Worth Richard: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Worth Richard: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16638] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I take the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of National. As I look across the Chamber which is crowded with Labour members I note that the contribution from them to date has been evanescent. It has been insubstantial. There sit people like the Hon George Hawkins who knows something about family law issues one supposes in the role he seeks to discharge as the Minister of Police. Clayton Cosgrove clearly has a contribution to make but what is that contribution? It is the contribution of moving a closure motion when we are scarcely through this significant Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill. I despair of this Government and its new Minister David Benson-Pope. I am not sure whether he is the front for the social engineering agenda of this Government but he certainly seems to be closely associated with its worst causes. If I were to identify what those worst causes are they would clearly be the Civil Union Bill where he is a frontrunner decisions relating to reforming the laws relating to prostitution which led to prostitution freed of criminal sanction and now the latest excrescence the Care of Children Bill. 
I would like for a moment to pick up comments that earlier speakers have made as to the need for this legislation at all. As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I can say without fear of contradiction that the bill certainly occupied a very substantial chunk of our time. The report back noted that 277 submissions were received 102 were heard the hearing of evidence took nearly 39 hours and consideration took nearly 35 hours. On any view of it that is a substantial expenditure of time and effort and I ask “To what avail?”. 
The Guardianship Act of 1968 has served the Family Court and New Zealand families well. Section 23 of that legislation provides that the welfare of the child is paramount. The actual wording is: “… the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.” So why is that same position repeated in Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill which we are now considering? The reason is that that test which has served so well for so many years is seen as the test that should apply. 
In looking at Part 1 I would like to pick up a particular aspect that must be of concern to anyone concerned with the interests of the family. That is the provision in clause 9(2) in connection with de facto relationships where this Government is prepared to acknowledge that children under the age of 16 may in certain circumstances be part of a de facto couple. That has to be amazing on any view of it. The subclause reads: “Despite subsection (1)(a) for the purposes of …” two other provisions “… a de facto relationship may exist between a child’s mother and father even though they are not both aged 16 years or older.” So it is that the Government is asking the courts to look at relationships involving children who have passed through puberty and who are under the age of 16 in order to determine whether they are in a de facto relationship. 
What are the sorts of things the courts will have to look at? They will have to look at how long the arrangement has gone on for. I am now referring to the statutory tests outlined by the Government in clause 9. They are to look at the duration of the relationship. They are to look at the aspects of the sexual relationship. They are to look at the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life. They are to look at the performance of household duties. How appropriate is it for the courts to be involved in looking at those sorts of statutory criteria for children who are under 16 and presumably 14 and over? It is not appropriate at all.