KEY POINTS:
A new bill would allow courts to order compulsory DNA testing of children for paternity checks, regardless of consent.
United Future MP Judy Turner's private member's bill provides for the Family Court to order cheek swabs for DNA testing of children whose paternity is in dispute.
The measures in the Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill also include warrants allowing the possibly forcible taking of the child to get the sample if a parent resists the order.
At present, courts can only recommend parentage tests and parental consent is required for children under the age of 16.
The Law Commission recommended court orders for DNA samples in its 2005 report on Legal Parenthood, saying parents should not be able to unreasonably thwart such requests.
The Government has said it will consider the issue, but is waiting for a Ministry of Justice review on the Law Commission's report.
In Parliament, Minister for Courts Rick Barker said it warranted "further consideration" but said Ms Turner's bill only dealt with a narrow part of the commission's report, which included about 30 recommendations relating to legal parenthood issues.
Ms Turner said it would cut down on costly, lengthy court challenges for those trying to prove parenthood and stop mothers effectively thwarting such requests by refusing to give consent. Penalties of up to three months' prison or $2500 fines could be handed down for resisting the orders.
Mr Barker said Ms Turner's bill involved issues including the use of force, and common law currently did not allow a sample or blood tissue to be taken without consent.
"The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act gives people common law rights about personal liberty, trespass, and about privacy. Those are rights that children have as well as adults and legislation about paternity testing needs to find the appropriate balance between the interests of mothers, fathers and children."
Ms Turner said the Government had sat on its hands since the Law Commission's 2005 report on Legal Parenthood, which stated, "It is in the child's interests to have accurate knowledge of their genetic lineage, and in the interests of justice that doubt about parentage can be conclusively resolved."
Ms Turner said it was important for the rights of the child, and mothers should not be able to thwart their right to know their genetic background and history.
It would also help men ensure they were liable for child support payments, as well as those who suspected they were the father and wanted to apply for access and be part of the child's life, she said.
"At the moment, they are blocked because the mother won't allow the test. That creates a huge battle in the courts which can take years and that means in terms of having access to the child in its developing years, you've almost lost the fight before it starts."
Ms Turner's Family Proceedings (Paternity Orders and Parentage Tests) Amendment Bill was introduced after she tabled it with leave of Parliament, rather than being drawn from the ballot as with most members' bills.
She said it also followed a 2004 Court of Appeal decision, ending a long court case in which a man who believed he was the father wanted to test the child so he could get access. The mother refused consent for the test and the courts eventually required the DNA test, but the child had to be made a guardian of the court to allow the sample to be taken.
Ms Turner said she was hopeful of getting support to carry the bill through to the select committee stage.
National MP Judith Collins said she was "very interested" in the bill but had yet to read it.
"I will discuss it with caucus. But the general thrust of it is what I've been talking about for a long time."
PARENTAL GUIDANCE
* International research indicates the wrong biological father is listed on about 10 per cent of children's birth certificates - up to 5000 children in New Zealand every year.
* Under Judy Turner's bill the Family Court would be able to order swabs to test children.
* In cases of lack of compliance, courts could issue a warrant to allow for enforcement, using reasonable force if necessary.
* Penalties for resisting would be up to 3 months' jail or a $2500 fine.
