Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:621;Page:16421] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I join with the Labour Party member Tim Barnett the chairman of our select committee in thanking the officials for all the work they did on this bill. We worked under a degree of pressure from the public and we put the officials under considerable pressure from time to time no less from me from time to time and I do appreciate all the effort and assistance they gave the Justice and Electoral Committee. 
New Zealand First will oppose this bill as we have done from the very beginning. It is one of those very politically correct pieces of legislation that is meant to be a showcase but actually does nothing at all. The present legislation would still be far superior—other than in respect of the openness of the courts—than is this particular bill. Members will recall that when this bill was first introduced into the House we had that politically correct clause 17(2) which would have had the effect of permitting a lesbian to be referred to as “the father of a child”. That was never going to be a great start for this legislation and of course the select committee had no trouble in getting rid of that subclause. The Labour Party had to concede that it was wrong there as it has been wrong throughout this bill. 
Unfortunately of course we were not able to remove all types of wording in that fashion. I refer members to page 118 of the bill—a bar 2 copy—where we have a similar type of wording for the procedure referred to there. Clause 167 inserts new Part 2 and I am reading from section 14(2) which states: “A woman who is not the birth mother of a child but who by operation of this Part”—an artificial human reproduction procedure—“is a parent of the child must … be treated … in the same manner as the father of … the child.” So we still have a provision in this bill where a mother is treated as a father. Really that is absolute nonsense. 
The Auckland District Law Society subcommittee requested the deletion of the words “the father of” but this Labour Government did not do that. It is quite a simple amendment but no the Labour Party with all its resources still has this provision that a woman a mother through an artificial human reproductive procedure ends up as the father of the child. I am reminded of the words of the Prime Minister of Italy in referring to a certain group as being anthropologically diverse from the rest of humanity. Well I would suggest that a mother who in these circumstances is a father must certainly be anthropologically diverse from the rest of humanity and the Labour Party must take all the credit for creating a new type of person in New Zealand. That was one amendment that could have been made with all the resources of the Labour Party but it was not which highlights the ridiculous nature of this legislation and the careless way in which the Labour Party has approached it. 
Of course if this Government were serious about doing something for all those fathers in distress that Mr Barnett referred to it would have done something more than is contained in this bill. It would have taken the domestic violence legislation and incorporated it into this one bill so that we would have had one item of legislation for children who are at risk rather than having fathers who care for their children but do not get custody of their children having to refer to domestic violence legislation on the one hand and this bill on the other hand. There are contradictions between the two which is always regrettable because of the rush in which these things are done by the courts and that works against fathers. Efforts were made to try to improve this bill but this select committee really should have done as New Zealand First wanted—that is it should have looked at the domestic violence procedures within the context of the Care of Children Bill. Without that there was really no point in undertaking this legislation at all because that was the real defect in our society and it still remains the real defect. 
That has been done before in 1981 or 1982 when I was in this House. When I was chairperson in 1982 of a similar committee there was a bill from 1981 that partially looked at the issues of domestic violence and non-molestation orders. We decided that they should be put together. We came back to the House in 1982 sought a recommendation of the House that those issues should be taken together the House gave us that approval and we went back to the select committee and incorporated them into legislation. Now in this time and 22 years later with all the resources available to this Government and with its so-called desire to improve the situation the Government should have taken a similar step at the very beginning and incorporated domestic violence legislation as part of this bill. It should have done that if it had any sincerity about the opening words it had in referring to the bill’s introduction. The Government said that it was introducing this bill so that it could “more effectively promote the interests of children and satisfy the needs of all New Zealand families.” Well this bill does not do that. It fails on that very score alone which is the most important one. 
If one is a father or mother and wants to have things resolved the present situation will still continue when applications are made to the Family Court. The Family Court judge will be put under incredible pressure by the wording of an affidavit that is not substantiated in any way at all. I know from practice having acted for fathers and having had to deal with such affidavits from mothers that it is a total failure when it is decided to oppose those in court. I had one case in particular where the judge said halfway through the case: “Look Madam”—because I cannot name the person—“this case does not stand up.” and the case was thrown out halfway through the defended procedure. The courts will still have that problem today. Fathers will be no better off through this Labour Party legislation and more particularly children will be no better off than they have been before as a result of this legislation. 
There is a bit of window dressing here and a bit of window dressing there and New Zealand First tried hard to improve the bill and make suggestions. I appreciate that from time to time the Labour Party accepted those suggestions. As Martyn Finlay a former Labour Minister of Justice used to say— 
Simon Power 
: Oh that’s going back a bit. 
DAIL JONES 
: It is going back a bit but some of us remember these things—it is the duty of an Opposition not only to oppose but also to propose. That is what I enjoy doing at the select committee. 
Darren Hughes 
: What did Peter Fraser tell the member? 
DAIL JONES 
: No I was not here when Peter Fraser was here. I did not even have his picture on the wall so the member can rest assured on that. So that is the duty of an Opposition and that is what we try to do in New Zealand First. If we cannot fix it entirely we still make a go of fixing it partially—if we can. That is perhaps what we did in that select committee. 
But generally speaking that is the crucial failure of this legislation. There have been words changed—parenting orders day-to-day care and such like—but as Judge Mahoney said when he gave evidence before the committee just changing names does not change anything. The same problems continue which is what Judge Mahoney made quite clear. If it is a custody order today or an access order today calling it a parenting order tomorrow does not change it terribly much. It looks nice and it is the sort of window dressing that this politically correct Labour Party likes but that party does not understand what is happening on the floor of the Family Court—as National member Judith Collins said. Those of us who have appeared in the Family Court know that names do not really matter at all. The court is dealing with children in the main and I am mostly concerned in this legislation about custody and access-type cases or parenting cases. But it is the children who matter; and the children who lose access to their fathers today will continue to lose access to their fathers as a result of this bill. It will do nothing to improve their situation at all. 
I appreciate the work done by Barnados and others in very difficult circumstances. They are given the buck to carry as a result of the problems in our society today and what they do is greatly appreciated by me and I am sure by everyone. But they know the strains that exist in the courts and everyone involved in those courts will know the failing of this Government with regard to this legislation. 
It is good to see the opening up of the courts and Dr Muriel Newman has made quite a name for herself in that respect. Some congratulations are due to her for persisting with that effort. I suspect that she is not satisfied yet and possibly never will be but we will hear about that shortly. But clearly there is an improvement in that respect in this bill. 
Finally as far as clause 37 is concerned I tell members that I voted against it in 1977. 
Moana Mackey 
: Really? 
DAIL JONES 
: I did. I checked the records. I voted against clause 37 in 1977 and I will vote against it again today tomorrow and the next day. If Judith Collins’ amendment goes through the House which I will support I will then obviously have a different view of clause 37. But it is odd that under clauses 35 and 36 the parents of children have to be notified if certain things go wrong with them but under clause 37 the parents of children are not notified if things go wrong. That is totally inconsistent and makes an absolute nonsense of the provisions of clause 37. New Zealand First will be voting on clause 37 and on Judith Collins’ amendment according to their consciences.