Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : There has been some discussion between the parties, and I understand that there is agreement on the procedure to be followed. I therefore seek leave for the questions on the amendments to Part 2 of the Care of Children Bill set out on Supplementary Order Papers 292, 293, and 294 be taken in the following order, before any other amendments to the provisions proposed to be amended, each with a personal vote: firstly, the amendment to clause 37 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of Murray Smith, secondly, the amendments to clause 35 and new clause 37A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins, and thirdly, new clause 37B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Judith Collins. I understand that if those amendments fail, there is a further amendment moved by Mr Dail Jones that should also be taken as a personal vote.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill. Some clauses in Part 1 have some merit, and today I shall focus on some of the more important parts, some that do not have quite as much merit, and some of the reasons why the National Party is not supporting the whole of the bill, although there are some parts that it will.

Part 1 starts off with the premise that the child’s welfare and best interests are supposed to be paramount, and they are. They have to be paramount. However, that is already covered in existing law in the Guardianship Act. Part 1 makes some changes and states that the child’s view must be taken into account in relation to where he or she lives and those sorts of other matters. That sounds great in theory, but the fact is that the child’s view is already being taken into account in the Family Court, and by any parent worth his or her salt.

Of concern is that under Part 1 children are being asked to choose between parents. That is a very, very real concern for those of us with any experience in family law, and there are particularly difficult issues when children are so often tugged between parents in very, very difficult situations. Let us face it, the Care of Children Bill is not legislation that most children in this country will ever have anything to do with. Although the Care of Children Bill is said to be about recognising families in their very many diverse forms, it does not deal with families that for the most part are functioning. It deals with unusual situations where families are not functioning correctly.

That is because families that are functioning, and even families that have split up and broken apart, but are still bound together by the love, care, and concern for the welfare of their children, do sort things out without going through the process of bringing the law into the matter, and wherever possible, without going anywhere near the Family Court. It is not that the Family Court is an evil place, or that the people in it do not do a very good job. By and large they do a good job. The fact is that parents need to keep their children out of the Family Court and they need to keep themselves out, because every cent spent in the Family Court is a cent that is not spent on the child.

This bill does not state one thing about the role of parents in sorting out their differences and keeping the Family Court out of their lives. Itprovides for counsel for the child. Counsel for the child has been around for a long time, and it isa really sad day when we have to state in legislation that counsel for the child—as if it were a really new and wonderful thing—must meet the child. Most people would think that that was a pretty basic arrangement. Most people would think that any law that would allow counsel for the child to exist, to be paid, and supposedly represent the child, and allows for a counsel for the child not to meet the child, and not to take his or her views into account, would be poor law. It is one that we have been paying for, for a long time, and it has nothing in particular to do with anything other than the fact that judges and the court system have allowed that to happen. One of the reasons for that is that the Family Court has for a long time been a very secret court.

One of the concerns that worries us in particular in relation to Part 1 is the day-to-day care provision, where day-to-day care is now to be the new politically correct term for custody. Apparently, custody implies some ownership. Well, parents do own their children, but children own their parents, and that is something we need to get through in this country. To call day-to-day care the parenting that a normal parent goes about with his or her child is an insult to parents. It reduces parental custody and parental rights responsibility to that of being a childcare worker paid by the hour. Interestingly, the concept of partner of a parent gets a huge amount of status in this legislation. Of course, it has nothing to do with care of children; it is all to do with parental rights over who they want to have as their partner.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First opposes this bill, essentially because it does very little that is new, but millions of dollars will be spent to try to achieve its purpose, and in so doing, it can only confuse well-established legal principles. For example, if the Government wanted to do something about making the courts more open, that could have been the subject of a simple amendment. Otherwise, this legislation is really hidden around the construct of the Labour Party as part of its gender-bending agenda to have lesbians, homosexuals, and other forms of relationships get formal legal recognition. That is absolutely unnecessary. As we heard from so many witnesses, the courts already recognise lesbian relationships as being relationships that are capable of being granted custody orders. We had one of those extraordinary matters before the select committee where it appeared that a lesbian relationship had broken up and one of the lesbians had got custody of the other lesbian’s natural children and was living in yet another lesbian relationship. One wonders what would happen if that lesbian relationship broke up and how many children one lesbian would end up being the mother and the father to. But that is all possible under the existing law.

There is no need for this legislation as far as that is concerned, and it was explained to the many lesbians and homosexuals who came before the select committee that we had witnesses who said yes, they had had court orders from the court, it took time, it was difficult, and that is the court’s role, but, currently, under the existing law, they could get those orders for custody.

So what is the point of this bill, other than to put into legislation the Labour Party’s gender-bending attitude to relationships? The court already knows what a de facto partner is; that is common sense. We know what a de facto partner is. We know what a de jure partner is. We do not need some legislature telling us what that means. But this Minister in particular, and his Government, feel they must dictate everything to the country, and tell people what they ought to do and what they ought not to do.

In fact, the existing legislation—the Guardianship Act of 1968—states that the welfare of the child is paramount. That provision goes back to 1926. It has worked well, at least since 1926, but this interfering, busybody, Labour Government must interfere in people’s lives to the nth degree and overturn well-established legal views set in place as far back as 1926.

When we look at section 23(1) of the Guardianship Act, it covers almost everything—in a few lines—that is currently contained in Part 1 of this bill. It states: “(1) In any proceedings where any matter relating to the custody or guardianship of or access to a child, or the administration of any property belonging to or held in trust for a child, or the application of the income thereof, is in question, the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramountconsideration.” That has worked perfectly for almost 80 years. Yet here we have this interfering Labour Government trying to window-dress a change to suggest that it has brought things up to date; that things are all very much more modern now. But all it has done is waste everybody’s time in getting back to virtually the current situation, but using different names.

There will be awful confusion, as I believe Judge Mahoney said at the Justice and Electoral Committee, as to the use of words like “day-to-day care” in an order. The terms “custody order” and “access order” have worked very well. But “day-to-day care order”—itwill take a long time to work out what that means. Now we have the term “parenting order”. Well, do we have to tell a parent that he or she has a parenting order? Parents know they are parents. But now we have parenting orders. Is that something for the lowest common denominator in our society? Is that the Labour Government saying that it knows best and it will call it a parenting order? But a parenting order sounds just like a custody order, and everyone will call it a “custody order” for a long time yet, because that is really all it still is. Is the “day-to-day care order” an access order or not?

This Minister has absolutely no legal training. In fact, hardly any Labour member of Parliament has legal training. I do not know whether any of them have actually been in a Family Court in the last 10 to 15 years to see how the court works. They have no idea whatsoever. Of course, that includes the Attorney-General, who I suspect has never been in a court at all, yet she accepts responsibility for this type of legislation.

This bill is complete nonsense. It is a waste of time, and it is confusing. Part 1 adds nothing to the existing law, apart from taking up so much important time of this Parliament and this country. No one should support it.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : The ACT party will be voting against the Care of Children Bill as well, but I would like to put on the record where we stand over this whole issue of family law reform. If the Committee thinks back to the period 2000-01, that was when a bill that actually started off a lot of the debate about family law was debated in Parliament; it was a member’s bill to introduce shared parenting. It appeared to me in my research about how to try to ensure that children in New Zealand do better, and particularly those kiddies whose parents have separated and have had to go through the whole trauma of family breakdown, that some countries had done better than others— in particular, countries like Sweden, Holland, and many states in America, where they had brought into their family law something that they called “shared parenting”. It was an interesting concept, which I brought into our New Zealand Parliament back then. Labour voted down that bill but promised to come back to this Parliament with some legislation that would actually address those issues.

It is with a great deal of sadness that I was not able to convince the Government to look at introducing shared parenting into this Care of Children Bill, because the principle of shared parenting is one that is just based on common sense. Essentially, that principle means that just as two parents are considered to be equal in their rights and their responsibilities towards their child or children before a family breaks down, so, too, should those two parents still be considered equal in terms of their rights and responsibilities after a family breaks down. That, in fact, should be the case, unless the other parent can prove that one is unfit to be a good parent.

What we have in New Zealand is the opposite of that. We have had a situation where those parents who do not need to go to lawyers, do not need to go to the Family Court, often end up with shared parenting arrangements, which work very well, because the courts do not hear about those cases. But for those parents who are locked into a battle over the children, the history in New Zealand has been of giving sole custody to one of the parents, and traditionally it has been the mothers, but the sad part about it is that the fathers have been locked out. That has given rise to growing levels of fatherlessness in New Zealand and a growing concern by all sorts of New Zealanders, and, in fact, State authorities, over the impact on children of growing up without a dad in their lives.

So when we have sole custody going to one parent, and the other one ending up by being locked out, we get problems. Shared parenting was a way of addressing those problems and trying to bring a better balance back into the way we deal with family law that deals with children in New Zealand.

I suppose the greatest sadness from my perspective is that we heard what rebuttable shared parenting could do. We call it “rebuttable shared parenting” because it is a default position; it means that when a couple separate, if they are both decent people, then they have to make the arrangements for how best to look after their child by working out what is in the best interests of their child. Whether it is the children or child living with mum during the week, and dad at the weekends, or whatever it happens to be, it is up to them to make the individual set of arrangements that best suit their child.

In countries where they have shared parenting, 20 to 30 different types of arrangements tend to be the ones that parents agree to. It takes the warfare out of the divorce situation, the separation. It makes sure the child does not lose either mum or dad, or grandparents, or other family members as well. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Labour Government did not agree to at least bringing this type of provision into family law, given that this is the best opportunity that New Zealand has ever had.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : Clause 4 explicitly states: “The welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration—”. Then when I read new clause 4A(e) stating that the child’s safety must be protected, and how he or she must be protected from all forms of violence, I question whether this bill would be sufficient to protect a young 5-year-old girl whose case was brought to my attention by her heroic grandmother, now her guardian, at my electorate office in June of this year.

This 5-year-old child was described by her oldest sister as having been kept for prolonged times in a dog kennel or in an old freezer; that a cattle prod was used on her; that she also had burns inflicted and was tied to the back of a motorbike and dragged. A specialist paediatrician said: “The MRI or brain-scan image indicates that this child has been the subject of severe head trauma. This type of severity of head injury is not seen in simple household accidents.”

When I see in clause 4 that the welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration, I think back to the day in my electorate office when I was shown the newspaper headline: “Child ‘lucky’ Couple narrowly escape jail for cruelty to daughter”. The newspaper report notes: “Cassandra Marie-Rose Edwards, 31, and her partner Bruce Lloyd Potaka, 26, were sentenced for cruelty to a child.” They neglected to seek medical attention for her after what was described as a home accident. What also stunned me was that the judge, Michael Crosbie, handed down a sentence of 280 hours’ community work to Edwards and Potaka. How does this equate to a life living with multiple brain injuries? As I read the paediatric consultant’s diagnosis, which stated that the severity of that type of injury is not seen in simple household falls, I wondered how carefully authorities had followed up on what had happened to her.

On the same day that this child’s grandmother came to see me, I wrote to the Hon Phil Goff and other Ministers seeking urgent advice. I stated in my letter: “I am aware that an appeal should be instigated urgently because of the timeframe available and would ask you to make every endeavour to do so.” I did not receive a definitive reply from Minister Goff until 12 July, 12 days after the opportunity for appeal had closed.

Fortunately, I had been given alternative advice to write to the Crown Solicitor, Andrew Cameron, from whom I had a reply. It stated: “I confirm that the Solicitor-General has determined that a sentence appeal is appropriate in this case and it has been duly filed with the Court of Appeal. … Should further evidence emerge which would enable assault charges to be laid, I will ask to review the file with this in mind.”

On 1 October, 5 days before the appeal was due to be heard, the girl’s grandmother received a letter from the Deputy Solicitor-General, N M Crutchley, which stated: “I wish to advise that this appeal will not proceed.” What astounds me is the third paragraph, which states: “The Crown remains of the view that as a general principle it considers wilful neglect of a child should be met with a term of imprisonment.” It seems extraordinary that the Crown has done a pre-trial deal whereby Mr Potaka and Ms Edwards have been sentenced to a community sentence when the Crown says quite clearly that it remains of the view that, as a general principle, it considers that wilful neglect of a child should be met with a term of imprisonment. Since that letter I have written to the Commissioner of Police, asking for a full inquiry.

I wonder as to the efficacy of clause 4, “Child’s welfare and best interests to be paramount”—the “paramount clause” of this bill, when I think of that little girl and her grandmother and they way she has been served by the police, by Child, Youth and Family Services, by the court process, and even by the lackadaisical attitude of Ministers of the Crown to my urgent pleas. No assault charges have ever been laid. I hope that all these authorities do better and will recall the words of the neuropsychologist who assessed this child. Those words were that she has been “severely physically and emotionally abused”, and the perpetrator is still out in the community and is therefore free to engage in further abuse of children. The paramount clause of this bill has not been upheld in practice.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : In rising on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill I want to address clause 4A, “Principles relevant to child’s welfare and best interests”. That clause provides that a child’s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility for the child’s care, development, and upbringing. It appears that the whole Committee, including the Government, agrees that a child’s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility for the child’s care, development, and upbringing, and that is quite proper and quite logical. We do not give that responsibility to the State. We give that role to parents, and, particularly, we give that role to parents until children reach the age of 16 years.

Why do we do that? We do that because parents provide what the State cannot provide. Parents provide love and affection for their children, whom they have conceived and nurtured and had dealings with over their whole lifetime. Parents provide money way beyond what the State could afford in order to properly nurture and bring up a child, often extremely sacrificially. They go to extraordinary lengths where children need special assistance, such as with special-needs children and other children who suffer disabilities, and they use their life savings to help their children to have the best life that is possible. Parents provide time. They are with their children day and night, and the State, at best, can provide only short-term supervision. We do not give the primary responsibility for children to schools, to school councillors and nurses, or to doctors. Why not? Because schools do not provide the love and affection on an individual basis that parents can provide—far from it. The schools do not have the monetary resources to do that job, and they do not have the time to look after children night and day. Children are at school for a few brief hours each working day. Doctors do not provide the love and affection that parents do. They have a multitude of patients to care for. Doctors do not have money to put into children, and they do not have the time—they see children for a few brief minutes in appointments.

Parents are in the best position to know what is best for their children. The case of Stacey Brindle, a 16-year-old, is one appropriate example of that. She was given contraceptives in order to try to cure acne, and she then died from deep vein thrombosis, simply because it appears the doctor was unaware that she had a susceptibility to that condition. Her parents knew that, but they were not told—they did not know that she had been given that medication. Children are not in the best position to know what is in their own best interests, particularly young children and children under the age of 16. That is where our privacy laws have grossly let us down, because we assume that children should be able to have privacy and say they do not want their parents to know about something, and we assume that that will always be in children’s best interests. It is not. Doctors and children together are not in the best position to know what is in the best interests of a child. Doctors see children for a brief period, and a child’s position in terms of seeing a doctor for a brief time is far from satisfactory in terms of the confidence and length of relationship that is necessary to make those sorts of judgments. Doctors act on present symptoms and, possibly, on past experience. They cannot provide for the future welfare of a child who is in a situation whereby he or she needs ongoing supervision and attention, particularly where medication has been prescribed or there is a need for other medical procedures. They simply prescribe the medication, and leave the child to it.

That issue is particularly appropriate when we consider clause 37A, and in respect of the termination of a pregnancy. Terminating a pregnancy can have serious health consequences for young children, and it is imperative in that situation that the parents be involved in order to oversee the physical, emotional, and psychological impacts that all pregnancy terminations cause. It is simply inadequate to assume that parents should not be told about a termination because a child and a doctor believe it is not necessary to do so.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I seek leave to table a series of papers relating to the speech I gave prior to the previous speaker. The first is from the Wanganui Chronicle, and has the headline: “Child ‘lucky’, couple narrowly escape jail for cruelty to daughter”. The second concerns the Crown prosecutor Michelle Howard, and is a letter from me dated 23 June 2004, requiring that she instigate a appeal. The third document is from Andrew Cameron, Crown solicitor, confirming that a sentence appeal is appropriate. The fourth one is from the Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, and is dated 12 days after the appeal time had run out. The fifth is from the Deputy Solicitor-General, advising that the appeal would not proceed. The sixth is from the neuropsychologist involved with the case. The seventh one is from KidzFirst Children’s Hospital, advising of the injuries sustained to this little girl.

• Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) : I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this legislation. I do so from the perspective of having listened carefully to the speeches that have been made by members who are concerned about, and opposed to, this bill. I join them in their opposition to this bill and this sort of legislation. The reason for that is that, far too often now, Parliament passes a lot of mumbo-jumbo, politically correct laws that have no place in our society. We try to be so prescriptive as to deal with every possibility, every connotation, and everything that may happen, and of course we cannot do that in law.

Instead of spending time here on writing laws that are so prescriptive that we will have to come back and fix them up because we have missed something, it would be far better to write laws that encourage parents to look after their children. The sad fact is that we have in this society, as in all societies, marriages that break up. The problem is that it is the children who are the losers. Under this sort of law, what we are finally going to end up with is one parent only. I know the Government will say that it is actually trying to encourage both parents to be involved. We cannot do that by prescription—we cannot write laws that force people to do something. We must write laws that encourage and enable parents to continue to meet their responsibilities, even if they are not living together as a couple. This law will fail absolutely. This law that we will probably pass today—because the Government would not have brought it in here to the Chamber if it did not have the numbers to do that—will not encourage both parents to work together in the best interests of the children. Surely that is what Parliament should do. Surely we should look first and foremost to ensure that the child gets the best contact he or she can with both parents. I say to the Government that this bill will not achieve that, at all.

We have got to the stage where we have become so prescriptive in our legislation that we cause stupid decisions to be made repeatedly—to the point where we take away people’s rights, take away parental responsibility, and cause further problems for people who are grappling with difficult personal situations. We do so because we stand here as a Parliament and say that we can write law because we know best, because we can foresee every set of circumstances, and because we understand everything that is going to happen. We say that we will put it down in legislation and include every bit of detail, so that nothing will go wrong. What a lot of absolute nonsense that is! If members of Parliament look at the laws we have passed in the last decade, they will find that there are great gaps in them­—something happens; there is a set of circumstances occurring right now that we did not know about and did not write law for—that somebody falls through. Sadly, because we write prescriptive law, instead of laws that enable people, we end up writing laws that cause more problems and more heartache.

This bill will do exactly that. Mark my words, we will be back in this House in another 2 years or 5 years, saying what a great shame it was that the Care of Children Bill did not do this or that. We will end up doing exactly that, for the very reason that we have tried to forecast everything that can possibly happen between two people who have a marriage break-up when they have children. Instead of looking at how we can encourage those parents to continue to work together in the interests of their children and their family, even if they are not living together—enabling people to work together—we end up writing laws that give some instruction or another. I say to this Committee that that will be an absolute failure. The sad thing is that we are doing it again. Every time that I take the call on this bill I will talk about our writing too much prescriptive legislation, instead of writing legislation that enables people.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National) : I am pleased to state that the National Party categorically opposes the Care of Children Bill. In the course of this debate the Committee will hear a number of reasons why we do so. I want to make at least a couple of points in my contribution. First of all, if we look at the purpose of the bill we see from the Bills Digest it “will replace the Guardianship Act 1968 and amend the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and the Status of Children Act 1969 with the aim of modernising the law relating to guardianship, care of children, Family Courts’ procedures, and parental status.” On the face of it, that is a worthy aim. But, on the other hand, when we look at the detail of the bill we see that there is no guarantee that the so-called modernisation of several sets of legislation will achieve one jot of difference for the children of this nation. Modernising the law is, in itself, of no consequence unless there is a vast improvement in what we are doing for the children of New Zealand. This bill, in my view, does not achieve that, at all. I support other speakers from the Opposition side of the Chamber. The Government has taken almost every piece of legislation it can think of and, for the sake of looking busy and unnecessarily spending money, has reviewed things left, right and centre. It brings laws into Parliament to change things because it wants to look as though it knows it all when, frankly, if we examine the detail we see no guarantee that anything contained in this bill will make our children safer, make their lives more pertinent, or guarantee that things will be better for them in any way, shape or form. That is the first point.

The second point is that the background to the change is a woolly-woofter explanatory note to the bill that states things like: “Family and ethnic demographics … have changed considerably …”. That is true; we know that. It goes on to state: “The 1968 Act is premised upon a traditional nuclear family model that does not reflect the diversity of family arrangements.” The thing is that the heart of the 1968 Act was exactly the welfare of the child being absolutely paramount. That underlying purpose has to remain true, no matter how much the demographics of our country change. The explanatory note then states: “More modern legislation must provide a framework that recognises and supports all types of family units that care for children, for example, single-parent households, extended families, reconstituted families,”—God only knows what that means under a Labour Government—“and de facto relationships … That challenge is magnified when the varied cultural dimensions of families are considered.” What does that mean?

I would like the Minister to take the call. I ask him whether it means that for reasons of difference in culture we may accept a lesser standard of care for our children. I certainly hope not. I would have thought that an overriding, underlying, overarching principle that the interests of the child must be paramount should stand, whatever the age, whatever the circumstances, and whatever period of time in New Zealand we are talking about. That sort of woolly-woofter explanation for changing a law which has stood the test of time to a large degree, in my view, is not sufficient. It certainly will not get support from the Opposition side of the Chamber, and I see that a number of other parties will be opposing the bill, as well as National. The Minister tells me to read the bill. Yet we do not have to read far in order to realise—and I support my colleague John Carter on this—that there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo in it. This legislation does not improve the situation one iota. The Minister should read the bill. He should explain to the public of New Zealand what some of these things mean. I want him to explain what is behind the statement that “the varied cultural dimensions of families” must be considered. I do not support that statement. It suggests that, depending on a person’s culture, a lesser standard of care for his or her children is OK. We will not accept that; I do not accept it. The child is paramount, whatever the circumstances.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I appreciate having a second call on this matter, which is very seriously regarded by New Zealand First.

One of the matters that has been raised from time to time by Labour Party members in support of this bill is their view that this bill has a provision that regardless of the age of the child, there should be no presumption that the placing of a child in the custody of a particular person will, because of the sex of that person, best serve the welfare of the child. I have heard Darren Hughes and the Associate Minister of Justice make that remark from time to time. They obviously mean to refer to clause 4(4), but the phrase that I have just read out is from the Guardianship Act 1968, and was inserted in 1980. That provision is perfectly satisfactory, and has been around for 24 years. Labour members are trumpeting it as a new idea that the courts must not let the sex of the person applying for custody in any way influence the decision. It is not a new idea. It has been around a long time.

The wording, as one sees when one considers it carefully, applies already to the lesbian and the homosexual situation. I am totally opposed to that sort of behaviour, but it states: “there shall be no presumption that the placing of a child in the custody of a particular person”—it does not say male or female—“will, because of the sex of that person, best serve the welfare of the child.” That provision was drafted when I was in the House, in 1980, with the assistance of Marilyn Waring. Members can be sure that that type of wording would have been gender-neutral. The current law is entirely gender-neutral, and the matter is totally well covered under the existing law by simple wording in a straightforward Act that has been around for a long time. This Labour Party Government tries to trumpet something that is absolute nonsense.

Another reason that the first part of this bill is invalid is that the Government should have made it clear in clause 3, “Purpose of this Act”, that it intended to ensure that the courts would not make ex parte orders without the other side, which usually is the father, being heard, would not grant custody, which usually is to the mother of the child—that is the fact of the matter in 85 to 90 percent of cases—without hearing any evidence from the other side, and would not totally rely on hearsay evidence from one party who clearly has a very strong vested interest in the matter. This clause should have had a statement that the existing domestic violence legislation was being incorporated in this bill so that there was one codified piece of legislation relating to the care of children. More decisions about the care of children are made under domestic violence legislation than ever will be made under this legislation. The domestic violence legislation will supersede this bill time and time again, because under the provisions of the domestic violence legislation an interim custody order will be made, the father will lose custody of the child, and the child will be without the benefit of having both parents.

Even Family Court judges have been critical of the changes made in, for example, 1995. Justice Doogue’s article stated that the decision that had been made—regrettably, by the Government of the day, which I will not mention—was too much of a reflex action to one case. There was one bad case that took place at about that time. The Government rushed ahead with its viewpoint of the day, and decided it would rush through new domestic violence legislation, which included things like psychological evidence. We should not be continuing with the 1995 legislation, which even judges have criticised for its severity and the way it inevitably works against one party. Reference to that legislation should have been made in the principles and purpose provisions in Part 1 of this bill. That legislation should have been incorporated into this legislation, making one law.

But this Labour Party Government really does not care about all those fathers out there who are unable even to get access rights to their children on a regular basis. Those fathers are made to go through supervised access procedures, to sit in supervised access places with, in many respects, the worst cases in our society who have justifiably had supervised access orders made against them. I have seen cases where 5 and 6-year-olds have had to go to a kindergarten to meet their father, and have wondered who the heavy-looking people wearing leather, and with all sorts of tattoos over their arms, were. Members can imagine the type of behaviour that those people exhibited. Young children were being exposed to that, as a result of the domestic violence legislation.

This bill is rubbish.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : The National Party is not supporting the Care of Children Bill. I have to say that this bill is a wasted opportunity. The reason the Care of Children Bill is before Parliament is that we know we have a problem in New Zealand. We have a major problem with the care of some of our children. We heard from Dr Paul Hutchison just recently of a case that was an example of the sort of thing we see time and time again. We see too much of it in this country. I am sure that if those adults had acted towards another adult in the way that they acted towards a defenceless child, they would not have got 280 hours of community service. Somehow we seem to excuse the abuse of children whereas we do not excuse the abuse of other adults. It seems to me that children are defenceless, and that penalties for abusing them should be harsher, rather than being dumbed down.

This bill is a wasted opportunity because, although it is good to see that we are improving the rights of the child in custody disputes, we need to see the Family Court being more open. It is good to see that a lawyer is to be appointed to act for the child. I always thought that we had a lawyer act for the child. It seems absolutely ridiculous to me that it is now put in legislation that the lawyer actually has to see the child. I would have thought it was paramount that a lawyer who was acting for a child in a custody dispute should bother to go and see that child. It seems absolutely self-evident to me that that should be the case. This bill includes a provision that says that has to happen. These people are being paid. What on earth have they been doing to represent the child? It would seem that they and the courts have been relying on psychologists’ reports, which can be quite biased in favour of one or other parent, depending on whom the psychologist spends the most time with. It is good to see that the lawyer will actually have to see the child he or she is acting for, to make some determination for him or her.

It is also good to see that the child or children will be able to have their views, expressed by themselves in a court situation, taken far more into account. Children may not be able to express with articulation in a court situation all the ins and outs of what they believe and why they believe it, but they do know whom they want to spend their time with. They are the ones who know who the nurturing parent is, and will often choose to be with both parents. Most children, when a family breaks up, do not want it to happen. They want their parents to stay together. If it does happen, they want to have access to both parents without any recrimination from either parent, without any feeling of guilt, and without either parent talking about the other partner in a derogatory sense.

I am very sad that Muriel Newman’s bill on shared parenting, which she introduced to this Parliament years ago and Labour defeated, did not pass at that time or even get to a select committee. We heard that some of those issues would be dealt with in the Care of Children Bill, but what we have here are changes to guardianship, definitions of de facto, and very little about the rights and responsibilities of parents. In fact, I am not sure that “parent” gets mentioned much in this particular politically correct bill from the Labour Party Government. It talks about de facto relationships and guardianship. There can be more than one guardian; there can be several guardians, under this legislation. But what children in this country want is their mum and their dad, and ready access to both.

The fact that shared parenting has not happened is sad. I believe that the emotional trauma of fatherlessness has caused many people in this country immense suffering. I have had father after father in my constituency office who has been denied the right to see his children. One day those fathers were 50 percent of a parenting partnership, and involved in the lives of their children, and the next day that was gone.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I would like to bring to members’ attention the amendment that has been tabled that introduces shared parenting into the Care of Children Bill. It introduces the concept of rebuttable shared parenting as a default position, so that when day-to-day care arrangements are being determined by the court, they should be based on the principle that the two parents who gave birth to the child are equal in terms of responsibilities to that child. All care arrangements should be based on the fact that those two parents are equal.

In doing that, I stand here for the right of children to have a mother and a father. I know that many children in New Zealand have lost all effective contact with their dad. I appeal to the Minister in the chair, David Benson-Pope, who knows my views on this subject and the views of the ACT party, to consider supporting this amendment. It would give the children of this country whose parents separate the security of knowing that they will continue to have a dad, and to have the grandparents and extended family on that side, as well, as against a situation that in practice ends up alienating and marginalising the non-custodial parent and the rest of that family.

I also stand here tonight to advocate for the rights of fathers. Mr Tamihere made his rather infamous speech about the rights of the red-blooded male in New Zealand.

Hon Richard Prebble: Is he going to speak today?

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: Yes, that is a good point. I wonder whether Mr Tamihere will speak in this debate. He has said a number of things that are very supportive of the rights of dads, but the proof is in this bill. If Mr Tamihere were serious about what he said about the rights of fathers, we would see shared parenting introduced in the Care of Children Bill as it passes through the House today. The onus now rests on the Minister. If he believes in the rights of fathers, he should be supporting my amendment, which introduces rebuttable shared parenting. If he does not stand for the rights of fathers, I think we deserve a call from him so that he can explain to us why he does not support the right of fathers to have contact in an ongoing manner with their children.

My concern about this bill is that it is one of those bits of Labour legislation that sound good and feel good, but that actually will make no difference. In New Zealand we have a practice whereby the custody of children is given to mothers, who become the sole custodians of their children. If the mothers let the dads see the kids for more than 40 percent of the time, they risk losing their domestic purposes benefit. Forty percent is the cut-off point. We have a system whereby the dads who do see the children for 40 percent of the time have to pay the full amount of child support. They get no allowance for the fact that they have their children almost half of the time. The Labour Government has shown no inclination to change that unfair child support system so that it is actually fairer.

Hon Richard Prebble: It’s anti-dad.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: As my colleague the Hon Richard Prebble has just said to me, it is an anti-father stance. The Labour Government is against fathers in New Zealand; otherwise, it would have done something to fix that in this bill. It is with a heavy heart that I stand here, because many New Zealanders thought this bill would sort out the very, very unfair situation we have with family law in New Zealand, which marginalises kids and is very unfair on fathers. I really ask the Minister to take a call to explain to us how this bill rights the balance that has got out of whack over the last few years.

CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I move, That the question be now put.

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.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I move, That the question be now put.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I referred previously to the principles in clause 4A, “Principles relevant to child’s welfare and best interests”. In United Future’s view those principles, although they are fine in themselves, do not go far enough. I have tabled an amendment to that clause stating: “(aa) the welfare and best interests of a child are best served when the child experiences the love and care of the child’s biological parents when they are living together in a life-long loving and committed relationship to each other.” The amendment is consistent with what United Future believes to be the principles that should underlie all policy that relates to family; namely, that the family is the foundational unit that provides stability, well-being, and continuity to our society; secondly, that marriage between a man and a woman is the most deliberate approach to the establishment of a family and that, therefore, society should promote and support it; thirdly, that commitment, stability, and resilience are essential in marriages and all family relationships; fourthly, that the family’s essential function is that of loving, caring for, and nurturing all its members, recognising the need for an equality of well-being among them; fifthly, that the interests of children are best served by growing up in a happy, understanding, safe home created by a loving mother and father, supported by the extended intergenerational family, or whānau; and finally, that family membership requires a balancing of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of each member.

The first of two particular aspects of my amendment is that in United Future’s view it is in the welfare and best interests of a child in all cases that the child is brought up by its biological parents. One of United Future’s real concerns in regard to the Care of Children Bill is the Government’s move to replace biological parenthood with social parenthood, so that we get to a situation in which a child may have a multitude of parents because they arise through social connections rather than through biological connections.

The second aspect is the lifelong, loving, and committed relationship. When children are not brought up in the lifelong, loving, and committed relationship of their parents, they suffer and it is not in their best interests. Clearly, that is best fulfilled through marriage. The Government and Parliament should be promoting marriage rather than doing things that will undermine marriage or simply lower it to a common denominator with other relationships, such as the proposed civil unions and such as de facto relationships.

Clearly, the importance of permanency in a child’s life—ongoing permanency, not the sort of permanency where parents decide to stay together on a day-by-day basis, depending on what they feel—is absolutely imperative and should be encouraged by our society. The importance in the child’s life of the parents’ commitment to their relationship cannot be underestimated. Therefore, in the Care of Children Bill—which fundamentally deals with the way we approach the care of children in our society and what is in their best interests and welfare—we should be taking the opportunity of promoting the stable, lifelong, loving, and committed relationships that constitute marriage, and not, at the same time as we are expressing the importance of a child’s well-being, undermining it by allowing, facilitating, and encouraging the sorts of families that clearly do not statistically provide the same outcomes.

That is certainly true of the provisions in the bill that encourage single women to have children and that encourage same-sex relationships. In neither of those instances can it be shown statistically that the situations provide anything like the same sort of support that loving parents—and biological parents, in particular—can provide for their children. It is particularly important that children have both a mother figure and father figure. Certainly, there is a dearth of information because of the lack of relationships in terms of same-sex parenting, but we know, at least, that even same-sex parenting research that homosexual researchers have done shows that children in those relationships tend to be far more sexually active and sexually promiscuous. As a nation and as a Parliament, we should be putting principles in the bill that will encourage and foster the sorts of relationships that are best for children.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is one of the most important bills to be considered in the term of this Parliament. It is well known that I have made a number of public statements about the importance of this bill, including court proceedings. I find it outrageous, having sought the call on four occasions, that you have disallowed me even being allowed to participate in this important debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There will be plenty of opportunity to participate. All those in favour, please say aye—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Bloody outrageous.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark to the Chair.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. This is a debate in which, as my colleague pointed out, he has taken a strong personal interest over some time. I expect the debate on Part 2 will be one in which even more members will want to take part. I would be interested to know just how you intend to deal with assigning the call, because if Mr Smith was not able to get a call on Part 1 given his degree of involvement, there are any number of us who may feel that we are likely to be cut out of Part 2. So I would be interested to know just how you are going to handle it.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Part 2 is the main part of the bill, I say to Mr English.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is this a new point of order?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it is. I recall—and I can deliver the quotes to the Committee—over 10 occasions on which I was told, during the contempt of court proceedings and in comment from Government Ministers, that the proper place to debate children’s law is in Parliament. I come to Parliament to do so, and all Labour members do is move closure motions. I simply seek the leave of the Committee to be able to make a 5-minute contribution, as other members have chosen to do, to address Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Leave is sought by Dr Smith for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The debate on Part 2 includes debate on schedule 1.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : The people of this country have spoken about under-age abortions. In response to a New Zealand Herald poll that asked whether people thought that if a girl under the age of 16 went to a doctor to seek an abortion, and did not want her parents to know, the doctor should inform her parents, 71.1 percent of the people surveyed said yes, and that does not even take into account those who were not parents. When those people were asked whether the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the girl’s parents, 60.7 percent said yes. What is the Government’s response to that? It has said that the law is working nicely, thank you. The Government likes 400-and-something girls under the age of 16 years to have abortions every year. It likes to know that the parents may or may not even know about that, because it thinks that parents do not need to know.

I have put forward two Supplementary Order Papers on this matter. Supplementary Order Paper 292 requires three things. First, it requires notification to a parent or guardian, but if the girl objects to that—and this is very important—there is written notification through to a judge. The reason for written notification is that under the current law judges are not involved where those girls are living in abusive homes, or maybe are pregnant because of incest. In fact, I am told by some general practitioners that some of them already speak to the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services and refer a matter to the police. That is a good thing, but unfortunately there is no requirement on them to do so.

I had a meeting today with the Family Planning Association—a group that we would think would know all about this issue, as it works with it all the time—and the association said to me that there are some really good protocols that are used in the UK in respect of under-age abortions and notifying parents. It said we could have that here. Then I pointed out to the association that we are already supposed to have that here. In fact, I have here the recommended referral process for general practitioners for suspected child abuse and neglect, which includes sexual abuse. The Family Planning Association did not even know about that—I had to show it to the association. I said the recommended referral process had been around for only 2 years, so maybe that was why the association did not know about it. That is the sort of level of commitment that we have in this country to this issue. We have none, and the Government says that that is fine.

My Supplementary Order Paper goes on to state that if a judge believes that a girl is in need of care and protection, or considers she is the victim of crime or sexual violation, then the judge has to act. She must be referred to a social worker or to the police, or to both. That must happen, because the current law does not protect those most vulnerable girls. I have taken into account the concerns that many concerned professionals have conveyed to me. They said they did not want those girls to have to turn up in front of a judge, and I have taken that into account. That is why I have changed my July amendment to an amendment that requires written notification.

The other point is that the current law affects good parents as well as bad parents—it ignores good parents as well as bad parents. I take it as a real issue when people say to me that any good parent would have a good relationship with his or her child. Well, how many young girls of 14 years would want to go home and say to their mum: “Oh, by the way, Mum, I am pregnant and I want to have an abortion.” Who would want to do that to her mother? No girl that I would want to have! The fact is that young girls do not want to say that, but the trouble is that they need to say it because they need to be able to have the love and support of their parents. Dad may even shout about it, because men often do shout about those things when they are really crying inside, and that is what they want to do. So what if they shout about it? The fact is that they have to know. Those girls are so vulnerable—if they were not vulnerable, they would not be in that situation. The current law states nobody cares, and girls can make those decisions because the general practitioners will do abortions. It is not a general practitioner’s role to be a parent.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT (National—Kaikoura) : I am glad to have this call now. I wish to continue on from the speech made by my colleague Judith Collins on Supplementary Order Paper 292, which she has in her name before the Committee, relating to clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill. As members will be aware, the New Zealand Herald conducted a poll, asking the question of whether people thought that if a girl under the age of 16 went to a doctor to seek an abortion and did not want her parents to know, the doctor should inform her parents. Seventy-one percent of the respondents said yes. When asked whether they thought the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the parents, 60 percent said yes. When a young girl of 13, 14, or maybe 15 is in the unfortunate position of wanting to seek an abortion, there are a lot of reasons why she may not want her parents to know about it. The reasons may be, first, the shame, second, the fear of violence, and, third, incest. It may be fear of what the father will do. There are many reasons. However, generally it always comes out. Generally, the family—particularly a caring, close family—gets to know about it. No girl should have to go through seeking an abortion without the care and support of her family. Yes, the family may be angry in the beginning. It may be upset and disappointed, and have all sorts of reasons for fearing that there will be disruption within the family. But in the long run, young girls need the family’s support.

I am a doctor, and I have given Supplementary Order Paper 292 a great deal of thought and consideration, because for me, as for most doctors, confidentiality is extremely important. It is one of the tenets that we work by. I would not have supported Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper in its original form, but it has now been changed to the point whereby I will now support it. I support it because I believe there are a lot of parents who have to take responsibility. They have the responsibility for the care of their children, but when a huge issue like this faces them they are cut out of the decision. They are cut out of being able to be supportive, and we do need to have those parents involved. In this particular case, a report will go to a judge. The judge will then act on the care and protection issues, if there are any. If there are none, then the information the judge has will be kept. Supplementary Order Paper 293, the second Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Judith Collins, states that in that particular situation the Abortion Supervisory Committee will also be able to examine the causes of what is going on.

I have had several constituents in my office whose children have become pregnant, and in three of those cases incest was the cause. The mothers did not know about that, and the children went through considerable trauma. At 13 and 14 those young girls are children; they are children who are having children. The parents were not informed. It all came out eventually, but not at the time. Surely that needs to happen, so a young girl is protected. I certainly do not want to see young girls go on the Internet and take measures into their own hands—and they do not have to do so, because substantial changes have been made since Judith Collins’ earlier Supplementary Order Paper 237, which has now been withdrawn, to the effect that a judge does not have to act, and that a girl does not have to appear before a judge. It is just a check and a balance.

Steve Chadwick: Then it’s an absolute nonsense.

Dr LYNDA SCOTT: We have heard all sorts of shouting come from Government members on the opposite side of the Chamber, but they are not taking any calls on this bill. This is an extremely important bill. I think I have more knowledge on this matter than they do, because as a doctor I have been in the position of dealing with such situations.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) : I want to speak on clause 37, and for the benefit of all members of the Committee I think we ought to clarify just what the current law does. In the current law there is an exception, in the case of a girl under 16 who wants an abortion, to the general rule that no medical procedure can be performed on a child without parental consent. So the law takes a very broad, consistent view that those girls are children who are subject to parental oversight and parental consent. In fact, the law is so broad that if complications arise from an abortion and a girl has to have a D and C later on, parental consent is required for that. That is how broad the presumption is, and that is why I cannot understand the view that somehow this amendment is a huge, retrograde step. The law has long made that presumption in every case of a procedure relating to a child, except for one single procedure: the act of performing an abortion on a child. That is couched as an exception to the general law; let us remember that.

The second thing is that the current law does not prevent notification. What the current law states is that an abortion can occur without the consent of the parents. It gives the girl the right to consent to that. Doctors, or anyone involved with a case, are not prevented by law from notifying parents. What they are prevented by is the code of ethics of the professional groups to which they belong. No one came and asked me, as a parent, whether I agreed to a profession’s code of ethics taking away my parental rights. The professionals have never asked that. When I go and ask them how they got to the conclusion they reached, they do not even realise that that is what has happened. So a group of counsellors sat in a room somewhere, and said they would bind themselves by a code of ethics that excluded parents. And health professionals—doctors and nurses—have done the same. I am not accusing them of bad will, but I am saying that these provisions in the law show the limitation of that process.

It was not a debate of Parliament that took away my right to know about my daughter having an abortion. It was not debated here—

Darren Hughes: In 1977.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is where the member is wrong. The law does not prevent notification; it is the ethical codes that prevent it. The reason we are having this debate is that on behalf of the parents of New Zealand we are saying to the professionals that they do not have totally free reign to remove the rights of parents at their behest. Parliament is going to debate whether the right of a parent to know about an abortion should be taken away, because it has never debated that issue. It was not debated in the royal commission, nor was it debated in 1977. It has not been debated, ever, in this Parliament in terms of the law of New Zealand. It is time that we debated that issue.

I have been disappointed with the inability of the professional groups to understand the issue. In fact, the attitude they have taken has confirmed for me that they misunderstand a parent’s role. They have not even made an attempt to come to grips with what parents may be on about, but have made an arrogant assertion that whatever they have done must be right. I remind the Committee that in the whole time no one has ever come to a parent and said that the medical profession will consult with parents about the extent to which its ethical codes roll back parental rights. [Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am having some difficulty in proceeding with this speech, because of the constant barrage of interjections from the Government side of the Chamber. I would ask you to bring those members to order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I just say to members regarding interjections that, strictly speaking, a member can be heard without interruption. But members may ask reasonable questions to elicit further information. I ask members to consider that.

Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there is another ruling as well, which is that interjections must be rare and reasonable.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, it is Speakers’ ruling 56/1.

Dail Jones: I am glad that I referred that to your attention, because you did not mention it before I pointed it out to you. The interjections from Ms Chadwick and Mr Hughes have been very frequent and very unreasonable—words such as “sell out”, “no political principles”, and suchlike were constantly badgered at previous speakers. The interjections were neither rare nor reasonable; they were constant and persistent.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I think the message has been well relayed to the members on my right, and I ask them to desist from that.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think that the other thing that the Chair could consider under the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings is the fact that all the Government members, apart from the acting senior Government whip, are sitting out of their usual seats. They have moved to places that are closer to the speaker than they would ordinarily be. You should take that into account when you allow such a breadth and volume of interjections to occur while a senior member on the Opposition side of the Chamber is speaking. That, in itself, is out of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes, that is in Speakers’ rulings 57/1 and 57/3. If people move in order to interject, then that is out of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: After that interruption I just want to reiterate the point that the current law does not prevent notification. It is the ethical codes of the professional groups that prevent notification. That is why we need to pass Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins, because it will then protect the doctors and the other health professionals who are involved with abortions.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : When I listen to the constant interjections from the other side, which almost form speeches—those members have the opportunity to take a call, but are refusing to do so—it is almost as if they believe that these amendments are aimed at preventing abortions from taking place. I would like that to be the case, but, unfortunately, from my point of view, that is not so. All these amendments are doing is trying to make sure that there is some parental knowledge of what is going on. The abortions will still take place, sad though that might be. I think there were about 400-odd abortions involving people under the age of 16.

I think some members do not realise what these amendments are actually about. The role of the parent in this country has been negated so much by this Labour Party Government already that one or two members of this Committee want it to get back some degree of notice, and want to put back some degree of parental responsibility, and that is, effectively, what these amendments are doing—getting parents more involved.

I have had suggestions made to me that these amendments should not be supported because there are brutal parents who will make the life of their child even worse if they are notified. Well, we do not decide not to pass laws in this House just because a tiny minority will misbehave if those laws are passed. We in New Zealand First, and, I am sure, some members of other parties in this House, believe that the responsible majority of parents out there can react positively, and will react positively, when they are given the opportunity to discuss the predicament that their daughter has found herself in, and will want to give her help and assistance after the situation has been dealt with in one way or the other.

What we in New Zealand First are hoping to achieve in supporting these amendments—those of us who do support them; perhaps Mr Brown will confirm the exact number, if he wishes to take a call; I know that the vast majority of us support them—is to reinforce parental responsibility, because we believe in parental responsibility, and without knowledge how can one have responsibility? We believe that New Zealand parents have the strength and the ability to help their daughters when they are in a moment of strife. We also believe that the daughters need help when they are in a moment of strife, and the best persons to give them that assistance are, surely, their parents. This bill is called the Care of Children Bill, yet members—I suspect, mainly Labour members, judging from the heckling we have had—do not care about the care of children. Well, I care about the care of children, and when a girl of 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15, as is biologically possible today, gets into trouble, as a parent one should care for that child, and hence the name of the bill—the Care of Children Bill. I just remind Steve Chadwick, who was interjecting vigorously, and Darren Hughes—who may become a parent—that this bill is meant to be a Care of Children Bill, and some parents accept their responsibility to make sure that their children are cared for.

As far as the other amendments are concerned, I am interested in the Green amendment that Ms Bradford will put. I believe that is an area that needs some sympathy and some concern—problems with sterilisation and suchlike. I remember that when I was in the House in 1977 we debated many aspects of contraception, sterilisation, and abortion. I look forward to the Green member perhaps getting more than one call, to explain that issue to us. The problems experienced by young women who have mental problems—which is often the case—and what can be done to protect them, are issues of considerable importance.

Essentially, I appreciate Mr English’s speech. If one is a child under 16, parental consent is always necessary unless one is going to have an abortion, and that just does not seem to make sense.

Judith Collins: Even for dental work.

DAIL JONES: Even dental work needs parental consent. We have seen the New Zealand Herald report and the survey saying that 71.1 percent of New Zealanders effectively support the amendments.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : On 6 March 2004 a 14-year-old girl with a learning disability was raped by a 22-year-old male. Not only was she raped but a second male held her down while the rape took place. The two of them threatened the girl that if she told anybody about it they would attack her. She was scared. Not only that but she contracted a sexually transmitted disease, and she went to a school nurse to try to get medication for it. The school nurse referred her to a school counsellor, who then referred her to a doctor, who gave her some medication. However, because of the girl’s psychological state she did not take the medication. She became very moody.

Her mother and her grandparents, who were her guardians, knew absolutely nothing about it. They were not told. The police were not told even though, clearly, an offence had been committed. Two months later her mother, not knowing what had happened to the girl, and assuming her moods were something to do with her school environment, went to withdraw her from the school. It was only during the course of the mother withdrawing her from the school that the school counsellor said: “Look I had better tell you something that happened 2 months ago.”, and informed her about the circumstances. That is absolutely reprehensible. What is worse is that following this revelation the school principals association upheld the fact that the school had kept it from the child’s guardians, the New Zealand Association of Counsellors upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child’s guardians, the health board upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child’s guardians, and the Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, also upheld those steps.

Section 134 of the Crimes Act states that everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who has, or attempts to have, sexual intercourse with any girl of, or over the age of, 12 years, and under the age of 16 years, not being his wife. The counsellor, the school, and the doctor totally ignored the fact that a serious criminal offence had been committed. They told nobody. They did not tell the parents and they did not tell the police. Nothing would have happened and nobody would have known if the guardian—the mother—had not approached the school with a view to withdrawing the child. It was very fortuitous that that happened.

The mother said her daughter was very withdrawn and kept running away, that she was not the same girl. Did the doctor know that? No, because the doctor had no ongoing concern. The mother said that, coincidentally, a birthday outing for a family member was at a restaurant where one of the alleged attackers worked. The girl would not eat, was shaking, and froze when she saw the man. The mother had no idea whatsoever why that should have happened, why it went on, and why the girl was acting in that fashion.

It appeared that the daughter had been given medication for the infection, but had not taken it, because she could not understand the instructions. Who was helping her take that medication? Who was there to ensure that the medication, which she needed, was being taken? Was it the school counsellor? No. Was it the school nurse? No. Was it the doctor? No. The only person who was in a position to oversee it was the parent, and the parent did not know.

It is astonishing that we now have a situation where those same authorities are saying that that process was OK, there was nothing wrong with it, and, given the circumstances again, they would have done exactly the same thing. Have we forgotten that schools are in loco parentis, which means that they fulfil the role of parents unless the parents are there? Schools have usurped the role of parents in terms of making decisions about their children. The chief commissioner of the Families Commission got it right when he said: “Parents should be shut out of their children’s lives only in exceptional circumstances.” He did not believe that schools were capable of deciding when parents should be excluded.

That is what the position should be, but that is not the position we have, and section 37 needs to be amended to ensure that that occurs. If the circumstances of that girl were serious, a termination of a pregnancy is just as serious. It is something that could lead to serious complications. It is a life-threatening procedure. Relevant information that only a parent might know is very relevant.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : The Green Party has put forward an amendment to clause 35, in Part 2, under the name of my colleague Sue Bradford. The amendment concerns the situation where young women are unable to give informed consent to their own sterilisation, and puts in place legal protection for them. The amendment states that where a girl is unable to give informed consent, a health professional must apply to the Family Court, with supporting information from a second health professional identifying clearly that the procedure is medically necessary. The amendment also ensures that the girl has a lawyer to advocate for her interests and her views. This issue was raised by CCS in the select committee, and has been of concern to a great number of people for a very long time.

The fact is that sterilisation of young disabled girls is occurring in this country on non-medical grounds without their informed consent. There are many reasons for this, such as families being very concerned because they are unsure how to manage the temperamental issues that arise when a girl gets her period, or just general menstrual management issues. Those are serious problems for families, but there is no way that we in this country would allow the non-medical sterilisation of non-disabled children, yet we do at this time allow non-medical sterilisation of disabled children. In fact, that is a discriminatory process, and it cannot be justified.

The New Zealand Disability Strategy 2001 identifies those concerns, and its list of actions includes supporting disabled people in making their own choices about their relationships, sexuality, and reproductive potential; looking at ways to ensure that disabled young people are involved in decision making, to give them greater control over their lives; and ensuring that the criteria and considerations in terms of the health and reproductive-related treatment of disabled women are the same as those for non-disabled women.

The Ministry of Health report from 2002 analysed the prevalence of hysterectomies in young women with intellectual disabilities. In the period between 1997 and 2000, 24 patients with intellectual disabilities had a hysterectomy. Eight of those hysterectomies were performed for reasons such as genital abnormalities and cancer. Sixteen had hysterectomies for control of excessive and frequent menstruation. The report does note that in only one of those cases was the girl able to change her own sanitary protection. Those 16 cases were reviewed, and in 14 of them the average age for the hysterectomy was 15 years 7 months. The range of ages of the girls at the time of those hysterectomies was 13 years 5 months to 20 years. Of those patients, 12 were unable to participate in the decision-making consent process, at all, two did have limited ability to participate in the consent, in only one case was contraception seen as a necessary secondary function, and in 11 cases the use of contraception was not mentioned.

Starship Children’s Hospital has produced a pamphlet on this issue, and it notes that most girls and young women with intellectual disabilities can be taught how to manage their own menstrual hygiene perfectly well. One of the difficulties is that most problems with irregular, and sometimes heavy, periods occur in the first year or two of menstruation. We see hysterectomies being performed on young women in the early years of their menstrual cycle. In fact, in cases such as Re X, in 1990, the courts have allowed hysterectomies of girls before they begin menstruation, as a means to control and prevent menstruation in the future.

Those young disabled women are told that menstruation is a problem, that it is a negative thing and a difficulty that has to be fixed. In fact, they have a right to control over their own fertility and over their own bodies, and the right to be able to engage in their natural reproductive processes if they choose. Menstruation is not a problem, and not a negative; it is something that should be understood and recognised as natural to the species.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : Firstly, I want the Committee to note that we are in urgency on a Thursday night, on Part 2, and looking at passing 113 clauses about family law in a mad rush.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Who’s rushing?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will tell the Minister who is rushing. I sought to take a call on Part 1, and Damien O’Connor and that Minister voted for closure to prevent me from making a contribution, and he has the cheek to ask this Committee who is rushing. I ask the Minister: “Who moved that this House be in urgency?”. The Labour Government moved that we be in urgency. That Minister wants to socially engineer the most important institution in our nation—that being the family—without the proper scrutiny of this Parliament and the people of New Zealand.

Firstly, I compliment my colleague Judith Collins on bringing to this Parliament, rightly, a small element of this legislation, which is the issue of parents having the right to be informed if their daughter who is under the age of 16 is to have an abortion. I would have thought that if there were even the most minuscule respect in this Parliament for the role of parents, every member would support the amendments of Judith Collins. But so deep is the disrespect in this Government for the role of parents that not only with this clause but right through this part, we see an undermining of that most basic relationship between a mother and father and their child. The Minister is not—

Hon David Benson-Pope: What’s wrong with it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Is that not a cheek?

Hon David Benson-Pope: It says it all though, doesn’t it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The dirty Minister—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —the absolute scum in the chair—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know that members have some passionate views on this debate but that does not mean that we have to lower the tone in the Chamber. Unparliamentary comments are not necessary, and I ask both members to come to order.

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hansard record will show that Dr Nick Smith said: “the scum in the chair”, and on behalf of this Parliament I take deep offence at the denigration of the position of the Chair of this Parliament. When that member denigrates the Chair of this Parliament he denigrates us all.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has made his point. He has taken umbrage under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”.I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, made an interjection that was grossly inappropriate. Are you going to ask him to withdraw as well?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member also has taken objection under Standing Order 116. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What we see in this bill is a whole number of increased rights—increased powers for the courts, increased powers for lawyers, increased powers for social workers, increased powers for school counsellors, increased powers for iwi, increased powers for family groups, increased powers for partners. All these groups have increased powers—at the expense of parents. What the Minister in the chair ignores and what is completely ignored by Government Ministers and members responsible for this legislation is that the most important people in a child’s life are its mother and father. This Parliament has it all wrong, when it passes legislation that undermines the rights of parents.

Last year I saw fit to draw attention to the fact that perfectly good parents—a mum and a dad—in my electorate were shockingly denied the right to raise their own child. What this bill will do is create so many more injustices of that sort: mums and dads locked, wrongly, out of their children’s lives; and, in the case met by Judith Collin’s amendment, locked out of one of the most important, critical, sensitive decisions in the life of a child and a family.

I challenge members of the Government to get to their feet and debate these issues, because there is no area of law as important as family law, and there is no institution as important for children as the relationship they have with their mother and father.

This bill is just dripping with PC nonsense. We see, for instance, a radical provision whereby we no longer refer to “parents” but to family groups—whānau, hapū, or iwi—as if those vague phrases are somehow going to ensure that children in this country will get a better deal.

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice) : I am really interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, who talked about a “mad rush” with this legislation, and that he was denied the opportunity to make a speech, but on most occasions it is, in fact, self-preservation for him. Nick Smith is the only member I know of in this Parliament—I do not know of anybody else—who has been to the High Court, and on a parental issue, which he has just talked about, and the person concerned was asked her view, and that member was asked his view, and the court chose not to believe Nick Smith. The court found him unbelievable: would not believe him, could not believe him, and did not believe him. It found him in contempt of court, and found that he had attempted to scandalise the Family Court. Why was that? It was because of his attitude. [Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I just refer members on both sides to Speaker’s ruling 56/1 stating that interjections should be rare, reasonable, relevant, and, I might add, restrained. If people wish to make a speech, they can do so later. This is not the occasion for running commentaries.

Hon RICK BARKER: The point that Dr Nick Smith makes, I would endorse 100 percent. Parents are the most important people in the lives of children, but, sadly, there are exceptions. A parent has beaten a child to death before today. Parents have done some terrible things to their children before today. The responsibility of this society is to protect the children, not see them as parental property rights. If I had mistreated my kids, I would expect my neighbours, the court, and everybody else to step in and say: “You, Rick Barker, have mistreated your kids.”, and defend my children first. Because children are our future. That is what I would expect. [Interruption] I say to the member opposite, from my own personal experience, that I was at a school when one of my kids’ friends fell over, seriously ill, and was rushed to hospital. It turned out that she had had an illegal abortion. Why? She had done so because she could not tell her mother or father, whom I knew personally, of the circumstances in her life. That young woman will struggle forever to have children. Her life has been scarred because she would not tell, or could not tell, her parents. Because of the law, she felt driven to go to a backstreet abortionist.

That changed my attitude, and I say to members that, when it comes down to the kids and their future, and when it comes down to choice of a life for that young woman, because she could not deal with her parents, then we have to look after her interests first. That must be our concern, on every occasion. I say to Nick Smith that, yes, parents are important. I agree with that statement, absolutely. But when it comes to the most important issue, it is the interests of the young woman herself that must always be paramount.

I say to members opposite that if a young woman cannot go and talk to her parents, despite the best advice of the counsellors, the doctors, and all the rest of them, and the circumstances are such, whose rights then predominate? Is it the rights of her mother or father to know, or the rights of that individual young woman that are paramount? In certain circumstances, and it is very, very rare—this law has been in place since 1977 and there have been no problems—the young woman’s concerns have to be paramount.

I stress that point. On too many occasions in this country we have looked at parents’ rights as being paramount, and young kids have suffered, as a consequence. Too often we have turned our back on the circumstances of young children, because we have said that parents have the responsibility; that parents are in control. But those children have suffered. I say to young Nick Smith, and other members opposite, that we have to consider the young woman’s interests primarily.

Brian Connell: The child.

Hon RICK BARKER: Now they are saying “the child”, but I say to Brian Connell that young people today are very savvy; much more savvy than that member will ever be at the age of 65, and certainly vastly more savvy than he was at 16.

GORDON COPELAND (United Future) : I will be voting tonight in favour of the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by my colleague Murray Smith, and also for the Supplementary Order Paper introduced by Judith Collins. I want to congratulate both members on the considerable effort they have put into them. It is difficult for me to imagine a more intimate moment in a child-parent relationship than the decision to terminate a pregnancy through abortion when a girl is less than 16 years of age. It is tragic, of course, for the life of the unborn child, which is brought to an end. It is traumatic for the girl having to make such a serious decision at such a young age, as she is physically a woman but psychologically and mentally still a child. It is emotional for the parents who, as adults, are so aware of all the ramifications that will flow from that critical situation.

It is very wrong for the State to intrude into the affairs of a family at such a time. But that is exactly what we do if we do not change the law tonight to permit parental notification in those circumstances. A family needs to draw together in love at such a time, and the parents do not need to be kept in the dark.

I want to share with members a story from my own experience, and I mention it for the benefit of those who claim there is no problem with the present law. I am very good friends with a solo mother, a wonderful woman, who discovered, some time after the event, that her daughter of 14 had had an abortion. When she came to talk to her daughter about that, her daughter said: “Mum, when I found myself pregnant I felt very guilty. When I had the abortion I felt very guilty. But the greatest burden of guilt I have been carrying with me, mum, is the fact that you didn’t know.”

That is exactly the situation that applies in this country. The framers of the existing law, which has been here since 1977, did not envisage State sanction, and in fact State-created deception and secrecy at such a time. Yes, the law does uphold the right of the girl herself to make the final choice and not be forced into an abortion against her will or forced to give birth against her will. But the presumption was always that, either way, the parents would be involved. Never in those lawmakers’ wildest dreams—and I have spoken to people who were here at the time—did they envisage that a veil of secrecy would descend in such situations as the one I have described tonight, and that such situations would even actually occur. It never crossed their minds.

From that point of view, those who claim that this law is settled law, that it should not be changed, and that it has had no problems are either completely out of touch or, having made up their minds, do not want to be confused with the facts.

Hon Rick Barker: Oh! That’s rich.

GORDON COPELAND: Judicial bypass, which is suggested in the bill, I say to Minister Rick Barker, would solve the problem he has alluded to tonight. I do not know whether Minister Barker has read the Supplementary Order Paper, but he did not mention the fact that the Supplementary Order Papers of Judith Collins and my colleague have a judicial bypass system. I believe that that is vitally important, especially in the case of violence or incest. Such heinous crimes against young girls must not be left in the dark or swept under the rug, as they used to be in the Pitcairn Islands. The culprits must be brought to and made to face the full force of the law in such circumstances, and I tell members tonight in this Parliament that that is not happening. We have a problem in this country with incest, and it is swept under the carpet, and this existing law is being used as a means of keeping that information from the police and from the authorities involved.

Hon David Benson-Pope: Claptrap! Absolute claptrap!

GORDON COPELAND: It is absolutely correct, and I can give the member case histories showing that that is exactly what has happened.

Finally, let us not forget tonight those brave young women who chose to give birth against the wishes of their parents. If we visit the Susan Baragwanath school in Porirua, we will find many magnificent young women who are now mothers and whose parents wanted them to abort their children.

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to take a call on Part 2, and, like one of the previous speakers, I think it is a disgrace that this particular bill is going through under urgency. I do not know why the Government has decided that this particular bill should be dealt with late at night and rammed through. I cannot understand that. The bill has been many, many months in its gestation. There has been a huge number of hearings on it, and a lot of New Zealanders are very concerned about this change in the law. It changes laws that have been in place and largely working quite well for many, many years. Here we are in a bizarre manner, late at night, ramming this bill through. I would like one of the Government members, the Ministers who are present in the Chamber, to explain that to us, because none of us on the Opposition side of the Chamber understand why this is being done under urgency. I realise that it is being done with the support of United Future—

Gordon Copeland: No, no!

Dr MURIEL NEWMAN: —I am sorry; I take that back. It is being done with the support of the Green Party, so maybe the Green member could take the time to explain to us why we are here tonight.

The clause I want to talk about is clause 44. I have an amendment to set right an unfair and unjust situation that discriminates against children, fathers in particular, and grandparents, and that is the situation whereby in general, under our current family law, sole custody is awarded to mothers and, as a result, fathers and grandparents are excluded. That situation denies many New Zealand children the right to contact with their father. Tonight in this Chamber the Government could support the introduction of a presumption for rebuttable shared parenting. All that means is that just as parents are equal before a relationship breakdown, so too are they equal afterwards, unless one parent clearly is not fit to be a parent. If we change the law by introducing that simple provision, it would make sure that children are entitled to have the right to contact with both a mum and a dad after their families break down, instead of effectively losing their dad as so many of them do now. Tens of thousands of kids effectively lose contact with their fathers every year. The figures are pretty terrible. More children lose a father through divorce and separation in New Zealand today over a 3-month period than the number who lost a father during the entire period of the Second World War. There is an opportunity for this Government to support my amendment to this bill and to put that situation right.

It is a very sad day when the Government turns its back on what, to my mind, is surely an opportunity to fix a piece of law that, in practice, has become sadly detrimental to many New Zealand kids. I say that if the Government fails to do that—and I do not care what the words are—it will show that it does not care about children, and most certainly does not care about fathers. I am very disappointed that the only party to support my amendment is the National Party. The members of all the other parties in this Parliament, who try to tell us they care about kids and families, are not even supporting my amendment. If they have sat here in the Chamber in this debate they would realise the amendment is not going to pass, but they still will not even show their support for all the fathers who have lobbied individual members of Parliament and have had those members agreeing that, yes, we should change something.Now, when the time is here for those members to put their necks on the block and stand up for the rights of those fathers, they have all backed away. They are failing to stand and actually support the people to whom they have said privately that they agree with them.

There is still time to vote for my amendment to clause 44. I urge the Minister to support it; he knows my feelings on that particular clause. We tried to get the shared parenting measure written into the bill during the select committee process, and I would like him to support it.

Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) : I take the call in order to do a number of things. Firstly, I support the amendment in the name of my colleague Judith Collins, the MP for Clevedon. I have some numbers for the most poll-driven Government in the history of New Zealand. Let us listen to what the polls say about what Judith Collins is saying. The Government basically runs according to what the polls and the focus groups say, so let us see what it will do once it hears this information from the New Zealand Herald. Its poll asked people whether they thought a doctor should inform the parents if a girl under the age of 16 went to the doctor to seek an abortion and did not want them to know. Seventy-one percent of respondents said yes; 23 percent said no. The poll also asked people whether they thought the law should make it mandatory for the doctor to inform the girl’s parents. Sixty-one percent of respondents said yes; 34 percent said no. That is a clear message from the people of New Zealand.

I agree completely with my colleague the Hon Dr Nick Smith. Was the speech of the Minister for Courts not churlish and pathetic? That man, who has overseen the virtual collapse of the justice system in New Zealand, with more and more people being let off because he cannot organise the court system, stands up in Parliament and lectures Dr Nick Smith about defending his constituents. I have never seen Rick Barker put his head above the parapet to defend anybody from Hastings. I have never seen him come to Parliament and say something that may get him into the slightest bit of trouble in order to defend anyone from Hastings. Rick Barker is happy to come along to Parliament and just go with the flow, and take the ministerial perquisites associated with his job. I am very concerned about the very strong flavour of political correctness—

Hon Rick Barker: Contempt of court!

Hon TONY RYALL: He wants to talk about contempt of court. What about the contempt in which the Minister holds people who use the criminal justice system of this country, when victims are waiting 18 months to get justice? That is a contempt of court. It is a contempt of court that my constituents are waiting 18 months to have their cases heard, because of that Minister’s incompetence. The problem is that Rick Barker cannot be replaced. I do not think the Government can find another member of the Labour Party whose competence matches that of Rick Barker.

Do members realise what this bill does to undermine the rights of parents even further? This bill, as Mrs Collins points out, erodes parental rights. It proposes an amendment that will enable a parent to appoint as a guardian someone with whom he or she has lived for a year. If a parent has lived with someone for 365 days, that parent can go to the court and sign a form that makes that person a legal guardian. What is worse than that is that if the actual father of the child wants to become a guardian, he has to go and get a court order—he has to appear before a judge. But someone who has lived with the mother for a year gets to have—[Interruption] No, that is not right. I have read the bill. The father is not—

Lianne Dalziel: Read the bill.

Hon TONY RYALL: I tell the failed Minister from Christchurch to read clause 19. I do not believe what Lianne Dalziel says. I have never believed what she says and I do not believe what she says on this issue, because I am sure that is what she told TV3.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. It is like a hen house here in the Chamber. I say to honourable members that Parliament is a symbol of integrity, and the integrity of all honourable members is to be upheld. Every voice should be heard in accord with the Standing Orders, and we are well outside them at the moment. I ask members to be reasonable about interjections.

Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. We now find ourselves in a slightly difficult position. By my count, during the Hon Tony Ryall’s contribution you called Government members to order five times for their interjections. What action will you take in the Chair if the interjections continue—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. I refer members to Standing Order 84(3) and Speaker’s ruling 19/6. I ask members to please look at them.

Simon Power: What assurances can you give members of the Opposition who are making contributions during the Committee stage if your calling of members of the Government to order has no effect? What protection will you offer from the Chair to members on the Opposition side of the Chamber, and what action will follow if the warnings that you have been giving continue to be ignored?

Darren Hughes: I accept the point the senior Opposition whip makes that if you are calling the Committee to order, members should comply with that. But we are in a situation where there is a healthy degree of interjection from the Opposition when Government members are speaking in this debate. That is fine. That is reasonable, and our members can accept that. But whenever Opposition members are speaking and Government members interject on them, a high degree of preciousness seems to come through from the Opposition. I accept the point that we should follow your ruling, sir, but this is a robust debate and that has to cut both ways.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you; I have heard enough. I know that the Hon Tony Ryall is making some strong points, so it is reasonable to expect that some interjections will take place. That can be expected, but there should not be so much interjecting that the member who is speaking is drowned out. The Chair will not allow that. I also refer members to Speaker’s ruling 56/4: “it is highly disorderly … to persist in interjecting when the member has been called to order.” I ask the members in the Committee to play the game properly.

Hon TONY RYALL: I draw the attention of that member to clause 19, which states quite clearly that the father may apply to the court to be appointed as the guardian of the child. Lianne Dalziel did not tell TV3 that, did she? She is a former Minister who has voted in Parliament that property rights should apply to de facto couples after 2 years. It takes 2 years to get those property rights; it takes 1 year to become a guardian of a child. It takes 3 years to get rights—[Interruption] She proposed different amendments, I thought.

Hon Annette King: No.

Hon TONY RYALL: OK, she did not. The situation is even worse—it takes 3 years to get de facto property rights, and 1 year to be a guardian. That is not right. It takes 3 years—I apologise to the member—to get property rights, and 1 year to get the kid.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : When I first read the draft of this legislation I was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt, because I think some components of it are quite noteworthy. But all faith I had that members of the Government might have the interests of children at heart evaporated the moment I walked into the Chamber and saw who the Minister in the chair was. He is simply the conduit—the puppet—for a whole bunch of strong, barren women who make up the leadership of the Labour Party, and who want to re-engineer New Zealand families in their own image. I can tell those members that the public of New Zealand does not want to have one little bit of their legislation.

Rick Barker stood up in this Chamber and said he cared about children. If he does—and I challenge the member on this—then he will find that he has no alternative but to vote for Judith Collins’ amendment. I suggest that he read it. What Judith Collins is suggesting is that a young girl who finds herself in a position where she may want an abortion has the right to either go and tell her parents or have a medical practitioner go on her behalf to a judge and make sure that her position is clearly articulated. Now, it seems to me that that is fair and reasonable. The member opposite, Mr Barker, is looking at me very blankly, which is what he normally does. This time I think it is because he has not read the amendment. This legislation suggests that parents and fathers do not have rights. They are playing second fiddle to the politically correct aspirations of the Government. I say that it is wrong.

Rick Barker banged on about young women who are under 16 having an abortion, without even suggesting that they should talk to their mother or father in their hour of crisis. For goodness’ sake! He calls them young women. Thirteen or 14-year-old girls are simply that—girls. They are confused, and what they need is for their mum to put her arm around them and say “Darling, I understand. You can talk to me about this issue, and I will help you through it.” How traumatic must it be for a child to find herself in that circumstance? The heartless Labour Government would have us believe that in the best interests of children we should cut them loose, and leave them to their own devices to swim or drown. How heartless and ignorant is that? Only powerful women in the Labour Party who are childless could think that is a good idea. The fact that those women are surrounded by a whole bunch of weak, namby-pamby men just makes it worse. David Parker—the “Parker Pimpernel”—is making a guest appearance in the Chamber tonight. He is interjecting. That member has, by my reckoning, 38 flights left to Wellington.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) : I thank the previous speaker for the high praise he poured upon me. I say to him and members in the Chamber that it is a considerable honour to be part of a Government that is delivering good social policy around issues like this, which are extremely difficult.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just social engineering.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I say to Dr Smith that, with a judgment like his in his contempt of court case, I think his interjections are extremely untimely and unwise.

It is interesting that in the very substantial Part 2 of the Care of Children Bill, which has a very large number of clauses on guardianship, joint guardianship, dispute resolution, parenting orders, cases involving violence, the enforcement of New Zealand orders overseas, and international child abduction—among other things—virtually no one has focused for any time at all on anything other than clause 37, with the exception of Dr Newman who spoke about her amendment. I think that it is a backhanded compliment for the work of my colleagues in the select committee. I say thank you to them now and I will be saying a list of thankyous in due course for some fine work in an area of social policy that is extremely difficult and very sensitive. I commend them for the responsible decisions they have made and discussions they have had.

I am very sad that a number of members of the Opposition have already taken the opportunity for superficial political populism and the sorts of jousts that, sadly, we expect in this House, at what they see as a political target. That says more about the failures of the National Party to get popular support than about the issues involved. I regret that, as I am sure most members of the community do.

I wish to make some brief comments about clause 37. It is an important issue for our community, for families, for mums and dads, and a very important issue for young women. As I said in my second reading speech, I think it is essential, and the Government believes it is essential, that clause 37 is retained to provide good protection for some of our most vulnerable young women. The people whom I have discussed this with in the media and around the traps, inevitably—if they take a rational approach to the matter—understand why the decision that the royal commission made so long ago was the right one, when they think it through, even if they have had initial reservations about the issues. The key factor is that it is simply impossible to escape the conclusion that the sort of notification or judicial barrier that is suggested by some of the amendments on the table has the absolutely inescapable consequence of forcing young women to either carry to full term, or to have abortions, against their will. There is no way that that conclusion can be escaped. It would be nice if everyone enjoyed the situation that the majority of pregnant young women enjoy, who have the love and support of their parents and families and that they enjoyed that support in such difficult times around decisions about pregnancy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Most do.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: But as Dr Smith knows from the families that he has tried to advocate for, however unwisely, it is a fact that some young women do not live in that ideal situation. It is the job of Parliament to ensure that we make law on the basis of good, rational decisions and not irrational cant and appeals to people’s prejudice, as Judith Collins has—[Interruption].

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The member on my left knows that under Speaker’s ruling 56/1 running commentaries are out of order. I ask the member to desist.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Thank you for your ruling. Can you just clarify that if the Minister continues to shout at me, am I not allowed to interject back?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Interjections are permitted but they are to be rare, reasonable, restrained, and, as one of my colleagues used to say, if at all possible, witty.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I have already thanked my colleagues for their professionalism, maturity, and rationality in developing this policy and recommending the continuation of public policy that has been successfully operating for 27 years. I will also make another vote of thanks, and that is in response to the comments that Tony Ryall made earlier about media and community views on this matter. I will share with the Committee some of the comments that have come from editorial writers from around the country regarding clause 37 and that were overwhelmingly in support of the Government’s position.

The first of these is an editorial from the New Zealand Herald printed on 15 September of this year. I will read the whole thing and only small excerpts from the others. The title is “Abortion law best left as it stands”, and it states: “There is a tendency in public discussion to treat parenthood as a state that invests all who reach it with near saintly qualities of care and compassion. Sadly that is not so. Supporters and critics of the Collins amendment are talking about two different types of parent, both of whom exist in considerable number. Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship—

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I wish to assist the Minister. He is talking about an earlier Supplementary Order Paper written back in July, not the one that is currently under debate. I am sure that he does not wish to mislead the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry, that is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will know that, under Speakers’ rulings, members are to be referred to by their full name. I hope you pull the Minister up in that regard. Several times he referred to the member for Clevedon as “Collins”. She is Judith Collins, or the member for Clevedon.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): If that occurred, then I am at fault because I never heard it. If it was the case, Speaker’s rulings 26/7 and 26/8 state that members are to be referred to by their full names.

John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I happened to be listening to the debate on the radio in my room and heard reference to the matter of interjections and your ruling on the matter of interjections. You might care to remind the Minister that while he is in the chair he is not to interject, because he is on a live microphone.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I thank the member for that. That is perfectly correct. Can I just say that there is a convention in the Chamber that in Committee, members in charge of legislation should not take unfair advantage of a live microphone by way of interjection. It is good conduct and common courtesy not to. I add that courtesy is contagious and that we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of our Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I continue that quote from the New Zealand Herald on 15 September: “Parents who deserve to know of their daughter’s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship that means they would hear about it without mandatory instructions from the law. Conversely, those who would not hear about it cannot blame the law for a child’s secrecy. The law is working as well as it probably can. The rest is up to parents.” Two days later the , under the heading “Abortion change hard to justify”, stated: “We believe it is those girls in desperate straits who are in most need of the protection the present law affords. To remove that safeguard would create a new level of risk.” The on 14 September stated: “… if the law is to be changed it will undoubtedly work against the best interests of a small number of especially unfortunate individuals—young women who belong to dysfunctional and abusive families where they can expect condemnation or worse, rather than support, and where another family member might be the cause of their pregnancy.” The , under the heading “Abortion law spectre” stated: “However, the spectre of the bad old days of backstreet abortions, which the royal commission into contraception, sterilisation and abortion sought to overcome, looms. Any law change that results in that should be rejected.”

The Otago Daily Times, on the 16th of the same month, stated: “The Government and professional medical bodies have pointed out young pregnant girls are advised by family doctors to tell their parents and seek support. That is as it should be.”

I have two more votes of thanks to give at this time. The first is to the number of professional organisations, including doctors’ organisations, who have made their overwhelming support of the Government position abundantly clear. I thank them for taking the trouble to do that. Lastly, I say a profound thank you on behalf of the Government to the group—some of whom are no longer with us—who made up the royal commission that sat in 1977. In 1977 it was the view of that royal commission that to remove choice for young women would lead them to be coerced into having an abortion or to consider continuing a pregnancy against their wishes. The simple fact is that nothing has changed in the last 27 years to alter that view. I am profoundly sad that the shallow populism of the Opposition has forced it to take the ridiculous position it has.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that insult of calling me shallow.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has taken offence under the Standing Order “Personal reflections”. The member is entitled to ask for a retraction. I ask the member—[Interruption] I have ruled, Mr Barker. The member concerned has taken issue under Standing Order 116, “Personal reflections”, and she is entitled to do that. I call on the Minister to withdraw.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Mr Chairperson, can you explain to me what I am apologising for? I did not name Mrs Collins.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Mrs Collins has taken umbrage at what the Minister said. She considers that a personal reflection. I ask him to withdraw.

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I withdraw.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I note that in his contribution the Minister expressed his disappointment that most speakers were concentrating on clause 37 in this part and not on any of the other 112 quite important clauses about family law. The reason is that, given the closures that were moved at an early stage by the Government, there is no confidence among members who want to discuss both that issue—

Hon Annette King: What’s your point of order?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I am coming to a point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Please do.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The Minister, quite appropriately, spoke at some length on that issue on which members wish to make a contribution. I seek the leave of the Committee to ensure that this debate is granted at least a further 2 hours, so that there can be a debate. The Minister has rightly said that there are 113 clauses. The vast bulk of the speeches have been on that single issue, which is a conscience vote. That is why I seek leave so that the Committee may properly debate those other 112 changes in the law.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : Initially I did not intend to take a call on this bill, but I am very pleased to do so. I am particularly pleased to follow the Minister, David Benson-Pope, because if I was not confused before, I am now. My understanding is that Judith Collins’ amendment is about notifying the parents—

Hon Member: That’s very moderate.

PETER BROWN:—that is very moderate—not about stopping an abortion from going ahead. It is about parents being notified. I draw the Minister’s attention—and I would like him to respond to this—to the commentary on the bill. I do not want any confusion so I will read it. It states: “Labour and Green members recommend that clause 37 remain unchanged. It has existed in the Guardianship Act since it was introduced in the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977 as a result of the following recommendation of the Royal Commission on Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion:”. It then states: “That legislation be enacted to provide that the consent of a girl under the age of 20 years shall, notwithstanding the advice of her parents or guardian, have the same effect as if she were of full age, provided that grounds for legal abortion exist,” and it goes on. That seems to me to imply that the royal commission recognised that parents had a role in that.

Judith Collins: That’s exactly right.

PETER BROWN: I know I am just a simple sailor, but that seems to run it home to me. Every so often a bill comes into this House that touches the personal accord in one’s own being. This bill—unbeknown to me when I walked to the Chamber tonight—has touched mine, and no speech more so than that by Gordon Copeland. Some years ago when my children—a son and a daughter—were little, they lost their mother. My daughter was not even a teenager; my son was. That would have been the worst period in my life by far. I really do not know what I would have done had my daughter had an affair, or whatever—she did not—had an abortion, and not told me. It would have broken my heart. When Gordon Copeland spoke about the solo mum and the daughter who said that the real tough bit was that she did not tell her, it brought water to my eyes.

Parents give a lot to their kids. I know I have. I do not claim to be the best. I am very proud of my two kids. I married again; my second wife has her three kids, and we have five great adults now. My son is now an airline pilot and my daughter is a manager in an accounting firm in Auckland, so I am absolutely proud of them. But had they gone through that and not told me, I would have been devastated. I certainly would not have been here today; I do not know whether I would have been on this earth, to be honest. I would have felt such a failure that I do not know how I would have coped. It was Gordon Copeland’s little speech that really hit it home to me how I could have been in those circumstances.

It is not reasonable or proper to withhold that sort of information from a parent. It is not, especially from a caring parent who has a good track record. It is not reasonable or proper to withhold that sort of information from a good parent, simply because there are some bad buggers out there. That is not fair. That is not the way we do things. I understand that there are some bad parents, and I think that is a problem in itself. To some considerable degree, Judith Collins’ Supplementary Order Paper addresses that issue. But we cannot punish the good parents, or hold them to ransom, because there are some bad ones. That is what I call “community punishment”. We punish everybody because there is a bad guy. That is what the Nazis did in the war. They punished the good guys because they could not find the bad guys. It is the same philosophy.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : It is 35 years since the Guardianship Act was passed. It was 1977 that saw the amendments that introduced the section of the Act that is simply repeated in clause 37 of the bill. No changes have been proposed to the clause from what has been the law since 1977. Has anyone produced any evidence to support the need for change? No. I know that some members will vote for the Supplementary Order Paper, not because they think it will pass with their support—in fact, they are confident that it will not pass—but because they want to show support to a colleague. That is not good enough. There are stories of MPs who stood by the lobby doors counting the numbers as they went through so they could be seen to be opposing homosexual law reform, even though they supported it. There is no credibility in adopting that position.

We need to vote on principle. The principle is to be found in the report of the Royal Commission to Inquire into and Report upon Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion, because the clause comes from its well-considered, balanced report that gave us the legislative framework to work within an area that is hard. It is hard. No woman or girl, no matter her age, wants to find herself in the position of choosing to either terminate or continue a pregnancy that was unplanned, and it is unplanned pregnancies that are the problem.

I know there is not one mother or father in this Chamber who would not want to know if his or her daughter were pregnant, nor would we want any child or young person to have to make a decision about that pregnancy on her own. We all know that when most families are confronted with hard situations—that call on them to suspend the judgment of moral behaviour that sex before marriage, let alone before the age of consent, requires them to do—they will do so, and offer all the love and support they can. They will almost always respect their daughter’s choice, whether she wants to continue with the pregnancy or terminate it. I do not believe there is a single parent in this Chamber who would force his or her daughter, against her will, into either an abortion clinic or a birthing unit.

But please let us not judge by our own standards what others would do. Much has been said about good parents being the majority, and that we are legislating against good parents. We are not. In 1977, we legislated to protect the minority. The good ones are not punished by this law. The good ones will be told. The good ones will support their children making good choices. We know from the New Zealand Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, and the Family Planning Association that doctors advise those young girls and young women to talk to their parents, and almost all do speak to parents or to another significant adult in their lives.

I heard Judith Collins say she would not want to have a daughter who came home and told her that she was pregnant at age 14 and that she wanted an abortion. If anyone’s daughter felt like that, and there was a risk of a violent reaction to the news of the pregnancy, or of being forced into an abortion or giving birth against her will, then would she even go to a doctor if she knew that the doctor would be required to notify her parents? If she were to go home and be kicked and beaten by an angry parent who called her a slut and a whore, would she even go to the doctor? That is the issue here.

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is bad enough having my speech misrepresented in that way without having the words “slut” and “whore” thrown around in this debate on such an incredibly sensitive issue. I think the member should not go ahead with that sort of language.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. The member has said nothing that needs a point of order ruled on.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order!

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Does the member have a new point of order? I have ruled on Judith Collins’ point of order. There is nothing to rule. It is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is a longstanding convention, which has been ruled on by Speakers on a number of times, that family are not to be brought into debates in the House. I find it quite offensive that on such a sensitive issue—and I understand there are strong passions—for a member to make assertions about what a parent in this Parliament would do in the unfortunate situation of having a child who was considering an abortion. If the Committee this evening is going to—[Interruption] She did. The member on her feet made direct assertions about what my colleague Judith Collins would do if her daughter—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member will be seated. I have ruled on the point of order. There was nothing to rule. The member is quite wrong. It was not—

Hon Dr Nick Smith:It is a different point of order.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): No, the member—

Hon Dr Nick Smith:If you want to bring the Committee into disorder tonight, I say that I heard, very distinctly, Lianne Dalziel referring to what my colleague Judith Collins would do in the event her child was to have an abortion. I do not think this Committee can have a quality debate if it is not based on the longstanding convention that we do not bring our children into such debates in this Chamber.

LIANNE DALZIEL: If she were going to go home and be kicked and beaten—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have ruled on the point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith:I notice Damien O’Connor over there. If we are to have children brought into this debate, it is a two-sided game, and I do not think the Committee wants to go down that track. I ask you, Madam Chair, to make a strong ruling to ensure that our families are properly protected in this Chamber.

Hon Mark Burton: I think I can assist the member. Lianne Dalziel was not referring to the children of any member in the House. I was listening very carefully. The member was referring to a hypothetical child going home and having that experience. I think this is a serious debate, and I think the member should listen carefully. We all should listen to each other’s viewpoints and treat them with respect.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): The member makes a good point. That is exactly what I heard.

LIANNE DALZIEL: I have made it very clear that there is not a member in the Chamber who would behave in that way. The issue, though, is that I would rather that young girls and women knew that the doctor-patient confidentiality that applies in all other cases would apply here. Otherwise they will seek advice from people who are not doctors. The result will be increased back-street abortions and botched attempts at abortion, as well as more births of children to children. We cannot have that on our consciences as a Parliament. The royal commission developed the principle that should be applied, and I really cannot believe that the 1977 Parliament was more enlightened than the one we have today. The bottom line is that we do have to legislate to protect the interests of the minority. The majority of parents—loving, good parents—will support their daughters when they are in that situation, but, unfortunately, there are many who will not.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : Yesterday in the United States there were a number of elections. In one state, one of those elections was, in fact, a referendum. It is common practice in the United States for the people to decide these kinds of issues directly. That is something this country could learn from. In Florida, on the issue of parental notification, 65 percent—4.5 million voters—of the people said there should be parental notification, and 35 percent said no. That proposition was not just blanket parental notification; it referred to the state of Florida providing proper exemption provisions and waiver of notification. It was a nuanced approach. Those numbers are remarkably similar to the poll in the New Zealand Herald. Seventy-one percent said yes to parental notification, and 23 percent said no.

Listening to members of the Government, including Lianne Dalziel and the Associate Minister of Justice, I have to wonder whether they have even read Judith Collins’ amendments. She has put a modest proposal specifically designed to reach the widest numbers in this House. The amendment to clause 35, which inserts a new subclause (6A), states that, prima facie, there must be a notification. But whom is that notification to? It is to the doctor. The doctor must be advised, and that is what her proposed clause 37A states. If the child says: “No, I do not want my parents notified.”, then the only process that takes place is that the doctor notifies a judge of the Family Court in writing. Ultimately, in fact, the young person, whose medical practitioner must keep the matter in confidence, gets to make that choice. If we listened to Government members, we would have no sense that that is what these amendments propose. They are reasonable and modest amendments, and I just wish that Government members would read them and consider them carefully.

The Minister talked today about the royal commission. I have spoken to a member of the royal commission. I will be honest: my wife was a member of that royal commission. At that time she was a young woman, and she has said the consent issue was dealt with carefully. No one on that commission considered that the consent of the young child would be required. But on the issue of the notification the commission was silent. It is certainly DeneseHēnare’s view that notification, certainly in the terms framed by Judith Collins, is entirely within the intent of the royal commission’s report.

Hon David Benson-Pope: That’s not true. That’s not right.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister simply has not read these amendments, because if he understood them, he would realise they are actually designed to meet the very objections and concerns that he has raised and that Lianne Dalziel has raised. People on this side of the Chamber and in other parties do understand the tremendous difficulties that a young girl in this situation is faced with. We have to provide reasonable opportunities for her to be able to express her view without intimidation, in some cases, and to be able to put it in a way that there is a sense of confidence that the young girl’s wishes will be recognised. These amendments do precisely that. Frankly, I cannot see why these amendments do not have pretty much the universal endorsement of the Committee. My colleague Judith Collins has laboured long and hard on these amendments. She has talked to a huge number of people, including medical professionals and the professional bodies, and they support them.

DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) : I move, That the question be now put.

JUDY TURNER (United Future) : I specifically want to talk about clause 37, because I did spend an entire day on the Justice and Electoral Committee when this clause was being considered, replacing my colleague Murray Smith. I want to talk about the issues that came up at that time.

The committee seemed to be obsessed with the risks associated with informing parents about their child’s condition. It was very hard to bring to the committee’s attention the thought that there were risks involved in not informing the child’s parents that their child was planning a termination. I am talking here about risks to the child, not risks to the parents. Let me tell members about a case that happened in my own town, where parents woke up in the middle of the night to discover that their teenage girl was haemorrhaging in her bed. They got her to hospital in time for a lifesaving blood transfusion, but in the process discovered that she had had a termination of which they had been unaware. They are just grateful they did not wake up in the morning to a dead child. When we talk about a surgical procedure, we are talking about risks. When we exclude from knowledge of those risks the very people who are in the house that night and may have to deal with them, we create a whole set of risks.

Everybody, on either side of the argument, agrees with one thing: we all agree that we must see best practice, for the sake of the child. We all agree that best practice includes that the parents should know. So why, then, are we legislating against best practice? Because that is what we are doing. We are legislating for the lowest common denominator, because there are one or two parents in the mix who will mishandle the information. None of us who is opposed to this clause is opposed to the idea of an exemption clause that would allow responsible adults to make an informed decision if there really was genuine risk to a young woman who wants a termination, and, for genuine reasons, cannot inform her parents. Nobody is against that, but we do not want law that is written for the lowest common denominator and excludes—as my colleague Peter Brown said—the vast number of concerned parents.

I find it very hard as a parent to separate my heart from this issue. I probably have more teenagers through my home on a weekly basis than most members in this Chamber would. I care passionately about young people. Because of the health programmes we have in our schools, young people today are a lot more informed, and a lot clearer about the issues, than I was as a young person. The situation has changed immensely. To me, it is safer than it ever was for parents to be notified, because of those kinds of programmes and the understanding that young people have.

One of the other things we have to understand about this issue is that we are talking about children who are developmentally going through a very interesting phase; they are individuating from their parents at that point in time. It is very natural for a young girl who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy to say to the school counsellor, or say to the doctor: “My parents are going to kill me.” It is a natural reaction. It does not mean that they will kill her; it is just the reaction that comes out of her mouth. She is a little scared, a little anxious. It is no reflection on the home from where she comes; it is a reflection that she is a young person who has got herself in a sticky situation, and is a little bit worried about how she will broach the subject with her mum and dad. That we would sanction a wedge between the parents and the child on this vital issue is absolutely criminal, and I am very concerned about it.

We should be talking here about supported notification, about people who are in possession of the facts supporting this young person. Let us ask ourselves a question. Let us go past the initial crisis. Let us go past the first week, the first month, the first year. What is happening now in this young woman’s life? She now has a huge amount of guilt because she has kept a huge issue from her parents. She is now finding it difficult to relate to her parents. I have had mothers and fathers in my home talking about the fact that they do not know what has gone wrong with this kid whom they had a relationship with. They are trying to figure it out. Is the child in the wrong school? Is she being bullied at school? They have been down to the school to try to get information, but they cannot work it out. She is failing at school.

MITA RIRINUI (Labour—Waiariki) : I move, That the question be now put.

METIRIA TUREI (Green) : I just want to complete the Green Party position on our amendment to Part 2 in the name of my colleague Sue Bradford. Menstruation is not a problem; it is a natural function of a female. The right of women to decide over reproduction and reproductive health is a fundamental human right. That fundamental human right belongs to all women regardless of whether they are disabled or not disabled. It has been a long, hard-fought struggle by women all over the world to ensure that they do have control of decision making over their own reproduction. It is critical that in New Zealand law those hard-won human rights apply to all women, and are not applied discriminatorily.

Sterilisation of young disabled women occurs for menstrual management, not for medical reasons. Where there is no medical need for sterilisation, it is critical that sterilisation does not occur. Disabled children are entitled to have the same access to health care as others have, and have the right to live as others live. Disabled people must have the same right as other people to be parents. The fact is there is a lack of legal safeguard to ensure the well-being and protection of disabled girls. The fact is they are not protected from non-medical sterilisation. They are not protected by an official, mandatory, legal process that means they are able to be informed and be part of the decision making over their own reproductive health.

The amendment that the Green Party has put forward will ensure that a young woman who, through age or impairment, is not able to give informed consent is provided with a legal pathway of protection to ensure that she is not sterilised for non-medical reasons. We urge the Committee to support this amendment on this very critical issue.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I too rise to speak on this issue of clause 37. It is a very important part of this bill, and it deserves the attention of the members of this Committee. The Minister, in defence of the Government’s position, has read out to us this evening articles from newspapers around New Zealand, as though we are supposed to take the authority of editorial writers—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there was far too much talk during the last member’s speech. I ask everybody to give those who are speaking the courtesy of some quiet.

LARRY BALDOCK: I do not believe that we ought to be letting our newspaper columnists determine what is in the good interests of children and parents of this country, so I am not impressed with the Minister’s evidence. Also, the professionals who have cried out to us to support the bill do not impress me, either. Many professionals miss the reality of how much risk is involved in an abortion. It is a surgical procedure, as my colleague Judy Turner pointed out before, and it is not something that one can enter into lightly. It would be different, perhaps, if the bill required young people to go to their own general practitioner, who has a history of a relationship with the family, and who may give better advice than some doctor or professional somewhere to whom a counsellor from the school may take the child.

All MPs come to this House with experience of different occupations previously. Lianne Dalziel asked us where the evidence was that something was going wrong with this legislation in New Zealand. I want to bring my evidence to this debate. It comes out of 20 years of experience.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I have already asked members to be seated and quiet. The noise is not acceptable. The member is really struggling to be heard.

LARRY BALDOCK: For more than 20 years I travelled the world ministering to young people on a particular subject relating to their relationship with their parents and other family members. One of the single most important factors in the breakdown of their relationships is secrets they have kept, involving a variety of issues, which begin to undermine an open and loving relationship with their parents and other family members. On hundreds of occasions I have had to hold young people in my arms as they wept uncontrollably with the shame and guilt they have carried for years because of something they did wrong, or because of something wrong that was done to them, and that was kept secret from others. In fact, they lived in fear of that secret ever becoming known. The problem is that the fear and the secrecy do not go away. They continue to intensify in their relationships with their parents, and create wider and wider gulfs in that relationship—a relationship that ought to be a normal and happy one. I have even had to deal with people who were 75 years old who had had an abortion when they were young and had not told their parents. They had carried that secret for all those years, and could not resolve it because they had not been prepared to come to terms with their need to share it with their parents.

Parents are unique individuals. Not just anybody can be a parent. Parents play a unique role in our lives. Even parents who are not good parents still have an incredible bond with us, and we with them, and any difficulties have to be resolved through good relationships with them. Sometimes it is painful to confess things to our parents and to have to face the possible consequences of their being disappointed in our actions. But for healthy relationships to develop, it is essential that someone helps us get through that process, so that we do not carry deeply held secrets in our lives that ultimately will spill over into many areas, affecting our ability to relate in life with not only our parents but many others.

I believe that this law is creating a situation that will encourage children to keep things secret. I do not trust the professionals in our nation. I do not trust the Family Planning Association to give the right kind of advice, because it does not take on the responsibility of parents. It deals with these children, then leaves them to go on in life and face the consequences of these decisions. It is not committed to them year in and year out, helping them to work things through. Parents have a right to be involved in these important decisions.

The proposals put forward in these amendments offer very, very practical solutions to deal with the exceptions to the circumstances that have been raised by those who are in support of this legislation. There are many nations in this world, and there are many states in the United States, that have a requirement for parent notification, and it does not result in the nightmarish situations that have been put forward by those who are supporting this legislation. It is possible to have reasonably held exceptions that can deal with the problems that have been put forward. That is what we propose when we ask the Committee to consider these amendments.

STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I move, That the question be now put.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : I am very pleased to be able to speak on the Care of Children Bill. I am deeply concerned that it is being debated under urgency. It is very important to put into perspective just how important this bill is to New Zealand. A few weeks ago I was in a debate with the Children’s Commissioner, and she made the point that between 1989 and 2000, 111 New Zealand children were killed in their homes by their parents or relatives, and 1,743 were admitted to hospital as a result of non-accidental injuries inflicted by others. Those tragic events occurred mostly within families. Madam Chair, I urge that you give this debate its full time this evening and, if necessary, extend it over until tomorrow, because there is a crisis in New Zealand and it is hugely important that we as a Parliament address it seriously and constructively.

I remember very clearly being a registrar and house surgeon in south Auckland when the royal commission was deliberating. I saw young women who had been beaten by their families because they were pregnant being brought into Middlemore Hospital. I remember seeing women being sent off to Australia through the Sisters Overseas Service system, and women who were seriously morbid because of backstreet abortions. What has happened in the intervening years has been serious for New Zealand, because we now have abortion rates that are very high by international standards compared with, say, the rates of the Netherlands, which are one-third of ours. I do not believe that we have seriously addressed proper reproductive health strategies in this country. In the Netherlands there has been an emphasis on proper resourcing, on openness, on lifelong education, on accessibility to contraception and sterilisation, and on a safe abortion service. I think it is hugely important for this Parliament to address the issues of having a proper and well-resourced sexual reproductive health strategy in this country. We are failing, not only in terms of the children who are being abused and traumatised in their homes but at every level from conception onwards, and that must be addressed.

As a young registrar I saw those young women, and I think it is important to also realise that letting the parents or the perpetrators of such beatings get away with that is absolutely unacceptable. I think that is one of the strengths of what Judith Collins has brought to this Committee in the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 293 in her name. It is hugely important that we do everything possible to ensure that parents are involved. I know that I have seen, as the constituent MP for Port Waikato, increasing numbers of mothers come to me and say that they have been left out of the circuit when it comes to contraception. The school councillors or the school have taken over, and that worries me greatly. I am very pleased that Judith Collins has brought out the amendment to insert new clause 37B, because we do not have good data on the situation. The numbers are very small; there is no doubt about that. I think it is a very sensible suggestion that we get the Abortion Supervisory Committee to collate data and do research in order to try to work out the most constructive ways to address this extremely important problem. It is vital to ensure that young women do not return to incestuous or violent homes. It is vital that the perpetrators of violence are, indeed, held to account. It is also absolutely vital to people such as myself that there be an optimal doctor-patient relationship.

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister for Racing) : I move, That the question be now put.

RON MARK (NZ First) : What an interesting debate this has been. I do hope it is allowed to continue, because I have sat in my office and listened to the radio, and probably some of the most inflammatory comments I have heard have been those that I have just heard now from the distinguished member of the medical profession, Dr Paul Hutchison. On the back of Larry Baldock’s contribution, which ironically was in support of Judith Collins’ amendments, I actually wondered which planet some members live on. I suggest to members that it does not matter one hoot or one iota how much time we spend wringing our hands, and analysing ways to collect the appropriate data or to do research into finding ways to stop young ladies from getting pregnant. The facts are that when one has a Government that advocates decriminalising marijuana, thereby promoting its use, when people blatantly advocate that the use of recreational drugs is one’s right, when the drinking age is lowered from 20 to 18—and therefore the de facto age to 12 and 13—and when one allows young men to pull up outside a bottle store, buy a case of Canterbury Draught and 24 ready-to-drinks, and chuck them in the back seat where 14 and 15-year-old girls are sitting, girls will get pregnant. It does not matter how much hand-wringing we do in our little medical practices, because we will not stop that. It does not matter whether we pull out the bogeyman.

Everyone wants to justify this legislation by talking about incest. Everyone wants to justify opposing Judith Collins by talking about violence in the home. Well, let me tell members how to stop violence in the home: lock the beggars up the first time they violently bash their wives. Instead of locking the beggar up for a lifetime when he bashes or kills a child, he gets 3 years in jail and is out in 12 months, doing back-end home detention. Those are the simple things that we can do to protect children. Do we do them? No. We bring in legislation such as this, and tell the whole world we are doing it for the sake of children. Well, yeah! James Whakaruru is dead. Why? Because successive Governments—successive administrations—have been too soft, too genteel, and too easy on criminals. We let them out of jail again, knowing full well that 85 percent of them will reoffend and be back in jail in 5 years, and we hope to God that on the way there they do not kill another child. I do not want to hear any more of that hypocrisy and drivel. For me, and for many of my colleagues in New Zealand First, the answers are simple—they are black and white. If a man beats a woman, he is a wife-beater. The chances are he is also a child-beater. Where should he be? He should be locked up—not given counselling, and not given a heart-wrenching opportunity to explain that because he is short, bald, brown, and from a broken home he has the God-given right to do such a thing. Crap! Have members heard it? It is rubbish. We only promote such behaviour when we refuse to deal with it in the way that it needs to be dealt with.

The same goes for all the liberalism and the garbage that we hear to justify the lowering of the drinking age. Mr Anderton sits there and justifies raising the sherry tax on pensioners because that was to stop binge drinking. Did it stop binge drinking? No. Is the problem worse? Yes. Do all the reports state it is worse? Yes. Has the Government moved to retract the law or repeal it? No. Have girls become pregnant? Yes. Many of the young men out on the streets do not care about that. They get their jollies on the night. They have a flash little car, and cruise the streets to pick up young ladies. They drop the booze in the back seats, and some poor mother and father, under this legislation, is not even entitled to know that their daughter has to have an abortion as a result of that.

I take on board the comments from Judy Turner. That was one of the best speeches I have heard in the Chamber, probably because she has a lot of contact with young people, as I did when I owned and ran Daytona Park in Christchurch. We had young people sleeping on our lounge room floor day in, day out, week in, week out, and we knew that those young people could come and talk to us. It is the truth—and this has been said before—that some kids cannot talk to their parents. But I tell members that the amendment allows for those people who do care, the good parents, to get to know about abortions as of right.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : I firstly want to compliment both Dr Paul Hutchison and Judith Collins for the way in which they have presented a very balanced, thoughtful amendment about the intense issue of women under the age of 16 wanting abortions, and the respective role of parents.

I want to make a contribution on another issue that is equally important, and that is in respect of the way in which this Minister and this Labour Government are proposing the appointment of guardians. What we have in clauses 21 to 23 is a recipe for parents coming in and out of children’s lives like one would not believe. I have a very simple question for the Minister in the chair, Mr Benson-Pope. Why is it that it takes 3 years for a de facto relationship to result in property rights—rights to home, car, and assets—but only 1 year to be able to become the guardian of a child? That is right—under this bill, if one shacks up with a woman for 1 year, one has the ability to get full guardianship rights over the child. There is no need to get married. In fact, the bill states that it actually makes no difference whether one is married. As Dail Jones correctly points out, it does not even matter what sex one is when it comes to picking up these rights as a guardian. What sort of recipe is that for children? If there is anything that stands out in the social research, it is that stability of parent-adult relationships in children’s lives is one of the most important elements in those children’s lives.

I ask the Minister in the chair and the member for Rotorua why children are less important than property. Why is it that, under this Labour Government, a person in a de facto relationship can have half the property after 3 years but can get all those important rights as guardian after only 1 year? Those members opposite have absolutely no respect or understanding about what is important to children succeeding. Those long-term relationships are absolutely pivotal. The reality of that clause is that there will be children with dads in and out of their lives like a rotating circus. There will be children with one, two, five, or 10 guardians. Some are responsible for the tragedies that go on in homes, and the Minister in the chair thinks that is OK. [Interruption] He has confirmed it. He thinks that it is a good idea. He thinks that it is appropriate to shack up for only 1 year and pick up the same rights.

Hon David Benson-Pope: That’s not what I said. Don’t misrepresent me.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I notice that again, when I made my contribution in this debate, the Minister in the chair has breached a longstanding convention that members do not interject on a speech, and I ask you to correct him.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, I have corrected him. Please continue.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister in the chair is saying that cars, houses, and household goods are more important than children. Only a Labour Minister would try to impose that sort of insult on the children of New Zealand, rather than say that children are the most precious thing in our country. They deserve protection.

Hon Marian Hobbs: They’re not property.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They are not property—so Ms Hobbs should get to her feet, contribute to this debate, and explain to me why this bill states that one can get full rights of guardianship after shacking up for only 1 year but for property one can get full rights after 3 years. Children are far more important than property. One has to go to court to get access to property, but one does not even have to go to court to be able to have full rights as a guardian. This will impact on hundreds of thousands of children in New Zealand. I ask any member of the Labour Party to explain that contradiction.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) : I move, That the question be now put.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There will be successive votes?

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Yes, there will be successive votes.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Mr Jones’ Supplementary Order Paper is included in that motion as well. You did not mention Mr Jones’ Supplementary Order Paper.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of Murray Smith to clause 37 be agreed to.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I seek leave of the House to record Larry Baldock’s vote in favour of my amendment. It was omitted by accident from the vote.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Is there any objection to adding one more vote to the Ayes on Mr Smith’s previous amendment? There is not.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Judith Collins to insert new clause 37B be agreed to.