Care of Children Bill

Part 4 has some quite good provisions in relation to tidying up the law on paternity for children born as a result of assisted human reproduction. However, yet again there is an opportunity missed. It seems to me that it is great to have some acceptance that the definition of blood tests will now include not only blood samples but also buccal samples and DNA profiles.

That is really important for children because under the old law, blood testing for parentage could only really say whether the alleged father, for instance, was not the parent. It could not say that the father was the parent. It was always in the negative. But with the new technology in relation to DNA, that sort of certainty can now be given with about 99.9 percent accuracy. It does not require a blood test; now only a buccal sample is needed. For the benefit of people listening, that just means a swab in the mouth with a cotton bud for some saliva. That is all that is needed.

I would like to hear from the Minister whether that will be something that a child or a mother can require someone who claims to be a father to undergo—not just in relation to the assisted human reproductive technology, but also in relation to paternity generally, because this country has a problem with fatherless children. We are constantly told that Mum does not know who the father is. The last time I heard the total, there were 36,000 children in this country who do not have any father registered for them on their birth certificates. One of the awful things is that those children—and those children’s children and their children after them—do not seem to have any right to know for certain who their father is.

One of the problems at the moment, as I understand the law, is that fathers are not required to undergo those paternity tests. The old restriction on the fatherhood test has been because of what is considered the invasion of blood testing. We do not need blood testing now, so I would like to hear from the Minister whether there will be a change to the requirement, so that someone whom the mother claims to be the father of her child can be forced to undergo buccal testing. Perhaps the law has been changed since I last looked at it but I recall, and Mr Jones from New Zealand First just told me that he also recalls, that we discussed the issue during the select committee process. However, in the end nothing was actually decided about it.

Perhaps the Minister could look at the issue, because it seems to be a real anomaly. On the one hand, we stand up in Parliament day in and day out talking about the need for children to know who their fathers are—well, some of us do—and, on the other hand, we have an opportunity with this law to change the rules so that those people who do not want to take on the responsibilities of fatherhood, even though they should, do not get away with it.

That is very, very important. It is for the benefit of children, for the benefit of mothers, and of course for the benefit of generations to come because, as I constantly say in this Chamber and will continue to do so, every child needs to know his or her whakapapa. Every child needs to know where he or she comes from—even if that might cause some people some embarrassment—because the child should be first and foremost in our minds. One thing the child needs is a father.

I am pleased to see there is some attempt to deal with assisted human reproductive technology and with the way parenthood needs to be established for the benefit of children. Having said that, I think the wording around some of these things is very complicated and fuzzy. I note there is still provision for the lesbian fathers’ clause. I see that Mr Jones from New Zealand First has put forward an amendment, which I will suggest we should look at because it deals with the absurdity of that.

The purpose of Part 4 is described in section 13(a) of Part 2, inserted by clause 167, as being “to remove uncertainty about the status of children conceived as a result of AHR procedures:”. It seems extraordinary that that is the stated purpose, because what the Labour Party has created in this morass of politically correct nonsense just cements, once more, total uncertainty over the status of children conceived as a result of assisted human reproductive procedures. I believe that Dail Jones will move an amendment to try to clear that up, but with this Labour Government it is very difficult to do so, because the Government is absolutely all over the place.

The offending part comes in section 14(2) of Part 2, inserted by clause 167, which points out: “A woman who is not the birth mother of a child but who, by operation of this Part, is a parent of the child must, for the purposes of an enactment or rule of law (other than this Part) that refers to, or contemplates, a mother and a father of, or 2 parents of, a child, be treated so far as practicable in the same manner as the father of, or as the other parent of, the child.”

Well, which way does the Labour Party want to have it? It just cannot help mixing itself up in a morass of political correctness. Why can it not call a spade a spade? Why can it not call a woman a woman and celebrate that, and a man a man and celebrate that, and celebrate whatever might be the combination? But, no, the Government has to jumble it up in a combination of gobbledygook. That is all this Labour Party can do.

My colleague Katherine Rich has quite clearly said that there are situations in New Zealand whereby parenting by same-sex partners is carried out wonderfully, in an absolutely ideal form. That is not the argument. I totally accept that there are a whole range of parenting arrangements in New Zealand, and that in many respects some of those combinations do absolutely wonderful jobs. That cannot be denied. But what is of huge worry to me is the way this Labour Party dances around the edges and refuses to define or to celebrate either masculinity or femininity, or whatever the mix is in-between. It is totally fixated on jumping around the edges and confusing the public with politically correct gobbledygook.

Muriel Newman has often pointed out that more children are losing fathers on a daily basis in New Zealand through separation or divorce than they did during the entire Second World War. My colleague Judith Collins has also made the point about how hugely important it is to know one’s parentage. We certainly have the modern technology, and it is very simple these days—through buccal smears, tissue samples, and, of course, blood—to be extremely certain of parentage. Yet we have this ridiculous situation in New Zealand, perpetuated by the Labour Party, whereby 19,000 women refuse to name the father. The majority of those women are not in situations where there is violence, a threat of violence, or a danger. The Labour Party has just said: “Oh, no. We are going to make some penalties.”

I move, That the question be now put.

That closure motion shows the absolute arrogance of this Labour Party—its total arrogance. Here we are debating a bill that the Labour Party says is extremely important, but after only one Opposition party has spoken, it wants to shut up the debate. I take that as a great compliment to New Zealand First. Obviously the Labour Party does not want New Zealand First to make a contribution in this debate.

💬 Darren Hughes: The two-party club.

Yes, it is the old two-party system. Labour and National want a closed shop—although it is more that Labour is wanting the old ways than New Zealand First or the National Party.

This is a very, very complicated part of the bill. I really appreciate the way in which officials explained it to me, because the situations we get ourselves into today are extraordinarily complicated. The part relates to the status of children generally. Part 1, inserted by clause 157, is about parents having equal status, whether or not they are or have been married to each other. Part 2, inserted by clause 167, is about the status of children conceived as a result of artificial human reproduction procedures.

There seem to be so many statuses that one gets confused about the whole thing. I think that the Labour Party is totally confused about the whole thing. It could not understand a simple amendment to clause 37 yesterday, and it clearly cannot understand what it is doing today.

I am indebted to the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee that took the trouble to make a submission on this bill. It made a suggestion as to an amendment to this part, which I am putting to the Committee, because obviously the Labour Party did not wish to have it considered. In paragraph 52 of its submission, the Auckland District Law Society referred to clause 167: “The amendment proposed in this clause to section 14(2) of the Status of Children Act states that a woman, by operation of the Act deemed to be a parent of the child, must be treated as far as practicable in the same manner as a father of a child. The Sub-Committee considers this clause is clumsily worded and could be more appropriately and sensitively phrased.” The subcommittee asked for the words “the father of, or” to be deleted, and that is my amendment.

I believe that as it stands, this bill really continues with that gender-bending, mother being father, lesbian father / homosexual mother approach that the Labour Party originally wanted in this bill, and that the strong Opposition on this side of the Chamber made sure was deleted from the bill. The Labour Party had to be cut down at the knees. That was done by the Opposition in a show of strength that this Labour Party, even with its entire arrogance, had to submit to.

The same thing continues in this clause 167, which effectively states that a mother is the father of a child. That is absolute nonsense, and the Auckland District Law Society says so. It is not just said by Dail Jones from New Zealand First, an old-fashioned conservative who never changes his views and who always supports family, married life, and all those things. It is not said by me alone; it is said by the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee.

There must be quite a few trendy liberals on the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee, if I may say so. I know a few of them, and I mean that in a very good spirit, but it is that subcommittee that says this amendment should be made. The reason is so obvious. It is clumsily worded and could be more appropriately and—I emphasise this word—sensitively phrased. The Law Society wants it to be more sensitively phrased. The current phrasing is insensitive. That is the polite way of saying it is gender-bending, hopeless, Labour Party claptrap that gives way, as usual, to Labour’s “trendy leftie”, politically correct supporters. It is totally insensitive. That is what the Auckland District Law Society says.

It is an example, really, of designer children. That is what we are getting in our society today. That is what we are moving more and more towards, and that is what is here already. That is what this type of legislation will and does support.

New Zealand First says that that is absolute nonsense. Let us call a spade a spade, as Dr Hutchison said—I appreciate his comments—a father is a father, and a mother is a mother. A mother cannot be a father, and a father cannot be a mother. That is biologically impossible. Yet this Labour Party is trying to gender bend. It is a bunch of gender benders as far as this legislation is concerned.

Let us call a father a father. I am proud to be a father. I can never be a mother—I am biologically incapable of it. But this bill is saying that mothers can be fathers and fathers can be mothers. That is absolute nonsense. It is insensitive, inappropriate, and wrong. The Auckland District Law Society subcommittee says so in nice wording, and I say so as well. It must be changed, and I will be moving an amendment accordingly.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to take a call on Part 4. I want to put on record what I think is the absolutely appalling situation that we are in today. We have had the Care of Children Bill before Parliament for almost the whole year. Hundreds and hundreds of people have made submissions, and the committee has travelled up and down New Zealand to hear those submissions.

Now we have a situation whereby the Labour Government, in urgency on a Friday—when we have the whole day ahead of us, right through to 10 o’clock tonight—is cutting off all the speeches and contributions that parties want to make. It is absolutely appalling, and it is simply a denial of free speech in Parliament. Just to set the record straight, I say that Opposition parties can do nothing absolutely nothing about it. The Chairperson is the master of what happens in the Committee stage. When Government members start to take calls for closure, the Chair can ignore them—which he should be doing—or he can heed their calls and close down the debate. We used to have clause by clause debates on parts such as Part 3, which has 37 clauses. I put in an amendment and got one call. That is an absolute disgrace. The Labour Government does not want to debate the bill openly.

We are now debating Part 4. It is a much smaller part, because it deals with smaller, more complicated but also more concise, issues. The rest of the bill is where the bulk of the debate should have occurred. I feel that that is an important point to be made.

Part 4 deals with paternity testing. We have already heard some contributions on the issue, but I make the point that the Labour Government has such a double standard—given that we passed a bill the other day about human reproduction that ensured sperm donors had to have their identities recorded so that children at some later stage would be able to find out who their fathers were, and given that we have the domestic purposes benefit in New Zealand, which is being used by 19,000 women who choose not to name the father of their child. As we have already heard, that is around 36,000 children who do not know who their fathers are, and this Government has failed to do anything about it.

If the Minister for Social Development and Employment were here, he would stand up and say that that is not correct, and that he has made all those changes. But again, the changes are Clayton’s changes. The issue is whether those children have a right to know who their dads are. In the majority of cases the mothers know who the fathers are. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Should Parliament pass a law ensuring that those children get to know their paternity—get to know their history and who their dads are? I say “Yes”. The Government should be doing everything it can to ensure that the loophole is closed. Otherwise, we have a bizarre situation in New Zealand. We have rules and regulations—and rightfully so—stating that family members who are very close to one another are not able to marry, for well-recognised reasons, yet we have 30,000-odd kiddies out there who would not even know whether they were marrying their cousins, because they do not know who their fathers are.

It is an absolutely stupid situation, and the point is that those numbers have escalated under Labour’s watch. When Labour took over, there were 12,000 women who failed to name the fathers of their children. That number has gone up to 19,000 and is on the way to 20,000—one in six women now on the domestic purposes benefit. Nobody can tell me it is because they do not know who the father is.

I move, That the question be now put.

It would be churlish of me not to say that a great deal of improvement relating to the care of children will result from the passage of the bill. I know that many members of the Justice and Electoral Committee worked very hard, and very cooperatively and constructively in that regard. At the same time, however, I want to say how disappointed I am, at times, that for whatever reason, common sense does not seem to apply when it comes to drafting our legislation. I say that because I drew the following situation—which I will describe to the Committee—to the attention of the select committee, but it fell on deaf ears and I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why.

I want to explain a real-life situation to the Committee. A few years ago a beautiful little baby girl was born to a couple living together. As far as everyone was aware, everyone bonded with that little girl, and that was not only her mum and dad but also her grandparents on both sides. Both the maternal and the paternal grandparents bonded with that little girl. However, the story does not have a happy ending because a couple of years later the mother of the child basically showed the father of the child the door. There may have been some good reasons for that. The father of the child then went to court to try to establish his rights for ongoing access to that beautiful little girl. At that point in time, the mother of the baby suddenly said that he was not the father. There was no name on the birth certificate. Now, the little girl happened to be the spitting image of her dad, but that made no difference. When the mother was asked who the father was, she named a second male, a different person, and said that he was the father of the baby.

I cannot begin to explain to the Committee how much grief that caused the father and his parents, the grandparents of the child, and that remains the case 3 years later. Years ago we would have said that in this situation only God knows who the father is, but we forget that today we have DNA technology and it would be a simple, straightforward matter to prove once and for all who the father of the child is. Has that happened? No, it has not. This young man has been to the courts—I might add, on legal aid—and he has been to lawyers for the last 3 years. They told him that nothing can be done about the situation. I refer members now to new section 10 in clause 165. New section 10 states: “Declaration as to paternity (1) In this section, eligible person means a person—(a) who is a woman …” and then it goes on to state “who alleges” so and so, and then “who can prove paternity”. Why in God’s name does that section not state “a woman or a man”? Why is it that we, as a Parliament, are prepared to tolerate this unacceptable situation?

We have the science—we should use the science. We should determine the paternity of this little girl once and for all. We should do that in the interests of the father, we should do that in the interests of both the maternal and the paternal grandparents, and we should certainly do it in the interests of the child. What will happen to this little girl as she grows up, when she knows? She will find out because in spite of all the court orders and so forth her father—who, by the way, is in a new relationship now—will not give up. He believes with all his heart that that little girl is his child. So why cannot we in Parliament realise these practical human situations, have some compassion, and exercise some common sense? Why can we not do the right thing instead of deciding, on the basis of a sexist decision, that while women clearly have the right under this bill to establish the paternity of their children, men do not? I cannot for the life of me understand what kind of ideology takes over a select committee so that it will not bend an issue like that. It is absolutely unacceptable. I fear for the psychological development of that little girl growing up.

I am not surprised that Labour members want to shut down this debate, particularly the male members opposite, given the pathetic way in which they have allowed feminists to dominate this important area of law. Let us just remind ourselves what the Labour caucus and the Labour Cabinet wanted to put on the law books of New Zealand: “To avoid doubt… ‘the father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex … partner of the mother of the child …”. What sort of people, what sort of men, are in the Labour caucus and Cabinet that they would approve that sort of nonsense being put on the law books of this land?

The arrogance of the Prime Minister and the Ministers in charge of this bill is such that they believe that this Parliament can overrule nature. They believe they can somehow pretend that a child has a father and a mother where the father is female. That is how bizarre the world view is that Labour members of this Parliament have.

I say to those members opposite, particularly the male members, that no amount of politically correct legislation can overrule the basic rule of nature—that is, that children have a mother and a father. Labour members can pass all the laws they like, but fathers are men in this country.

I am sorry to tell the Labour Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, and the “squawkish” sounding female senior whip that somehow in this bill a father can be a woman, because in clause 167 we see that a woman is to be treated the same as the father of the child. Under this bill a lesbian partner is to be treated as though that person were the father of the child.

I say to the Committee that that is trying to create a sexless society in which there are not fathers and mothers; there are just—

💬 Darren Hughes: Nonsense!

The member said it was nonsense. Was he in the caucus when they said, to avoid doubt, that the father of the child could be a woman?

💬 Darren Hughes: Why has nature been so mean to this man?

That member does not want to talk about the law that he approved as a caucus member to be passed in this Parliament. I am not surprised that Dave Hereora does not want to debate it; he just wants to shut the debate down. He is so embarrassed that he is just kowtowing to the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister who believes that the father of the child can be a woman.

I simply say that those members do not understand that children in this country actually need fathers and mothers, who are equal but different. Why on earth will that member and the Minister not take a call to justify the provisions in this law that say a lesbian is to be treated as the father of the child? That can never be in nature, and it should not be in law.

I challenge Mr Darren Hughes, who has all the time in the world to interject, to take the next call and to tell Parliament why we should pass law that states a woman should be treated the same as the father of the child. That is what is being imposed on the people of New Zealand, but did Labour put that in its manifesto? Did Darren Hughes tell the men in his electorate that he thinks mothers can be fathers—that women can be fathers? [Interruption]

Maybe Lynne Pillay will take a call. I think Lynne Pillay is a lovely lady. She would make a great mother, but she will not be the father of a child in this world or the next.

I move, That the question be now put.