Newman Muriel: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Newman Muriel: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16638] 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I would like to bring to members’ attention the amendment that has been tabled that introduces shared parenting into the Care of Children Bill. It introduces the concept of rebuttable shared parenting as a default position so that when day-to-day care arrangements are being determined by the court they should be based on the principle that the two parents who gave birth to the child are equal in terms of responsibilities to that child. All care arrangements should be based on the fact that those two parents are equal. 
In doing that I stand here for the right of children to have a mother and a father. I know that many children in New Zealand have lost all effective contact with their dad. I appeal to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope who knows my views on this subject and the views of the ACT party to consider supporting this amendment. It would give the children of this country whose parents separate the security of knowing that they will continue to have a dad and to have the grandparents and extended family on that side as well as against a situation that in practice ends up alienating and marginalising the non-custodial parent and the rest of that family. 
I also stand here tonight to advocate for the rights of fathers. Mr Tamihere made his rather infamous speech about the rights of the red-blooded male in New Zealand. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: Is he going to speak today? 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: Yes that is a good point. I wonder whether Mr Tamihere will speak in this debate. He has said a number of things that are very supportive of the rights of dads but the proof is in this bill. If Mr Tamihere were serious about what he said about the rights of fathers we would see shared parenting introduced in the Care of Children Bill as it passes through the House today. The onus now rests on the Minister. If he believes in the rights of fathers he should be supporting my amendment which introduces rebuttable shared parenting. If he does not stand for the rights of fathers I think we deserve a call from him so that he can explain to us why he does not support the right of fathers to have contact in an ongoing manner with their children. 
My concern about this bill is that it is one of those bits of Labour legislation that sound good and feel good but that actually will make no difference. In New Zealand we have a practice whereby the custody of children is given to mothers who become the sole custodians of their children. If the mothers let the dads see the kids for more than 40 percent of the time they risk losing their domestic purposes benefit. Forty percent is the cut-off point. We have a system whereby the dads who do see the children for 40 percent of the time have to pay the full amount of child support. They get no allowance for the fact that they have their children almost half of the time. The Labour Government has shown no inclination to change that unfair child support system so that it is actually fairer. 
Hon Richard Prebble 
: It’s anti-dad. 
Dr MURIEL NEWMAN 
: As my colleague the Hon Richard Prebble has just said to me it is an anti-father stance. The Labour Government is against fathers in New Zealand; otherwise it would have done something to fix that in this bill. It is with a heavy heart that I stand here because many New Zealanders thought this bill would sort out the very very unfair situation we have with family law in New Zealand which marginalises kids and is very unfair on fathers. I really ask the Minister to take a call to explain to us how this bill rights the balance that has got out of whack over the last few years.