Turei Metiria: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Turei Metiria: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16424] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are fully in support of this bill and are pleased to see that it has finally made it back to the House for its second reading. Firstly I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee staff and the officials for all their hard work during the hearings of this bill and particularly during the submission process. The committee worked very hard for a long period of time. I also thank the members of the committee. Together we worked very hard and very well. I acknowledge the chair who managed the committee with a real sense of cooperation rather than conflict despite some of the more obvious difficulties. 
The bill assists members of a family that suffers a break-up that cannot otherwise be amicably resolved. About 90 percent of families that for some reason or another do break down are able to resolve their issues without recourse to the courts. But in that small percentage of cases where families do need some assistance this bill will give them better access to justice for all the members of that family—the child and the adults who surround that child including not just the parents but also the wider whanau who are integral to that child’s life. The Greens are very pleased to see that the emphasis of the bill is on the best interests and welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration. It is absolutely critical that the children’s interests highly influence the decisions of the court. 
We are also very pleased to see the inclusion of a set of principles in the bill which will help to guide not just the courts but also the lawyers counsellors and the families and parties that need to use the provisions of the bill. The inclusion of a set of principles was strongly supported by a number of submitters particularly those who advocate for children’s rights. These principles give weight to the importance of the parents’ relationship to the child but without imposing specific obligations on the courts to require the child to have prescribed relationships. This approach is critical because family relationships are dynamic and children’s needs change over time. One size does not fit all I guess. 
Some argued in the select committee that an ongoing relationship with the biological parents was absolutely imperative and should be prescribed in some way by the legislation. In my view as a parent these relationships are critical but when a family is in a period of breakdown it is counter-intuitive for the law to prescribe how those relationships should be managed. It only creates more conflict. In fact the process should be open to the variety of relationships that the child needs in order to feel supported in his or her life and where possible to keep open the opportunities for ongoing relationships in the future. That is not a prescription; it is a way to provide a process and an opportunity for all of the people in the child’s life to be involved. 
Particularly in a break-up situation a child may at times have a much closer and more interdependent relationship with other members of the family at the time of the break-up for example grandparents or aunties. In those circumstances it may be in a child’s best interests that those relationships are given greater emphasis—at least for a period of time. 
The Greens are very pleased that the principles in clause 4 do not emphasise specific relationships as such but the continuity and stability of arrangements for the child the ongoing cooperation between the adults in the child’s life the impact and value of the broader whanau hapu and iwi of the child and the child’s identity and language. We think that this really will help to focus the parties and the courts on what is important for the child’s well-being as much as for the adults and their relationship. 
The Greens do not support the amendment that Judith Collins has suggested to clause 37 regarding the consent for abortion. I listened very carefully to the submissions from experts in that field during the select committee process—medical practitioners and people who were involved in counselling and family planning. I and the Greens are confident that the current law along with the experience and practice of the medical practitioners strongly supports young women to advise their parents and ensures that they do have the support they need if a young woman for whatever reason chooses not to tell her parents about her situation. 
The Greens agree that mandatory notification could put these young women off getting assistance during pregnancy and that the consequences of increased young and solo parents and of dangerous and illegal abortions are too high. The Greens support the current situation and will not support any changes to the existing legal framework. 
The bill explicitly addresses concerns raised by many fathers in New Zealand that the Family Court is biased against them. Many fathers made submissions on this issue but after hearing the arguments the Greens consider that the bill meets many of the needs of fathers. It does that firstly by expressly stating that it cannot be presumed that placing the child in the day-to-day care of a particular person will because of that person’s sex best serve the welfare and interests of the child. Secondly it does so by providing that a biological father will be a guardian automatically if he is married to or living with the child’s mother at any time from conception to birth or if his name is on the birth certificate of this child with his and the mother’s consent. I know of many examples among my personal friends for whom this will provide the protection they need to ensure that they are able as fathers to be active participants in their child’s life. The Greens consider that these are very good provisions in the bill and provide a protection that fathers have talked about needing. 
We are also very pleased that the bill will treat same-sex couples in the same way that it treats heterosexual couples. For example guardianship for 16 to 18-year-olds will end if the parents have consented to a de facto relationship—the definition of which includes same-sex relationships. The bill provides for same-sex couples to have access to relationship counselling in the Family Court which is a service that the current legislation excludes them from. Of course the bill also amends the Status of Children Act so that when a child is conceived using assisted reproductive techniques with the consent of her partner the partner of the birth mother is deemed to be a legal parent of the child. That provision includes de facto and same-sex partners. Under the current law same-sex partners must seek guardianship through the Family Court if they want to legally clarify their parental responsibilities. That can be particularly unjust when a same-sex couple has raised children together for some time with each partner equally committed to the role of parent—a role that the current law fails to recognise. I am very pleased to see that those provisions have remained in the bill. 
The current Guardianship Act is tightly focused on the traditional nuclear family. In our view that is simply not appropriate in an increasingly diverse multi-ethnic society. 
One of the other issues that we also support is the increased openness of the courts. This is a very sensitive area because the courts do not deal with the kinds of public interest matters that perhaps a criminal or even a civil court might have but with very intense personal issues. We were very concerned to ensure that any opening of the courts was careful and cautious. We consider that the provisions of the bill provide a careful and cautious approach to openness. We think it will help to deflect criticism against the court for being too closed and secretive and provide much better information to users of the court to assist them in dealing with the issues through the processes. 
Finally the Greens are very pleased that the bill recognises the diversity of families that exist in this country and ensures that the best interests of the child guide the courts’ recognition of the responsibilities of the adults who surround the child. Those adults may be the child’s biological parents but not necessarily. They may also be the step-parents same-sex parents grandparents and other near relatives. It is crucial that the close adults in the child’s life are clear about their respective responsibilities and that those responsibilities are truly reflected in the reality of the child’s relationships with those adults. No law that attempts to mend the damage from the breakdown of a family will fit each family’s circumstances perfectly but in our view this bill at least recognises the realities of children’s lives and the diversities of the families in which they live.