Barker Rick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Barker Rick: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16651] 
Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I am really interested in the comments made by the previous speaker who talked about a “mad rush” with this legislation and that he was denied the opportunity to make a speech but on most occasions it is in fact self-preservation for him. Nick Smith is the only member I know of in this Parliament—I do not know of anybody else—who has been to the High Court and on a parental issue which he has just talked about and the person concerned was asked her view and that member was asked his view and the court chose not to believe Nick Smith. The court found him unbelievable: would not believe him could not believe him and did not believe him. It found him in contempt of court and found that he had attempted to scandalise the Family Court. Why was that? It was because of his attitude. [ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I just refer members on both sides to Speaker’s ruling 56/1 stating that interjections should be rare reasonable relevant and I might add restrained. If people wish to make a speech they can do so later. This is not the occasion for running commentaries. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The point that Dr Nick Smith makes I would endorse 100 percent. Parents are the most important people in the lives of children but sadly there are exceptions. A parent has beaten a child to death before today. Parents have done some terrible things to their children before today. The responsibility of this society is to protect the children not see them as parental property rights. If I had mistreated my kids I would expect my neighbours the court and everybody else to step in and say: “You Rick Barker have mistreated your kids.” and defend my children first. Because children are our future. That is what I would expect. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to the member opposite from my own personal experience that I was at a school when one of my kids’ friends fell over seriously ill and was rushed to hospital. It turned out that she had had an illegal abortion. Why? She had done so because she could not tell her mother or father whom I knew personally of the circumstances in her life. That young woman will struggle forever to have children. Her life has been scarred because she would not tell or could not tell her parents. Because of the law she felt driven to go to a backstreet abortionist. 
That changed my attitude and I say to members that when it comes down to the kids and their future and when it comes down to choice of a life for that young woman because she could not deal with her parents then we have to look after her interests first. That must be our concern on every occasion. I say to Nick Smith that yes parents are important. I agree with that statement absolutely. But when it comes to the most important issue it is the interests of the young woman herself that must always be paramount. 
I say to members opposite that if a young woman cannot go and talk to her parents despite the best advice of the counsellors the doctors and all the rest of them and the circumstances are such whose rights then predominate? Is it the rights of her mother or father to know or the rights of that individual young woman that are paramount? In certain circumstances and it is very very rare—this law has been in place since 1977 and there have been no problems—the young woman’s concerns have to be paramount. 
I stress that point. On too many occasions in this country we have looked at parents’ rights as being paramount and young kids have suffered as a consequence. Too often we have turned our back on the circumstances of young children because we have said that parents have the responsibility; that parents are in control. But those children have suffered. I say to young Nick Smith and other members opposite that we have to consider the young woman’s interests primarily. 
Brian Connell 
: The child. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Now they are saying “the child” but I say to Brian Connell that young people today are very savvy; much more savvy than that member will ever be at the age of 65 and certainly vastly more savvy than he was at 16.