Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Smith Murray: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:611;Page:8112] 
7.  
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Justice 
: Does she agree that it is usually in the best interests and welfare of a child to have regular ongoing contact with both of its parents; if so would she support an amendment to the Care of Children Bill to that effect? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes I do particularly where parents cooperate with each other putting the best interests and welfare of the child ahead of their own interests. The Care of Children Bill is currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee and I am looking forward to receiving the report of the committee after it has heard the submissions. I certainly would not rule out making an appropriate amendment to clause 4 of the bill. 
Murray Smith 
: In the light of the Minister’s positive response to this proposal by United Future is she also prepared to reconsider the provisions of clause 17(2) of the Care of Children Bill to remove reference to ‘“the father of a child”’ as constituting a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of a mother as requested by United Future? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes. As I said when I introduced the bill I am certainly happy to look at completely rewriting that. Under the circumstances I am also happy to consider completely removing it. 
Richard Worth 
: Is it an appropriate outcome for parents who are fit and proper parents to be denied custody of their child in favour of a third party yet under the present legislation to still be required to pay child support; if so why in the context of the international convention on the rights of the child? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: There are a number of reasons that ongoing contact is actually not in the best interests of the child. There could be examples of incest abuse or failure to provide proper care for children. There could be mental health issues. I am sure the member is not referring to a particular individual case because that would be entirely inappropriate in the House. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: Given that the Care of Children Bill even if rewritten will ensure that a lesbian partner will be considered a parent—even though the biological father will not necessarily be so—will the effect of the proposed United Future amendment referred to in the substantive question ensure that regular ongoing contact will be available for children with both their lesbian parents? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No I think that the member completely misunderstands the nature of the question that was put. The question related to the principles that would govern decisions that under the legislation have to be in the best interests and welfare of the child. I think the member is confusing about three different aspects of the legislation. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister aware of the letter from Green Party MP Sue Kedgley dated 3 May 2000 to the Hon Minister Margaret Wilson which requests that a principle of frequent and continuing contact with both parents be included in the review of the Guardianship Act; and can she confirm that this issue has been raised by the Green Party with her office in subsequent meetings? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Yes I can confirm both those matters. But I think it is very important that as we consider this legislation when it comes back to the House it must be considered from the perspective of the best interests and welfare of children—not parental rights but children’s rights. 
Tim Barnett 
: How does the Care of Children Bill encourage an ongoing role for both parents? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The bill contains provisions that emphasise the continuing guardianship role of both parents in a child’s life regardless of whom the child lives with. It requires the Family Court to consider contact arrangements where a parent will not have day-to-day care of a child. It provides funding for formal supervised contact sessions where a parent has been violent and provides realistic enforcement measures to make the parenting orders work. 
Murray Smith 
: Does the Minister agree that in the best interests and welfare of the child the Care of Children Bill should address the issue of whether the granting of guardianship to a non-parent spouse or partner should be subject to that spouse’s or partner’s relationship with a custodial parent having met a minimum stability period such as that provided for in the Property (Relationships) Act? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: That would mean that there would be two separate considerations given to a child who was born to a married couple that for example had married within a week of meeting each other and a different standard applied to those who had been the subject of separation. Therefore I think it is very important that people realise there are consequences beyond those that have an appearance of relating only to that particular matter. It is very important that on the question of guardianship rights and responsibilities the best interests and welfare of the child come first. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does the Minister agree that present family law is tilted so heavily against fathers that literally tens of thousands of children are now totally alienated from their fathers; if so will she support my amendment to the Care of Children Bill to introduce shared parenting? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: No and no.