Parker David: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Parker David: Child and Family Protection Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 July 2011. Volume:674;Page:20154. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 As prior speakers have said the Labour Opposition supports the Child and Family Protection Bill which will on occasion protect children who are being physically abused by their parents. 
The contradiction I would like the Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Justice to speak to is why this week the Government when it is pretending it will do something to improve outcomes for abused children is taking away the right of abused children to receive from the estate of their father who abused them some fair recompense following their his death. That is what the Government is doing this same week. 
I ask the Minister to get to his feet and explain how it can be right to take away the effective right of an incest victim to make a claim against the estate of their deceased parent under the Family Protection Act by allowing the whole of the estate to be gifted which is the effect of the changes to gift duty that the Government is pushing through the House this week. It seems to me to stand in stark contrast to this bill which the Labour Opposition supports and which does give protection to children including children abused by their parents. 
This bill makes some wise amendments to the Care of Children Act and sets out procedures for dealing with applications for day-to-day care of or contact with children when there is an allegation that one of the parties has used violence against the child which can include sexual violence—the alleged sexual molestation of a child. That is a laudable thing to do as we know it sometimes happens in society. It is terrible when it does happen. It is terribly sad that sometimes when it happens the parents become estranged from the child and blame the child. I am sure that anyone who has practised in this area of law will know this. Charles Chauvel will know this I know this and the former Race Relations Conciliator who was involved in the Families Commission will know this. On occasion the family unjust though it is blame the child. They become estranged from the child and the child who has been the defenceless victim of incest is left estranged from the family and is on occasion cut out of the will. 
Under New Zealand law the Family Protection Act until now allowed that child to make a claim against the estate alleging that the testator—the person who has died—breached their moral duty to that child by cutting the child out of the will. The Family Protection Act has been on New Zealand’s book since 1955. This bill makes similar provisions for the protection of children yet the Government this same week is taking away— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Chairman I am asking the Minister to explain how he can reconcile extending the protection of children in this bill with taking away the rights of those children under the Family Protection Act because those assets could be gifted out of the estate in the week before someone dies or— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: When we are in the Committee stage we are to consider what is reported back in the bill. I have cautioned the member twice to come back to that. I ask the member to continue in that vein. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: This bill makes changes to the child and family protection legislation which are aimed at doing justice to a child who suffers violence. I am asking the Minister how he can pretend that he is advancing the interests of children when just yesterday in this Chamber—in fact the vote may have gone through today; I am not sure— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Chairman I am asking the Minister to justify why on the one hand that is right but on the other hand he can take away the rights of an incest victim to have a remedy against the estate of a deceased parent. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just said that the Minister has no responsibility for a bill that is not currently before us. I have asked the member—this is my third occasion—to concentrate on the report back from the select committee and on the clauses of this bill. That is what we are debating. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: I think the Minister should get to his feet and explain the inconsistencies in respect of this Government’s attitude to child protection laws.