot! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: It is political correctness to the point where the officials ruled the Labour members of the committee. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Did anyone consult stepfathers and stepmothers? 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They will not recognise themselves in the words that will be there instead. They will be totally baffled and will need a lawyer to know what it means. We had a sense of once again members of Parliament having the right instincts but not enough courage to stand up against the political correctness that infuses the public service they have set in train. I do not think we can blame the officials. They have been told to go out— 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: They’re running amok. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: They are running amok but they have been told to do it by the Minister. They have been told to go out there and purge the language of things that people can understand and instead to fill it with legal gobbledygook. We had a committee that got up the courage to say: “No we won’t do that.”—with great trepidation I have to say—until the last day when one of the Ministers came back and said that oh yes we would through officials. The explanation was not because it was a sensible thing or because anyone wants to see the terms “stepfather” and “stepmother” gone—other than those who are directing this political correctness campaign from wherever the heart of it lurks in the Labour Cabinet—the excuse was: “We don’t want to reprogram the computer with simple words. The computers are all ready to churn out forms with very long words.”