Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
Benson-Pope David: Care of Children Bill Status of Children Amendment Bill — Third Readings 
[Volume:621;Page:16715] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Care of Children Bill and the Status of Children Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. The Guardianship Act is long overdue for overhaul and this legislation introduces significant improvements to the process for resolving the care arrangements for children in order to better reflect the diversity of families in New Zealand today. The legislation also improves New Zealand’s compliance with its international obligations such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The new Acts will have wide-reaching effects in determining disputes in families that are unable to agree to their own arrangements and in giving guidance to those parents and guardians who are striving to work out what is best for their children. 
The process of reform can be slow and time consuming and there are many people who feel that this reform has been a long time in coming. The reform process began in 2000 when the Government released a discussion document and called for public submissions. More than 350 submissions were received. Academics the judiciary and the family law section of the New Zealand Law Society were also invited to comment on policy proposals as they were developed. I would like to thank those individuals and organisations for their most valuable input. The Care of Children Bill also generated nearly 300 submissions and some lively discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I believe the select committee has as a result made some very useful improvements to this legislation. 
Unfortunately some of the more lively debate about long-established and well-founded law has at times threatened to overshadow the equally important new initiatives introduced by this legislation. Ultimately though common sense has prevailed and Parliament recognised last week that it was inappropriate to use the Care of Children Bill as a vehicle to campaign against abortion generally. I do however want to follow up on the issue of the lack of information currently collected about young women who are seeking abortions. This week I have written to the Abortion Supervisory Committee suggesting that it may consider collecting more statistics concerning the circumstances in which young women under 16 years obtain abortions. 
Initiatives in this legislation which regrettably have not been discussed much in the House but which deserve mention now include an increased emphasis and additional guidance for determining what is in a particular child’s best interests and welfare when settling that child’s care arrangements. There is also increased recognition of the role of children in guardianship proceedings such as the right to appeal Family Court decisions. New terminology signals an emphasis on guardians’ responsibilities and on the sharing of responsibilities between guardians regardless of who lives with the child. There are further examples of guardians’ responsibilities and roles including provisions that encourage guardians to try to reach agreement over guardianship matters. More opportunities are provided for family members to have a role in guardianship matters—for example by attending court hearings. The legislation gives the Family Court additional expert assistance by enabling judges to request formal reports on a child’s cultural background. It extends the group of adults with legal responsibility for children by enabling parents subject to some sensible safeguards to appoint a new partner as a legal guardian for their children. It augments the Family Court’s tools for supporting or enforcing court orders where families are unable to reach agreement or to abide by agreed arrangements. That includes wider scope to refer parties to counselling and duties to clearly explain parenting orders and the consequences of contravention of them the power to require a party to enter into a bond as an assurance against further breach of an order and broader offences for the contravention of court orders. 
The legislation also removes unfair discriminatory barriers. For example it will ensure that more fathers are acknowledged as guardians of their children where currently their marital status excludes them from that. In a similar vein a man will be faced with fewer barriers when seeking to determine whether he is the father of a child as he will be able to begin paternity proceedings more freely in the Family Court. 
The Government agrees with recent statements by some members that we have to be realistic about what can be achieved by legislation when dealing with matters as intensely personal as the separation of parents and the care of children. I believe this legislation empowers parents guardians and the Family Court to give the children involved the best chance of experiencing positive outcomes. We are confident that other changes in the near future in the Family Court will in combination with this legislation also increase the odds of that. The changes are ground-breaking initiatives with the family mediation pilot that the Government is funding in 2005 being one example of that. This Government makes no apology for ensuring that people are able to make their own choices and for ensuring that whatever the parental circumstances the rights of children are paramount. For those reasons I commend these bills to the House. 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 The Care of Children Bill is a shocking shocking wasted opportunity. This was an opportunity for Parliament to say that children are not fashion accessories or lifestyle choices that children have to be taken seriously and that parenting is the most important job bar none in the world including this country. Yet in this country it is treated like a joke and it is treated like a joke by that Minister who has just spoken. He is the same Minister who was questioned by a Radio New Zealand interviewer in relation to a 12-year-old girl having an abortion. The interviewer said to him that surely she was a girl rather than a woman. That Minister David Benson-Pope said: “Well yes in some ways. But if she is sexually mature and she’s pregnant then she’s also a woman. That’s the reality of it.” That was that Minister’s response when asked about a 12-year-old girl who was pregnant and needed to be given help care love and advice. That is what he said. That Minister says that a girl aged 12 who is pregnant—and presumably a girl aged 11 who is pregnant—is a woman. What about a girl who is raped is abused or is living in an abusive relationship at home? What about her? Well she is a woman according to the Hon David Benson-Pope. 
Let us see what someone else a known liberal lefty Tapu Misa a writer for the  
New Zealand Herald 
 
said: “As the law stands my 14-year-old who finds it difficult to decide what to have for breakfast could choose to have an abortion without my permission much less my knowledge. Her right to privacy even as a frightened vulnerable 14-year-old would be respected over my right to know and decide what was best for her. It doesn’t make sense to me that an abortion is the only surgical procedure that she could have without my permission despite its attendant psychological problems. Or that I would be prosecuted for failing to provide the necessities of life or not making sure that she attends school but be deprived of critical information that could affect her mental and physical wellbeing. Even though I continue to be legally responsible for her.” 
Let us hear from a 16-year-old who wrote to me on Friday and stated: “I also only turned 16 a few weeks ago. I actually went through a circumstance a while ago that led me to think seriously about such matters. Being in a panic situation led me to think seriously about abortion. It seemed the easy way out as opposed to having to tell my parents. I now know that being in a situation like that you can be very vulnerable to act impulsively and not know the true consequences of the decision made.” 
And what about the stepmother who wrote to me about her husband’s youngest daughter who came to live with them when she was 15? The girl was sent there by her mother who found the girl was unruly. The mother could not keep charge of her as she would not do as she was told. That father and stepmother had to deal with a girl who they thought needed some discipline. The stepmother wrote to me that that was probably the last thing she needed. They later found out that the girl had had an abortion and had not told her father or stepmother. What the stepmother said was that the girl needed to be given support sympathy and loving care. “If we had known then what we know now we would have behaved very differently towards our youngest. But the poor thing not only had to contend with the disgust shown by her mother towards her and being asked to leave home because she would not do as she was told she then had to come to live with us when we forced her to knuckle down to her school work pull her weight at home with chores and banned excessive use of phones.”—in other words showed some discipline. She then went on to state: “All of this was she was obviously going through a terribly turbulent emotional period and needed her friends around her.” 
The stepmother went on to tell me that her youngest daughter is now 23 and she has still not approached her father or her stepmother about the situation. She continued by stating that the irony of it all is that she is now openly gay and whilst very happy in her life with her partner has always wanted children and now there is talk of in vitro fertilisation adoption or fostering. The daughter has since told her older sister that she wished she had not rushed into the decision to have a termination because she had always wanted to have children—and goodness I wish she could have had them. 
We are dealing with a situation where last week the Minister quoted endlessly from extreme editorials and newspapers so I would now like to quote from a very reasonable one: from the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 of 
last Sunday. The headline read: “Read our lips: parents want the right to know”. It went on to state that “yet again MPs have revealed themselves to be disturbingly out of step with the public on just how far children’s and young people’s rights should go.” That editorial is right. Seventy percent of the people in this country believe that parents need to be in charge and that they do need to know about abortions. The issue is not about taking the opportunity to be mean to girls or to tell them what they should do with their lives. It is actually about being there for them. The Care of Children Bill—this so-misnamed Care of Children Bill—is clearly drafted all the way through by people who do not care about parenting and who do not view parenting as in fact being the most important job in the world although it jolly well is. They do not care about it those very same people. 
I come back to the Minister. In this debate I tried very hard to engage the Minister and to suggest that he look at reasonable options and he would not. How could he when he views a pregnant 12-year-old as a woman—not as a girl in need of care and protection love and security and assurance that she will still be loved whatever her decision is? No she is not a girl in need; no she is a woman! As Tapu Misa said her 14-year-old cannot even choose what to have for breakfast. Many of us who are parents say to the people on the Labour side of the House who could not find it in their hearts to care about abused children that they should just think back to when they were 12 or 14. They should think about the big decisions that they thought they had to make such as what to wear what to have for breakfast and which friends to invite over. Abortion is a huge decision for any young girl to make yet this Parliament was too gutless to care for children. 
Another example of that was that the Government wanted to legalise consensual sex for 12-year-olds—all in the same provision. Why not? According to David Benson-Pope and the Government 12-year-olds are women. A 12-year-old is a woman who is quite capable of making decisions by herself. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Is this the member who sided against the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill? Do you want them at home scrubbing floors? 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Steve Chadwick from Rotorua said the Minister did not say that. Well here it is. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table the transcript. Let us see whether the member for Rotorua or any of her fellow members will deny leave to table the transcript of what the Minister said. He said: “A 12-year-old pregnant girl is a woman.” He did not say that a 12-year-old pregnant girl is in need of love care and protection; he said that she is a woman. What sort of comfort does that give to the child abusers in this country? It is exactly the same sort of comfort they have in not viewing those children as children in need of care and protection. They view them as women. That is the sort of attitude that this Minister and this Government take. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Seventy percent. 
JUDITH COLLINS 
: Seventy percent of the people in this country said that children need their parents at that time. I am sure if the poll had been taken of just parents that figure would have been 95 percent. Yet Labour which runs the whole Government on the basis of polls does not want to look at that poll because it is just too embarrassing. 
This legislation is a disappointment. It was an opportunity to take parenting seriously. It was an opportunity to care for our most vulnerable children and this Parliament has failed to do so mostly because of that Government and its mates. I seek leave to table a transcript of Radio New Zealand’s  
Morning Report  
of Monday 13 September 2004. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.