Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16683] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I too want to highlight some of the provisions in Part 3 that deal with court procedure. The fundamental concern I have as a parent is this: what is the legal process by which the State can take my child from me? That is a very strong power for the courts and the State to have. If we ask people who are convicted of criminal offences and sent to prison what is the worst thing that can happen to them we hear that it is to be separated from their children. 
This Parliament needs to be very clear about the circumstances when the State will take children and prevent them from having contact with their parents. Yet if we look at this part and its procedure and sit it alongside that of the earlier parts we have dealt with we see that the court can take a child from a parent simply when the court sees that as being in the child’s best interests. Well that is so vague and open that I do not think it provides anything of the sort of protection that we need in law. In fact what I would like to see in this part is a provision that is at least as strong as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which says that the State should break the contact between a child and its parent only when the child is at risk or where there is clear evidence of risk to the child. But this part does not say that. All it says is that that contact may be broken if the court deems it to be in the best interest of the child and I believe that that is quite flawed. 
Furthermore we have in this part another dose of Labour’s political correctness. Clause 128 deals with a child’s cultural background. Of all the things we think are important for children—a loving environment committed parents—what is the thing that Labour is now going to add in? It is a cultural background report. With regard to determining the interests of children it is their ethnicity that is at the top end of Labour’s list of importance. I say that those members are mistaken. They are so immersed in their own political correctness about Maori rights Pacific Island rights and all that stuff that they have actually forgotten the most important thing for children. What really gives me the willies is when I read the Law Commission report endorsed by a Minister of this Parliament that says that if people are part of Maori families then their rights to their children are different from others’ rights. It says the children belong to the iwi and the hapu and one’s rights as a parent are somehow lesser. Well I say to members opposite—[ 
Interruption 
]—and to Ms Mackey that whether a person is Asian European Maori Pacific Islander or whatever human beings have a natural bond between parent and child that no amount of political correctness should cut across. 
What we have in clause 128 from this Government is a provision that gives a level of importance to cultural considerations that actually loses the plot about what is important for children in this country to get a good deal. We will have courts side-tracked into arguments about the treaty and all sorts of cultural issues rather than being focused on those things that are in the best interests of children. So I say to the Government that this dose of PC nonsense is not what the children of New Zealand need. I say that all this focus on taking away the rights of parents will backfire on children; they deserve far better.