Smith Nick: General Debates 
Smith Nick: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6146] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 That goes to the core of the issues of our society and that Minister has just said it does not matter whether one is a father or a mother. I will quote social research finding after social research finding that states that children need fathers—and not female fathers. Children need male fathers. I challenge any Government member on that point.  
I want to debate the issues that I have been putting in the public arena about the rights of parents because the Family Court and this Government have absolutely no respect for the rights and responsibilities of natural parents. I am being threatened with regard to my own career and my opportunity to speak freely about issues because I have said a family in my district has not been able to see its children for over 3½ years. The parents have not been able to see their kids. There has been no report from the Department of Child Youth and Family Services regarding the looking after of that family’s other children. I say that that is wrong and I will go on saying that it is wrong even if they want to throw me in jail and throw me out of this House because a right of responsible parents is to be able to look after their children. I believe that passionately and I will go on saying so.  
I want to know why responsible parents have to fight before the Family Court to have custody of their own children. That is wrong. I want to know why a natural mother and father have together been denied the custody of their own children for over 3½ years. I want to know why this Government is giving legal aid to people so they can fight against parents being able to see and have access to their own children. 
David Benson-Pope 
: Oh! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr David Benson-Pope may not think that matters. People on the Opposition side of the House say that those issues do matter. I want to know why it is possible under the law and in practice for the Family Court in secret without any notification to the natural parents to grant custody of their children to somebody else.  
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Have you written to me? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The family wrote to five Ministers—five Ministers—in January last year. Five Ministers were written to and they have ignored that family.  
I want to know this: why has it taken 3½ years for a family to get a hearing over the custody of its own children? 
David Benson-Pope 
: It went to the wrong MP for a start. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Actually the family went to the Maori member for southern Maori 18 months ago and he did nothing. That Maori family came to me out of desperation. I will fight for it and I will fight for it hard because those parents have a right to the custody of their own children regardless of whatever political correctness we may get from the Family Court and from Government members.  
I want to know why we are paying a sole parents benefit to someone to care for a child when the mother and father are fit and able to do so. That is wrong and I challenge any member of the Government to get to their feet and defend that sort of thing. I want to restate my call for an inquiry. I think that any New Zealander would say that that is wrong and needs to be inquired into.  
We now have this Care of Children Bill from the Minister and it only further erodes the rights that parents have. This bill is about putting the State into every damn family in New Zealand. It is about socialism going to the extreme of having the State and the Family Court which cannot even deal with basic issues like letting parents look after their own children now deal with all manner of things. I want to respond very specifically to that. How can clause 17(2) mean anything other than that a woman can be a father when it states this: “To avoid doubt … in this Act) … ‘the father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child … ”? That states that a woman can be a father yet that is a nonsense. It puts it in law that a woman can be a father. I ask the Minister this: why is there not a reverse provision that a man can be a mother? We on the Opposition side of the House say that that would be a nonsense but at least it would be logically consistent with the provision in clause 17(2) of the bill.  
I say that this Government’s attack on the basic family unit and its failure to defend the rights of families is a tragedy.