KATHERINE RICH (National)
: When the House last rose I was making a few comments in response to a speech made by United Future member Murray Smith, who seemed to think that there were no gay parents in the community, and that if any child in this country did not have a mother and a father, he or she was somehow in a desperate situation compared with other New Zealand children. I made the point that it is really important that we keep the debate about this bill pretty responsible, because we do not want to give children the idea that somehow the situation they find themselves in is not as good as that of others. Sure, we would like as many children as possible to grow up in a loving, caring environment, but the issue is whether children have adults in their lives who will provide unconditional support and unconditional love to help them as they progress through their lives.
I finished up by saying that parenting is a two-person job. I thought about that over the adjournment and realised that of course it is not; it is a job that needs to be done by very many adults within a community, and by extended families within the community. It is not just up to individual parents, although they tend to be the lead carers—the lead people involved in the care of that child.
I ended up going to
Bananas in Pyjamas at the weekend and seeing the friends of mine whom I had mentioned as I finished speaking before the House rose for the
adjournment. They thanked me for my comments, and I was pleased to receive those thanks. I met their new son. I looked at them and asked myself who the hell any member of Parliament or any member of the community is to look at those parents and say that their arrangement is not as good as anybody else’s. That child is probably one of the most loved children in the community. I think it is important that we recognise the very different variations that we see within the community in this country.
That said, a lot of this bill is about changing the language. We saw the huge debate and furore that was created as a result of some policy analyst or legislative writer deciding that the female partner in a same-sex relationship could be described as being a father. It caused a huge uproar. It offended not just fathers in the community but also a lot of women involved in such relationships, because they did not see themselves as taking on that role, either. Although it was quickly batted away as being an exercise in legislative tidiness, I think it was a mistake to put those terms into the bill. In fact, it would have been better to try to write a bill that fairly reflected the situation that is presently found in our community.
There were a lot of issues, too, about how children were described and how there was a change in the way of talking about custody issues. I did not buy into the argument that use of the word “custody” indicated ownership. I thought it was a pretty useful word that allowed New Zealanders to talk about how they would look after their kids in the event of a relationship split. Now the term is going to be “day-to-day care”, which I think is a bit of PC nonsense that does not really reflect the nature of the relationship between the parent and the child.
The other thing is that it is very difficult to codify the role of a parent and to put that down in a piece of legislation, and that is what this bill attempts to do. Within the community we see a wide range of different situations. It will be very difficult for this bill to apply to all situations of New Zealand families. I think we will find that there are some legislative issues that require us to be back in the House making amendments pretty quick smart, because there are some areas of confusion within this bill.
There are some good things, though. I think it is important to make sure that the focus is on the child, and that the safety and the interests of the child are paramount. That is something that has been included in a lot of child-oriented legislation over the last 10 to 15 years. I think it is important to introduce the child’s sense of time into the debate, because, of course, 1 month or 6 months might not seem a long time to an adult, but in a child’s eyes, or in a child’s experience, it can sometimes be an eternity when he or she is waiting to see a parent—usually the dad—over that period of time.
One of the issues I think we need to debate very responsibly is the openness of the Family Court. It is not as straightforward as just letting the media in there and giving them open slather. I think it is important to have accredited media representatives. Nick Smith often talks about allowing the “disinfectant of sunlight” within the Family Court—allowing some media to go in there to see some of the goings-on, which will make sure that New Zealanders feel they have an open and transparent process, but, of course, making sure that details relating to individual families are kept totally confidential.
There is an issue to do with section 37. While I am usually pretty liberal on these sorts of issues, I will support the amendment from Judith Collins, because one of the things that I have failed to get any answer on is why, as a parent, I have the right to be told when my child is having his or her tonsils out or a knee operation, but I am not allowed to know when a termination is being decided on. That is a pretty difficult one for any parent to comprehend. Although I can see both sides of the argument, on balance I have decided to support this particular amendment.
I did not like the way David Benson-Pope described 10-year-olds as young women. In my view they are children. I do not think that talking about 10, 13, or 14-year-olds who are considering abortions as young women is a very positive way to view this situation.
I understand that the first and paramount consideration has to be the—
Hon Annette King: It’s not very positive having a baby at 14 either, actually.
KATHERINE RICH: I ask the Minister, who is shouting out, why, as a parent, I am allowed to know when my daughter’s tonsils are coming out but not when she is having a termination.
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West)
: The last contribution was one that I respect; I compliment the previous speaker. I say to listeners that they were not listening to a radical left-wing member of Parliament; they were listening to a National list member from Otago.
I think her speech adequately summed up what the bill is all about. Parliamentarians, irrespective of their political persuasions and contributions, are doing their best to get their heads round legislation that was designed to protect the welfare of the children of this country. The last contribution, along with others, adequately highlighted that there is no quick, glib fix to a number of these matters, and that beneath some of the sensational headlines is the reality of our trying to get an adequate balance to ensure that the welfare of our kids, our nation’s children, is adequately protected.
Over the weekend, along with other members of Parliament, it was my huge privilege and pleasure to be part of Children’s Day—in my case, in Hamilton. Church groups, volunteers, and the city council were involved in that particular festival. I want to highlight the wonderful people out there who are doing their bit, in the wider sense, to make kids’ lives in this country better.
In this brief contribution I take the opportunity, first of all, to compliment the Justice and Electoral Committee on its great work on the bill. I think we will be better off for this bill. I am one of those people in this country who do not look on the good old days with any sense of nostalgia, at all. I tell members bluntly that, from the experience of my own extended family, and even of my own parents in terms of some broader parenting issues, I have no nostalgia for those times. My parents were wonderful parents to me—make no bones about that—but I have no truck with the idea that in some sense society was better 40 or 50 years ago. I am sure if we went into some of those closets and examined the old skeletons there, we would see adults who failed their children big time. Other wonderful adults—aunties, uncles, grandparents, mothers, sisters, brothers, fathers, and whatever—did a wonderful job for their kids, but let us have no nostalgia for the good old days, whatsoever.
In the brief contribution I want to make, I pay particular tribute to one group of New Zealanders—in particular, those in my electorate—among the many involved in this issue, and that is the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. They are a fantastic group. If any group highlighted for me the limitations of the previous Act in recognising the role of the broader family in the care and protection of children, it was that group. I hope this bill goes a distance towards recognising the role of the wider family in the care and protection of children.
I was not on the Justice and Electoral Committee—which is my regret, actually—and I thank the select committee for the good work it did. I believe that this bill takes us further along the road to providing a better environment for the care and protection of our children.
