"\u003C!DOCTYPE html\u003E\u003Chtml xmlns:xlink=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink\u0022 xmlns:xsi=\u0022http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-instance\u0022 xmlns:mml=\u0022http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML\u0022\u003E\n  \u003Chead\u003E\n    \u003CMETA http-equiv=\u0022Content-Type\u0022 content=\u0022text/html; charset=utf-16\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cmeta name=\u0022viewport\u0022 content=\u0022width=device-width, initial-scale=1\u0022\u003E\n  \u003C/head\u003E\n  \u003Cbody style=\u0022font-family:sans-serif; font-size:100%;\u0022\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002283571d6c09234b8a9afe48a468082381\u0022\u003EThursday, 4 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220336de8c657d487b8a0acd3f026beee3\u0022\u003EThursday, 4 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000002\u0022\u003EMr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000004\u0022\u003EPrayers.\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000005\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022966eab7a87b943df859b4447f5dc1f7b\u0022\u003EVisitors\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022da10b2c1018b4238b1aaa982d3b1d88a\u0022\u003ECommonwealth of Australia\u2014Minister for the Environment and Heritage\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022b9de019b517a4a0c87acb3815e632ead\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b9de019b517a4a0c87acb3815e632ead\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon Ian Campbell, Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Commonwealth of Australia, is within the precincts of this Chamber. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed and accorded a seat on the left of the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EThe Hon Ian Campbell, accompanied by the Hon Pete Hodgson, entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00226989d03f570d4f21a7dfb4482e44ba6c\u0022\u003EItaly\u2014Parliamentary Delegation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022a174573b0d6b47e6873a234c2d1ecf18\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a174573b0d6b47e6873a234c2d1ecf18\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I have much pleasure in also informing members that a parliamentary delegation from the Parliament of Italy, led by Ms Gabriella Mondello, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d8fedd5de4cf458cbf8de5e785c48cb7\u0022\u003EUnited Kingdom\u2014Constitutional Affairs Committee, House of Commons\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022 data-id=\u0022b603eb4f1d154d969285801a728a25de\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b603eb4f1d154d969285801a728a25de\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I also have much pleasure in informing the House that members of the Constitutional Affairs Committee from the House of Commons, United Kingdom, are present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that that delegation also be welcomed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002232ae0b0a301e43a2929afba08a98efa3\u0022\u003EBusiness Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221b6d92812a654385b5cf47640607ec00\u0022\u003EBusiness Statement\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022dad4b07da8c14b7fb70853095254d34a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dad4b07da8c14b7fb70853095254d34a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E Next week in the House priority will be given to the third reading of the Care of Children Bill, and to the second readings of the Transport Legislation Bill, the Electoral Matters Bill, and the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Bill. Wednesday is a members\u2019 day. On Thursday it is intended that the sitting of the House will commence at 4 p.m. with a motion in relation to the entombment of an Unknown New Zealand Warrior. There will be no oral questions on that day. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022f66afd13f8cc4a8a80619af330f4383a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f66afd13f8cc4a8a80619af330f4383a\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E Can the Leader of the House give us some indication of when he would expect the Foreshore and Seabed Bill to receive its second reading in the House, and at what pace will it progress through its Committee stage towards a third reading?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022021a83787a7a4b4baed5d312cf411015\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022021a83787a7a4b4baed5d312cf411015\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E We will proceed to that when we are ready to do so\u2014that is, when we have completed discussions with my own colleagues and with New Zealand First, in particular. Should National members wish to become supportive and positive, I am sure I will be happy to have discussions with them, as well. I expect that the second reading will be not too far in the distance. The pace at which the bill will be taken will depend upon the speed with which closure motions are accepted during the Committee stage by the Chairs of the Committee.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002269296b3c17a84aa4b189ad49345eb5b2\u0022\u003EMotions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e5baa162bf23410bb1404775e8f9f99a\u0022\u003EPresidential Election, USA\u2014Congratulations\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d7ea82ab84684097ad62672091c0fccf\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d7ea82ab84684097ad62672091c0fccf\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I seek the leave of the House to move a non-controversial motion without debate, congratulating President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney on their re-election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b099d487d084980a9db3b7bd9f76e79\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00228b84aad1274d49e1bab77b44f10ac094\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00228b84aad1274d49e1bab77b44f10ac094\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E It is usual to declare these matters with the whips in advance, as a matter of courtesy to all other parties. Obviously the Government would not object to such a motion being moved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022 data-id=\u002231e0f454bd5f4736840c4995da8ead67\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231e0f454bd5f4736840c4995da8ead67\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the House convey its sincere congratulations and warmest regards to President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney on their election win in the United States of America. I hope that they will continue to regard New Zealand in a favourable way as a good ally and a good trading partner\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221aca9cc1765443e587783d7882517240\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: There is to be no debate. Leave was sought to move a motion without debate. The member has moved the motion. I now want to put the motion, and other parties can very briefly comment. [Interruption] Well, if the member wishes to make a brief comment I will allow him to make it now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef7df291f6844e4fb80a70feab73740d\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE\u003C/span\u003E: Also, I send on behalf of this House regards to John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards. It was a very tough campaign, and I thought that the way those candidates handled the results was a credit to a great country and a great people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e10e592734194d95aa58d49378bc7e31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e10e592734194d95aa58d49378bc7e31\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E The Government joins, obviously, in congratulating the successful candidate in the United States elections. It was pleasing that in the end there was a clear majority, and so an avoidance of what happened at the last election in the United States. We look forward to cooperating with the re-elected Bush administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022 data-id=\u0022c95a7a85dc22446496d8c16a21ff2f5c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c95a7a85dc22446496d8c16a21ff2f5c\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E The New Zealand National Party also wants to join in the motion congratulating President Bush and Vice-President Cheney on their re-election for another 4-year term. The United States is one of the largest democracies in the world, and it is always fascinating to watch how, despite all the perceived difficulties, the transition of authority from one administration to the other takes place\u2014in this case, the continuation of an administration. We hope that New Zealand is able to improve its trading relations with the United States. It is an important country. President Bush has won this election with the largest-ever popular vote in the United States. There was a huge turn-out to the polls. Although Mr Kerry has lost the election, he was certainly instrumental in provoking a lot of thought about the state of the world, and he should be congratulated on that. We would make the comment that perhaps the New Zealand media might have been a little slicker in understanding that the election was a choice for the American people rather than for the rest of the world. I conclude by once again congratulating Mr Bush and all his administration.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022 data-id=\u0022419cf30a01874ea9887dad6d95710b07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022419cf30a01874ea9887dad6d95710b07\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E Obviously, we all endorse the comments made\u2014or most of the comments made\u2014by previous speakers. We also say that when a growing population turns out in greater numbers than ever before, there are likely to be very high numbers of votes for both the winner and the loser. But I would hope that in future, rather than members of Parliament and party leaders seeking to gain a vicarious benefit from a victory they had nothing to do with whatsoever, maybe it would be better and more courteous if a member who had that in mind would consult others so that we could move just one motion, and then get on with our own business in our democracy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022 data-id=\u002229c8ed48a28743ee896a4f9f1ae494a7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002229c8ed48a28743ee896a4f9f1ae494a7\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE (Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Green Party joins with other parties in sending President Bush congratulations on winning the election, but it is also with a sense\u2014and I think in this I am expressing the views of the majority of New Zealand people and of a significant majority of the people of the world\u2014of sadness at the fact that Mr Bush was re-elected, because, unfortunately\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022687ff38b4f994f47b0683e9a3898c520\u0022\u003EHon Members\u003C/span\u003E: Aw!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c74482d385da4ba2b8700cbd4ad7ffe3\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: We do have free speech in this Parliament. People are entitled to have their view heard, even if others do not agree with it. I will uphold that. I ask the member to be brief. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220159bc0ae9d940bd8f1d3ecafbcc56c0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought that the purpose of a motion without debate was such that those who agreed with the person moving it could perhaps make a comment. But if one is in violent disagreement, then how can that be in accord with the non-debatable objective, even though we have been given some leniency at this time?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223d2c6eb0b59d450b96dea1d976cf5d86\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I am asking Mr Locke to come to the end of his comments, because he did say at the start that he was going to support the motion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f899b65375e4612999520642f84a07d\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the Green Party is supporting the motion, and, as with other debates of this kind, we are allowed to put it in the right context. I think that the House should take note of the polls that have been conducted around the world, in addition to the polls in the United States, where overwhelmingly\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9d2e28c3e7940428def62e380e8ca7c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is the member\u2019s last sentence. Would he please finish it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234e2c534329b49f6a546dfcdb76d3e2a\u0022\u003EKEITH LOCKE\u003C/span\u003E: Overwhelmingly, the people of the world have expressed their opposition to George Bush\u2019s re-election. [Interruption] Could I finish? As I was saying, overwhelmingly the people of the world have expressed their opinion against George Bush being re-elected, because they do not want a continuation of the wars of aggression such as the one we have seen in Iraq and the so-called war on terrorism, which is undermining our civil liberties\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223f55b15b0dc848af8d513e4a10943958\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I just want to say one thing. This is a democracy too, and people have the right of free speech. I am going to uphold that. I thought the comments that were made were unnecessary. Of course, Mr Locke has a different point of view from that of other parties. He is entitled to that; that is what democracy is all about. That is what we have just witnessed in the United States, where there was a free choice.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022 data-id=\u00221df585a2d0da434d8bbdd734bfba1393\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221df585a2d0da434d8bbdd734bfba1393\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I want to join with other members and on behalf of United Future to express our congratulations to President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and the Republican Party on what has been a sweeping victory in every aspect of the United States election. I want to make this point, though. At a time when it is often convenient to see the world in a global sense, this election reinforces the value of individual nations. This was a choice made freely, democratically, and quite appropriately by the people of the United States\u2014as it should be\u2014and to draw any wider implications or to be negative about the views of the rest of the world in this respect misses the fundamental point that democracy is the exercise of the franchise by the people of a nation. In this case the people of the United States, by a clear majority, have re-elected President Bush. Our congratulations are with him. Our commiserations go to Senator Kerry and his team, and we express our ongoing support for the fact that the democratic ideal has been upheld.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022038ddedaf8434c1dacb25cc2f593d5af\u0022\u003EQuestions for Oral Answer\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022e72555ed631c4962a8b12ea117946807\u0022\u003EQuestions to Ministers\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f1e842f022ee490484d673df136aee17\u0022\u003EImmigration, Minister\u2014Confidence\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228cd5334990af4178921ac915e35341b3\u0022\u003E1. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in her Minister of Immigration; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fef2c9cb5b0f4f888202a19ee9b25e99\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fef2c9cb5b0f4f888202a19ee9b25e99\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he is a hard-working and conscientious Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab05586fbad54dd9acc0d82b63356bd9\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: How is it that this hard-working and conscientious Minister had his officials at the Finance and Expenditure Committee yesterday admitting that of the Afghan refugees refused by Australia from the MV Tampa, three have already brought 11 people each into this country, and how is it that Asha Ali Abdille can be claiming and demanding to bring in another 14 of her relations, even though she is on a benefit and has a conviction record that would make Al Capone proud?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d57172832b7646b29f3405041585b667\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: On the latter matter I understand the Minister\u2019s office has contacted Mr Peters, and we look forward to cooperation on that matter in terms of establishing the facts. Members will note, I am sure, that Ms Abdille first got into the public arena because she was complaining of the harsh treatment by the New Zealand Immigration Service in demanding DNA testing on her supposed relatives\u2014yet to be established whether they are her relatives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224549ef651fe4408ea259ef87f1083878\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Prime Minister be suggesting to the Minister of Immigration that she issue a simple regulation change to the Immigration Act to make sure that Mr Zaoui can be released into the custody of the Dominican friars, as proposed in a recent statement by one Catholic cardinal, one archbishop, eight Catholic bishops, one Anglican archbishop, and 10 Anglican bishops?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002261c171c90342464dbf9e5629a918adaf\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I suppose that would take him out of the pot into the friars, but beyond that I am not terribly interested.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fbfe4e20362424cbeba70348bc885d0\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why was it that the Prime Minister\u2019s hard-working and conscientious Minister of Immigration gave my office a phone call this morning asking me to provide him with the information, for which he is paid a ministerial salary and has all the baubles of office\u2014a ministerial home, a full department, a police force, and a Customs Service\u2014and why does she think this hard-working and conscientious Minister needs to be employed one more day, given that clearly he cannot do his job?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6c75de1c2564a4395764f4d498b7073\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I have to say I am upset that the member is offended that somebody should seek his information and his advice on immigration matters. I thought he regarded himself as an expert on those things.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ae25faa2c7a149ae8a5c7aac5024a5c4\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Why would the Prime Minister have confidence in any of her immigration Ministers who have been there since she came to power, when they let in a known terrorist in three jurisdictions, Switzerland, France, and Belgium\u2014all with far higher legal status than that which is applied in New Zealand thus far\u2014who could be out of prison tomorrow if he would only go back and join his family in Malaysia?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022514ea4b78ea242d4b65fc92fd9f50971\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the question Mr Peters referred to Switzerland. There was no court case or designation of Mr Zaoui\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212fe05dcb38d44a7bc36db5cdba434a8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002221df42f8aab2418caf21b496755ee2a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The member is correct in stating that Mr Zaoui has had convictions in France and Belgium. I believe he was paid by Switzerland to go to live in Burkina Faso, and he certainly had residence within Malaysia, which is by no means a country that would be unsuitable, one would have thought, for a Muslim refugee. The fact is that Mr Zaoui claimed refugee status once he landed, and under international conventions, certain consequences have flown therefrom. If his lawyers had been avoiding the extremes of litigation we have seen, this matter would have been settled long since, one way or the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cb0b4a8d4ba14c6180a633559d5646cb\u0022\u003ECancer Control Council\u2014Objectives\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E2. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f56157c111ab48d78c754dd158f6bc9b\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Health: How will the recently announced Cancer Control Council help to address the burden of cancer in New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022c222dfe10a42471db010095f01038fb7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c222dfe10a42471db010095f01038fb7\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E The council has been established in response to the cancer task force recommendation to bring together under an independent body oversight, monitoring, collaboration, and leadership in cancer prevention, treatment, services, and research. The key tasks for the council will be to monitor and review implementation of the Cancer Control Strategy and report annually to Parliament; provide independent strategic advice to the Minister of Health, the Director-General of Health, district health boards, and non-governmental organisations on matters related to cancer control; foster collaboration and cooperation between bodies involved in cancer control; and foster and support best practice in an evidence-based approach to improvements in the effectiveness of cancer control.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224e1b35bd73d1483a9c9bad91578ab3c5\u0022\u003ESteve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: What has been the response to the announcement of the Cancer Control Council?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022812cf80c12104f7880d1235e1979f448\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: The Cancer Society said today that the establishment of a dedicated, independent council is a major achievement for all of those who are concerned about the consequences of cancer in our society. The New Zealand Cancer Control Trust described the council as a significant and critical milestone, and added that these initiatives reflect the Government\u2019s recognition of the significance of cancer, and its commitment to taking a long-term, coordinated approach to addressing the devastating impact of cancer in New Zealand. I thank both those groups for their cooperation and for the constructive approach they have taken in helping us to establish the council itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e0223515758a412a9f48cb4512ec6093\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Cancer Control Council investigate the possibility of a private cancer treatment facility being established in New Zealand, or will patients still be forced to head to Australia for treatment, as happened to 171 patients last year?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd4ac030e10b43b987b36f8eda951e35\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: The Cancer Control Council will have the ability to look at anything that is put before it. However, it will probably find what others have found\u2014that when one sets up a private facility for the treatment of cancer, one has to staff it, and where will the staff come from? For a decade, the 1990s, we never trained enough staff.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220daaf9fb-1a1f-4d31-848a-fd13cb1a2c5a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ebf65e6670a4c529e4aa81d5a1bc719\u0022\u003EBarbara Stewart\u003C/span\u003E: Is it not a fact that the only way to increase capacity to deal with the demand for cancer treatment in New Zealand is to address the staff shortages that have been cited continually as the key component in New Zealand\u2019s disastrous ability to cope with this devastating illness\u2014not introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225132ca4c2d08484d8967f9a51de8cee0\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: I need to inform the member that this council is not a layer of bureaucracy but something that was asked for by the Cancer Society of New Zealand, the Cancer Control Trust, non-governmental organisations, and the New Zealand community in general, following the disaster of the National Cervical Screening Programme, which showed there was a need for an independent group to have oversight of cancer control. So it is not another layer of bureaucracy; it is the Government\u2019s response to a need identified by the community itself.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fe8dbe8a12e41d387fcc5c6cf656151\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree that one of the first priorities of the Cancer Control Council should be to lobby the Minister of Research, Science and Technology to boost funding for the hamstrung Health Research Council\u2014the largest funder of cancer research\u2014in light of recent reports that indicate that New Zealand\u2019s expenditure on health research has declined to a point where we are seriously lagging behind international standards?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d8f918a56824fa3bd879bf28c7cc3ba\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING\u003C/span\u003E: It will probably not be necessary for the council to do that. I think the Minister has that matter in hand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d984e2f92d3e4113818f5437182c79be\u0022\u003ELocal Government\u2014Voting System\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E3. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266c7ec9c715545edb1a9cece9abcef7c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with the statement provided in the Vote Local Government estimates examination responses for 2003-04 that \u201CThe critical current issue faced by Government in Vote Local Government relates to the successful application of the STV (single transferable vote) election method in the Local Authority Elections to occur in October 2004.\u201D; if so, does he think the Government has done a good job of dealing with that critical issue?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022 data-id=\u00223c8f1478421f4fb3b529d60490657dd7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223c8f1478421f4fb3b529d60490657dd7\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Local Government):\u003C/span\u003E Yes and yes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227cea88f9fc0340cc8a6a2b7f6a8fd57a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Minister possibly tell this Parliament that the Government has done a good job of introducing STV, when 26 days after the ballot 144 candidates do not know whether they have been elected, particularly when we compare that delay with the election results in the United States, which has just counted 119 million votes and given a result within 24 hours?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d86eebce649e465badaf39a69afc8003\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: The facts of this sorry situation are that a computer system has failed, and it has taken time to fix it and to ensure that the results it produces are absolutely correct. The computer system is not one that Ministers were involved in selecting, designing, or testing. Contrary to the notion that the member is putting out, the Government does not run local elections. Councils do that, and they have done so since the 1860s. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022016c7aaa27bc4d9c806c92541467da8b\u0022\u003EDavid Parker\u003C/span\u003E: What did the Government do to assist with the implementation of STV?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbd25f53f313461f9ba6133140ef5665\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: The Government was responsible for coordinating the development of the STV calculator and a publicity campaign, both of which it did very successfully.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022878dce01bdce4021a5dd6015803ee59b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How does the Minister reconcile the statement made by Helen Clark as Leader of the Opposition in 1999, when she damned National Ministers for the 2-hour delay in election results, stating: \u201CMinisters must take responsibility.\u201D, with his refusal to take any responsibility for this 26-day delay, or is this just like the situation of John Tamihere and the golden handshake\u2014saying one thing in Opposition, and applying a different standard when in Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241e9a247522743dd8d0cfb29e7bbfed2\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister can answer the first part of that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c251db2f8ab7440d9fe2adedac6673bd\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: The member still fails to grasp the fact that although central government is responsible for running general elections, local elections are run by local government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002235265ef3068242b2aa4f966264255159\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: How can the Minister tell this Parliament that he has no responsibility, when his own department, in the estimates for the financial year for which he was responsible, clearly stated that it was the critical current issue for that year; is he saying the department is wrong, or is he wrong?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d4506109-be18-4b9d-9a79-1e15e2e2cd41\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220373d078f49a40cd99d2c4d598a7a24f\u0022\u003EHon CHRIS CARTER\u003C/span\u003E: I repeat to that member that the Government was responsible for developing the STV calculator, which worked perfectly. It was also responsible for a publicity campaign, which also seemed to be very effective.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002292ee99dc7c4045c0bf85994c9b7b2996\u0022\u003EContaminated Land, Auckland\u2014Testing\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E4. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002264c708409db841ed89642e99e1af01eb\u0022\u003ESUE KEDGLEY (Green)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister for the Environment: Will the Government assist Aucklanders who are worried their backyards may be contaminated by pesticides to have their properties tested?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u00223a5e0df5a9fe480a96bfc193dd2ed9b3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00223a5e0df5a9fe480a96bfc193dd2ed9b3\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister for the Environment)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: The Minister is advised that the Ministry for the Environment will assist Aucklanders by working with their regional and city councils. This Government\u2019s Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund exists to help overcome the unwanted legacy from the past use of chemicals, and the ministry will consider any application from the Auckland Regional Council for assistance from the fund.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d84e112fc89a46ac9960d6e1ca29afad\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Is she saying not only that the Auckland Regional Council has applied to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund but that the Government will agree to fund testing for potentially contaminated properties, and given the uncertainties for owners of these properties, can she reassure them as to when they can expect the testing to commence?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215469b12f77e4381afe48bca213d3325\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: I am not saying what the member suggests. I am saying that the ministry is working with local authorities to progress this matter, and when tests will be available is really a matter for local authorities and the property owners. But the ministry, as I said, is working through both, through those councils, and I am sure that, with the level of cooperation we already have to date, we will ensure that this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of the community.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002212f01718-dc1f-4307-b0b3-451098ab73df\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fadc896dd4124495aa1dc15a695c2420\u0022\u003EDr Ashraf Choudhary\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to assist councils to deal with contaminated sites around the country?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224f63f9a75a634251aab2b441d870d14b\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: The Ministry for the Environment is working closely with seven regional councils on 13 separate remediation projects on behalf of local communities and landowners. The ministry is developing a national approach to the management of contaminated land, in partnership with regional councils and unitary authorities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b8383f38-c78c-4e5d-8324-677d91e95c49\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224b9b251021a04f6fac9305eddb746fba\u0022\u003EKeith Locke\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister agree, in the light of the answer to the previous question, that the Auckland situation could be just the tip of the iceberg and that it does require serious Government action to make sure that people outside of Auckland whose homes might be on the sites of former orchards or market gardens are not left in the dark as to whether there is contamination in their backyards?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f15915e3f634fb8ba1fda04f4ffc469\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I certainly agree it is unlikely that issues like this, which are, really, a legacy of the past, are isolated to Auckland. That is why the Ministry for the Environment wrote in 2002 to councils recommending that they require soil testing of land that had previously been used for horticultural production prior to 1975, before approving subdivisions for residential purposes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022397241d4aaca46bdbe60a883e6946a78\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government expand the modest amount of funding available in the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund so that there is sufficient funding for nationwide testing of contaminated sites, and does she accept that the Government does have a moral responsibility to New Zealanders to do so because successive Governments have permitted the widespread use of the pesticides that are causing concern, and reassure New Zealanders that they are perfectly safe?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac1acef1b10b4e14acd26ef872012fbc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: Two million dollars per year is available from the fund, and last year we did expand the criteria for who could apply to that fund. We currently have no plans to expand that funding but will monitor closely the operation of the fund and its effectiveness. While many sites in Auckland may not reach the high-risk category, our aim, as set out in our policy manifesto in 2002, is to investigate and have a remediation plan for all high-risk contaminated sites by 2015. Can I add that I think the key issue in this is that, while making good progress on resolving the issue for concerned residents, we are not alarmist and we make sure we get the facts of the matter and have useful and comprehensive information.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022821c240045364449a8fb7778b773f0bb\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Does she agree that the Government should long ago have withdrawn approval for pesticides whose residues persist in the environment, and introduced a levy on toxic substances to fund restoration, clean-up, and compensation of innocent landowners, such as in the Auckland situation today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a6feec326f54bc8af10ae65f9e1a53c\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: We have no plans to introduce the eco-tax that the member\u2019s party is advocating but we are prepared to continue assisting regional councils to manage contaminated land within their regions to provide the best possible value to ratepayers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022eaaad191-62cf-43e8-a772-63a71dbf4d4a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab6518067d0a4ac4aef7176abce5d406\u0022\u003ESue Kedgley\u003C/span\u003E: Why is the Government still permitting the use of pesticides that persist in the environment for very long times\u2014such as the organochlorine endosulphin, which is still turning up as residues in our food?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222f6f6b330363486db74d204969fb7cac\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: Work continues towards pesticide risk reduction. A pesticide risk reduction strategy working-group has identified a range of ways of reducing pesticide risk. The recent ratification of the Stockholm convention is just one example. Also, the Environmental Risk Management Authority held a 2-day symposium in July bringing together all the groups involved in reducing pesticide risk. Further, the Ministry for the Environment has commissioned HortResearch to report on trends in usage of pesticides and their quantities and risks. That report is due in early 2005.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002247069a8648b44b5382ff3229b825c24e\u0022\u003EMember for Tamaki Makaurau\u2014Waipareira Trust\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E5. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260fe84eb924e45b9bed2f7815a2099e4\u0022\u003ERODNEY HIDE (Leader\u2014ACT)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Is she satisfied that John Tamihere has disclosed all his financial dealings with the Waipareira Trust that might cause her or the Labour Government embarrassment; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c34f08fb5a0c4da5b48bc4ca64471920\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c34f08fb5a0c4da5b48bc4ca64471920\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister), on behalf of the Prime Minister:\u003C/span\u003E The Prime Minister has suspended judgment on the financial dealings Mr Tamihere has had, or is alleged to have had, with the Waipareira Trust, while they are the subject of inquiries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000096\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248ad6128146b4beeb8f4c85e78fe39b8\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that former trust board member Dennis Hansen claimed in a letter dated 11 June 2000\u2014a letter that I understand he is under some pressure to withdraw\u2014that the Waipareira Trust board loaned Mr Tamihere $100,000, interest free, in 1991-92 a loan that, at Mr Tamihere\u2019s request, the board wrote off in 1993; and does the Prime Minister think it appropriate that John Tamihere received both a golden handshake and a golden kia ora?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000097\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248f2542ab30f4f9bbc0188a2444864b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am aware of that. I am also aware that today the member received a fax from the same person, stating: \u201CHowever, I was wrong.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000098\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222869b569aff8447e912616423a2d1dd3\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Would it help the Prime Minister, in forming a view on whether she thinks that was appropriate, to know that board members have said it is correct and that the minutes state: \u201CThe motion was passed that John Tamihere did not have to pay the $100,000 loan back provided, futuristically, if and when his contract expired and he moved on, there was to be no further package deals, financially or otherwise.\u201D; and, in light of that, will the Prime Minister ask Douglas White QC to consider all lump-sum payments made to Mr Tamihere by the trust and whether the appropriate tax was paid?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000099\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002214085813e7d5431697fbb43e9c424ea2\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am aware of those accusations. I repeat that the member has received a fax denying them. As the member has already indicated to Mr White that he will release information to him, I invite him to release whatever information he has. We will see how it all works out in the wash.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000100\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ace8b750ee8b4ba9a2acbba133d10bbb\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Since the Prime Minister is now aware of that allegation, why will she not ask Douglas White QC to include that particular matter in his investigations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000101\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002241ea46425ca4439cbc8c666ee18bdd77\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: That matter has been in the public arena for a long time; it is not a new allegation. Mr Peters raised this issue some 5 years ago, as I recollect, within the public arena. There is no need to revisit the issue unless, of course, Mr White chooses to consider it to be relevant. If Mr Hide wants to raise the matter with Mr White he is perfectly free to do so, but I trust that he will table all the documents he has, and not just some of them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000102\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002205fa73a9248b493d8cb2dc5c3d97ca7c\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister satisfied with that, given that Mr Tamihere in November 1999 admitted receiving the loan but then said he could not remember the details; and if the loan was connected with a prohibition against any other exit package, will she now begin to think that this matter has more relevance than she originally gave it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000103\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d8a78c157244e449f1e832c5029bbe2\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: If that is the evidence that members wish to present to Mr White, I am sure he will consider it to be relevant for consideration. I would say that\u2014in terms of simply issuing a loan\u2014if the notion of an employing body issuing a loan to an employer is in itself wrong, then an awful lot of people in this country will be in trouble.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000104\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bff1809ccae642b495e977d47a83d623\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Would it help the Prime Minister to stop suspending judgment if I was to tell her that the letter was to myself, is handwritten, is dated 11 August 2000, and states: \u201CMr John Tamihere in 1991-2 borrowed $100,000 from the Waipareira Trust board without interest. In 1993 John asked the Waipareira Trust board to write off the $100,000, which was a personal loan to him. I moved a motion that John Tamihere did not have to repay the $100,000 loan back provided, futuristically, if and when his contract expired and he moved on, there was to be no further package deals, financially or otherwise.\u201D; having now heard that, why should we accept a fax sent today, and why is this matter not being referred to the QC, or can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that tax has been paid on the second golden handshake?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000105\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002254a288397dc440bebb6ed64d98b0e36d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The Prime Minister certainly could not give an assurance about taxation at all, and nor could the Minister of Revenue, because they would be in breach of legislation were they actually privy to an individual taxpayer\u2019s information. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000106\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226d63519404724704826eac9eac6581a0\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that\u2014[Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000107\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220392dd52727b4a6aa944561c7364fa07\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I gave a warning, and somebody has interjected. However, I am prepared to give another warning. I am being fair to the member, as two comments were made. I now want there to be no more interjections during question time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000108\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b4dd357aa9064de4801c2a32c6f67e24\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite this claim having been around for some years, John Tamihere has never denied receiving a loan from the Waipareira Trust and having it written off; and given the inquiry that is under way, why will the Prime Minister not ask Douglas White to check the minutes of the Waipareira Trust board regarding that loan?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000109\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022225db93056dd402a9b7f4456036946bf\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Tamihere, I believe, has stated quite clearly that he received a loan from the trust in, I think, 1991. There is no great secret about that. If the member feels that he has some other evidence, I invite him to give it to Mr White. Mr White has sufficiently broad terms of reference that he can cover those matters if they are relevant to the payments made in 2000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000110\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022678a927d041d4cbe886e653f6686d1f1\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that Mr White is likely to be inundated with all sorts of people making allegations against Mr Tamihere; if so, why is she not prepared to take the information that comes from Mr Hide and Mr Prebble that would indicate that during John Tamihere\u2019s time at the Waipareira Trust he received almost half a million dollars worth of extra payments by way of his severance payment, the car, and the $100,000 interest-free loan, and why will she not ask Mr White to investigate whether the tax was paid, which is a simple question?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000111\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002253015b26e10f4510b7dcca0f79c05fea\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The issue of the tax, again, is an issue for the trust, not an issue for Mr Tamihere. The responsibility for the payment of fringe benefit tax rests with the employer, and has been deeply criticised by National for the last 20 years because of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000112\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8460faf6a504ce38eb67eecbd3ec984\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: At this point in time has Mr Tamihere advised the Prime Minister that his loan was written off and, more important, what the effect of the golden handshake was upon his ordinary salary taxation, which he seems to be overlooking?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000113\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225a3444327e4945968349d94e1c2ccbb3\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I cannot answer the first part of the question. Regarding the second part of the question, I am not sure whether any Minister could give that answer\u2014only the people involved could give it. I repeat that it is actually illegal for the Minister of Revenue\u2014or, through him, the Prime Minister\u2014to have details about individuals\u2019 tax status, irrespective of the information that is given to them by the person involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000114\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d99e8083616c41a68e7613eb2d52cf56\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Prime Minister aware that John Tamihere has never denied having the $100,000 loan written off?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000115\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002215f65f11da0d4703a39323e2e5156587\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: My understanding is that Mr Tamihere has denied the loan was of that size, but, obviously, I am open to correction on that matter. What the Prime Minister is certainly aware of\u2014at least, the Acting Prime Minister is\u2014is that today the member received a fax denying the original allegation. I note that he is not inviting the Prime Minister to send that to Mr White for investigation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000116\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f024d8aa8d3457fbe49ed2a0e8e768f\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter from Mr Dennis Hansen, who says he is a kaum\u0101tua and a board member of the Waipareira Trust, dated 11 May 2000.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000117\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002248211f2a99f34207b700b396e3a9c2c4\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000118\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f5d0d6628d2141e297d3e54c5f4d249a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not take objection to that if I can also have leave to table a fax sent today to Mr Hide.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000119\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3586341bfe94c2daf82fc69715041df\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member cannot do that on behalf\u2014[Interruption] Dr Cullen has no objection to that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000120\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ba93a16cb4124fe2b4415b06f87a91fd\u0022\u003EHon Dr Michael Cullen\u003C/span\u003E: I first seek leave to table the fax sent today to Mr Hide. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000121\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228e0385e7f41a4674b749e99cff7af3c7\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: First, I will deal with the first issue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ab4362a2f18746f5aa56546a3fe87dab\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: No, we can deal with Dr Cullen\u2019s request first. Let us get them all on the table.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022553f45fedc9f457dae4ced5c7bc67ffe\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table Dr Cullen\u2019s fax first.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224ae916f234024e20a10f9d947e67978c\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is now sought to table Mr Prebble\u2019s letter. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022cba3a468fcbe48b38df5c3a7f1e47962\u0022\u003EWorking for Families Package\u2014Taxation\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E6. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b503f2b10e6444781516c0bcaf445ac\u0022\u003EHon PETER DUNNE (Leader\u2014United Future)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Finance: Does his answer to question No. 3 yesterday indicate that he considers the tax regime that applies to families is fair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002207e71b7979ac489a96a42dacfb8feb2c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207e71b7979ac489a96a42dacfb8feb2c\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance):\u003C/span\u003E In general terms, yes. There is always room for improvement, and that is one of the reasons for the tax elements in the Working for Families package.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f555a23a-d230-4f03-80ba-a44e6ec8bd29\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226565346976be4c69847d75610c1bdc6c\u0022\u003EHon Peter Dunne\u003C/span\u003E: Does that answer, the Minister\u2019s comment yesterday that he was not in favour of income splitting, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment\u2019s comment earlier this week that the Government was not looking to allow capitalisation of benefits arising from the Working for Families programme for the purpose of home purchase, mean that, as far as the Minister is concerned, the Working for Families package as it presently stands is as good as it gets for families?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022464340fbb0fb4364be1b671743698178\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No. I look forward, in the long term, to a Labour-led Government, supported by United Future and whatever other parties, continuing to deliver substantial gains for families, progressively, year by year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3c8d81c6708437a9fd9ea57f6b7fb20\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister think it is fair that by 2008, 207,000\u2014or 64 percent\u2014of the recipients of the Working for Families package will be welfare beneficiaries, and was that the policy intent when he designed the scheme?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002222eb347d368a496f9d5249c52df11a4a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The policy intent was both to increase the gap between paid income and benefit income, which the package does, and to lift the incomes of all low to middle income families, which the package does. Under Labour, the number of families who depend upon benefits has been falling.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c783d34428d4a9cb8f57946eda16966\u0022\u003EPeter Brown\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister aware that there is some sympathy on this side of the House for the tax relief suggestions that United Future occasionally makes; if he is aware of that, would he recommend that United Future members show a bit more fortitude and stick to their guns, in which case they might succeed, or is he quite happy that they roll over continually?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d5a9fa53037e4a6fa50501ac28d87600\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: We have a positive relationship. Mr Copeland is full of many ideas for reducing the Government\u2019s revenue, not all of which are affordable\u2014at least, not simultaneously.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e0dea042dd7496488067cfaa151caa6\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: Why should a family with a single income of $60,000 per annum pay $57 per week more than another family in which one partner is earning $40,000 and the other $20,000, when both families have the same pre-tax income; how can that be regarded as fair?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225300e61d31774814a7b80666e4e324df\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: The member does point to a difficulty that is created by progressive tax rates, but income splitting creates the opposite problem, in that there is significant disadvantage for the single-income family in many respects, particularly in that higher-income families get much better tax relief than lower-income families. That will always be the problem around income splitting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223bbf983f78db45a99ca1ce7afebed1d8\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister recovered physically from the injuries no doubt inflicted on him by the rigorous and aggressive presentation and prosecution of the United Future party\u2019s case whenever its members talk to him?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c5a898c976e401586706e66e8aa3acb\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: My understanding is that the United Future party incorporates a large Christian party element. I have always found those members gentle Christian knights to deal with in these respects.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002211ed31e9de9b4582895396f0306adf30\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister believe that there is wisdom in the statement: \u201CThat in all cases where a woman elects to superintend her own household and to be the mother of children, there shall be a law attaching a just share of her husband\u2019s earnings\u201D, as stated by Kate Sheppard in 1896; and would not income splitting fulfil at long last those aspirations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec2e9de705904c749c6ce24b90f4ec4b\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No. I am afraid that relationships within families are a bit more complicated than that. If the result of that was that the income of, say, a family earning $60,000 a year was split into two amounts of $30,000, and the husband kept one lot and the wife with, say, three children had the other, that would be distinctly unfair, I would have thought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e9c89d266d6946cbab751ed8d663576b\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister prefer working with a party that engages reasonably in discussion, or would he prefer to work with a party that demands its own way every week? [Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bff1b13580554428a035893c8ed2e31b\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I say to Mr Hide that I said on a previous occasion that that was my final warning. The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bc1e9f65-e08b-4939-867c-22ef093e2a4e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223cdfc7d0ef94fd7a53c370ccb91a071\u0022\u003ERodney Hide\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022968a8af45c684257a6ecc19cc04b7ab7\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister prefer working with a party that has reasonable discussion and recommendations, or with a party that would demand its own way every week, and would, if it did not succeed in that, put the country and the economy at risk by pulling down the Government every other week?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d34e63c0ffe3491ab08fae1e9843371a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: That is not my experience at the moment, working with Mr Dail Jones on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill matter, but I would say that the Government\u2019s motto in this respect is \u201CWorking with Families\u201D, and the Government\u2019s policy is that families are often quite different one from the other.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022620c25f4900a4fdba60dd10a78b37b97\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Is the true reason that the Minister cannot consider income splitting the fact that his Government, supported by the United Future party, brought in amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act that mean it is almost impossible now to define what a family is, anyway?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c19fbb9649db475ab982ea820c615853\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Absolutely not! Technically, income splitting for tax purposes is no more difficult than a number of other aspects of the current taxation system.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220083bcaa-f44d-4b70-97de-d091a209b88c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224423f445561a4fd8876cd17ba869573c\u0022\u003EJohn Key\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table the answer to written question No. 13537, which shows, amongst other things, that 64 percent of recipients of the Working for Families package are welfare beneficiaries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283c04bbc851644879f8f589a826e5c12\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022b49b976daec14d5281707656dbff3ff2\u0022\u003EMember for Tamaki Makaurau\u2014Waipareira Trust\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E7. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002275d9d922a8a34e9090c3385d0aa2b31e\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Prime Minister: Was she advised of reports that John Tamihere told colleagues he had accepted a golden handshake from the Waipareira Trust; if so, did she inquire whether any of those colleagues were members of her executive?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00224fba0737d7404cd294eb8a187eedac57\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224fba0737d7404cd294eb8a187eedac57\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister)\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Prime Minister: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f26cf9e623af457c8958c1f28042c7c2\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Prime Minister intend finding out whether any members of her executive have known for some time that John Tamihere accepted the golden handshake, while she was out in public defending him?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6dd6c19b8f245509e529b73c7d1dbf6\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227447dda1a7ab456199f9c3b5cc7459fc\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Is she aware that today John Tamihere has stated that he was always going to accept a golden handshake, despite the fact that he had gone on record saying he would not, and what confidence should anyone have in Mr Tamihere, when he deliberately sets out to deceive her, the media, and the public of New Zealand; and why on earth is she considering putting him back in Cabinet?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e268c85758d64459a31b6258688742da\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I have seen that comment, there is an inquiry under way, and consideration will be given to all matters at the end of those inquiries.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221bf3bd4f108e4c0eb87530851f2a91e4\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave to table a Radio New Zealand transcript in which Mr Tamihere admits that he always intended to take the golden handshake, and that he knew it would be offered again when he turned it down.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003EDocument, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002259d377f15da545ee994ebb19322415bb\u0022\u003EYouth Offending Teams\u2014Objectives\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223a0e52c8-5bb1-4325-9870-21f4e3eb3702\u0022\u003E8. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022704601164c13408d83e2dd6463fc0b79\u0022\u003EMARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour\u2014Hamilton West)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Justice: Is he satisfied that youth offending teams are achieving the purpose for which they were established?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022 data-id=\u0022ce63460d2d8e43fbba6d035e77bc951f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ce63460d2d8e43fbba6d035e77bc951f\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E Yes, the Police, the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, the Ministry of Health, and the Ministry of Education are now working together much more effectively in responding to youth offending, which was one of the purposes of setting up the teams. In the member\u2019s own electorate of Hamilton, the youth offending team there is a model example. The agencies now work together as a team, instead of, as in the past, with at-risk youths dealing with a series of authorities, none of which were talking to one another. The new joint initiatives from the youth offending team are now delivering outstanding results, and the youth offending team has won very strong community support because of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223a0e52c8-5bb1-4325-9870-21f4e3eb3702\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252ec8f91818a49918593674d052292ba\u0022\u003EMartin Gallagher\u003C/span\u003E: What programmes run by the Hamilton youth offending team does he believe have been particularly effective, especially in view of his recent trip to Hamilton?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f7b1db27c97242788920d29f1c5893c6\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: I think the programmes run by the agencies to share information and to coordinate case management of youth have been particularly effective. What has also been working really well are programmes designed to tackle the causes of offending, such as truancy, suspension and expulsion from school, educational failure, and drug and alcohol abuse. Finally, what has been really effective has been the use of alternative action, or diversion programmes. The number of offenders successfully completing those programmes has doubled; and the numbers failing to complete the plan have fallen to around 3 percent. That is an outstanding result.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002204ed8007-24ee-45fb-ab8e-8573da79b238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227d6f140475bb4527967bfa221c169565\u0022\u003EMarc Alexander\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister satisfied that family group conferences lead to effective outcomes for young offenders, when a Blenheim youth involved in the repeated burglary and assault of an 88-year-old World War II veteran who had recently admitted his guilt in a family group conference then subsequently denied it in court; or does he agree that getting offenders to own up in these conferences is pointless, unless it is also accompanied by swift punishment that actually provides consequences for their actions?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c699e7c6-53b9-470c-a14a-378cb6fc8a04\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221548be498e25427b8668ccfd5c5186f4\u0022\u003EHon PHIL GOFF\u003C/span\u003E: Like any form of justice and punishment, we do not get 100 percent success. What is really good about family group conferences is that they deal with the hard-core offenders and they succeed, in more than half of the cases, in either preventing reoffending or only further minor reoffending. If the members opposite who are speaking from the depths of their own ignorance would like to read the report Achieving Effective Outcomes In Youth Justice they would find good results. When we take a matter to a family group conference, rather than to the Youth Court, in fact the victim is most likely to achieve reparation and an apology that do not come through the Youth Court process, the level of reoffending is less, and it is seen by both the victim and the offender, not as a soft option but as a more effective option for both the victim and the offender.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002232758c2a53d5489f808f1f04bf3b4b78\u0022\u003ETeachers\u2014Training Quality\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E9. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222604b12798db473d9f2addfecd800925\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Education: Can he confirm that the reason the New Zealand Teachers Council cannot release a report about the quality of teacher training in New Zealand is because he has not released it; if so, when will he release it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u0022abc25af1b2e84869aa4d47ba9a606ba7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022abc25af1b2e84869aa4d47ba9a606ba7\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Associate Minister of Education (Tertiary Education))\u003C/span\u003E, on behalf of the Minister of Education: No, the Minister cannot confirm that. The report is not the Minister\u2019s to release. I am advised that although the report was never intended to be officially published, it has already been released.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239b747a2fdd74f8b8d02ccf4d4b81b57\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Is the Minister of Education aware that the New Zealand Teachers Council is meant to be an independent statutory body, and can he confirm that the public comments made by the Teachers Council over this damning report show that he is exercising political influence, which, in this case, is against the law?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224d7d873fb27f471c943edd3d10e1dfc0\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: No, I cannot confirm that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002277e3870a6d724d1da0cdb4b5521f6803\u0022\u003ELynne Pillay\u003C/span\u003E: What are some of the positive achievements of the Teachers Council since it was established?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000173\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7272366cf254d84a48ff08fc1c39104\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: Although the Teachers Council has had a challenging start, we should not overlook the good progress that has been made in some key areas. The council has made good progress in putting in place a code of ethics for the teaching profession, in implementing a greatly strengthened disciplinary system, in implementing the police vetting of non-teaching staff, and in re-registering a large number of teachers. In time, the Teachers Council has the potential to contribute considerably to the quality of the teaching profession.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000174\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cb5e591b-8ffc-4539-a900-1ee22224f7d7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213a5c53340b741e2b328009c3f3f4a3c\u0022\u003EDeborah Coddington\u003C/span\u003E: How can boards of trustees, principals, parents, and even teachers themselves have any faith in the quality of teacher training in New Zealand, when the Teachers Council, which specifically approves all teacher-training courses in New Zealand, has come up with its own report that states that even it cannot guarantee that all courses are turning out well-prepared teachers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000175\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f9dfa243a00495ea3e2ca1481b4bfc9\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I understand that this report was commissioned following a suggestion made by the New Zealand Educational Institute as part of a working-party on qualifications for primary school teachers. The report was the initial stage of a four-phase research project being carried out by the ministry and the Teachers Council, and helped to establish the parameters for the rest of the research programme. The report looked at a sample of historical documentation on initial teacher education programme approvals by the Teachers Council. Of course, this research is being used, alongside the development of the council, to improve the qualifications of teachers.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000176\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a031c9de-7856-491c-8f6f-bc67f285b4f7\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ac104a7504214a769368dc5446cd4ad5\u0022\u003EBernie Ogilvy\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister of Education\u2014given the repeated muck-ups by the Teachers Council, such as the backlog of teacher registrations, the demise of several council chairs with golden handshakes, the concerns of the Education and Science Committee, and the continued absence of the council\u2019s first item of business, which was the code of ethics\u2014have complete confidence in his Teachers Council; if so, why?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000177\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ee1a9117cc74d8383f32e1d6086dbc8\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I think it would be fair to say that the Teachers Council has had to overcome some pretty serious setbacks in the formation of its work plan and its organisation. Of course, the future of the council will be dependent upon its ability to continue to attract good management, staff, and members of its governing body. We hope that is the case, because, like most countries, we want to have a Teachers Council doing this kind of work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000178\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c358a98215c4efc9265f503d6cbd577\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: What action does the Minister of Education intend to take on the findings of the report, which are that among the programmes reviewed there are many with poorly developed conceptual frameworks, narrowly conceived programmes based on a single theorist, an unidentified research base, inadequate practicum arrangements, unclear progression through the programme, and irrelevant courses not aligned with the New Zealand curriculum; and when will he take this issue seriously, given that very poorly prepared teachers are standing in front of thousands of children today because these courses are no good?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022309201f4882a4cafa0b256ca47546425\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: The report was commissioned, as I said before, by the ministry and the Teachers Council so that it could inform their thinking about initial teacher education and their respective roles in it. In other words, the research, the first stage of a four-stage piece of research, is to help the Teachers Council to do exactly what the member is seeking.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df1ac00de2864df7874237c7b4987ac2\u0022\u003EHon Bill English\u003C/span\u003E: Can the Minister of Education not see that much more urgent action is needed than a four-stage report and collaboration process, given that a recent report from the Education Review Office concluded that half of all beginning secondary school teachers and one-third of all beginning primary school teachers were ineffective, which affects the education of 30,000 children today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a715e185382d4e138c23ff91742a7e5e\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I would point out that the Minister of Education\u2019s concern about initial teacher education has been of note for some time, which is why there is a moratorium on initial teacher education providers, and why organisations such as the Teachers Council and the Ministry of Education have been working actively on initial teacher education since that time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d1f7843b4d1f46d88278dd6e705e713a\u0022\u003EBroadcasting\u2014Government Policy\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022749a724d-1ef9-49cb-9ba2-2610403653ea\u0022\u003E10. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022189521a7c72d40dcafbdc4985c33fa94\u0022\u003EDIANNE YATES (Labour\u2014Hamilton East)\u003C/span\u003E to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent reports has he received about the success of the Government\u2019s broadcasting policies?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022 data-id=\u002285cb2791813440089d1a17f0559f6577\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002285cb2791813440089d1a17f0559f6577\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Broadcasting):\u003C/span\u003E I have received the report released today from New Zealand On Air\u2019s research, which shows that 90 percent of New Zealanders regularly watch locally made documentaries. More than three-quarters believe that they want to see more television with New Zealanders in their proper place on the television screen, and more than three-quarters enjoy hearing New Zealand music on radio, and think radio stations should play more. This research endorses completely the Government\u2019s policies in these areas.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022749a724d-1ef9-49cb-9ba2-2610403653ea\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e25c59cfe67b4ea580158e9ae71d1965\u0022\u003EDianne Yates\u003C/span\u003E: What reports has the Government seen on the possible sale of Television New Zealand?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022605133aa-6c88-4150-82dd-7d9fcf1824b4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238bcf5f6eed645e3bfca26f3b6142ef9\u0022\u003EHon STEVE MAHAREY\u003C/span\u003E: I have seen a report, which leaves open the possibility of selling TV2 and scrapping the charter, from someone who says that he never watches television. If he did watch television he would know that TV2 is a channel for locally produced children\u2019s and young people\u2019s programming. Selling it would fly in the face of the views of 86 percent of New Zealanders who want to see a lot more local programmes for children and young people on our screens. Furthermore, that member might like to know that it is impracticable to sell Television New Zealand\u2019s second channel, because it is just a frequency. It would require, first of all, splitting an integrated business, but of course someone who does not watch television probably does not know that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221d8cc7997ad24b4a972ff0ac51f536eb\u0022\u003ESuperannuation\u2014Married Rate\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E11. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7748e0c7f5748b9aba2e92cd28755ad\u0022\u003ERt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader\u2014NZ First)\u003C/span\u003E to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What has a married couple receiving New Zealand Superannuation been receiving as a percentage of the net average ordinary time weekly wage on a quarterly basis since and including September 2003, and is this consistent with the Government\u2019s policy?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022ea415fc57cfe4ab8b638e052b009d708\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ea415fc57cfe4ab8b638e052b009d708\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment):\u003C/span\u003E I am advised that as of September 2003 the average quarterly rate of New Zealand superannuation for a married couple, as a percentage of the average ordinary time weekly wage was 65.09 percent. This is consistent with the Government\u2019s policy.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022024a1a57433b4232a0fc888b2be6f585\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked that Minister as to what has happened since, and including, September 2003. He deliberately left out the \u201Csince\u201D part, and that is the key part of my question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224efb197cbe714a3ab6fb3bd1837045ee\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: That is perfectly correct. The member has answered the question relating to September 2003, but the question stated \u201Csince and including\u201D, so there need to be more statistics there.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002267e870730a4e4d5f97ebb7bf68556571\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: I can give the member a couple more figures, if he wishes. As of 1 March 2004 the quarterly rate was 64.88 percent, and at June 2004 the rate was 64.83 percent, but the average was 65 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00223d49aeac-8adf-497b-9400-ab7bb077bb8d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a7b6e76c63c643a48406864ab8a478e6\u0022\u003ERt Hon Winston Peters\u003C/span\u003E: I thank the Minister for getting to the point he did not want to disclose, but can I ask him why he is being so mean and outside the law in respect of the elderly people of this country who, in comparison with the promise Labour made, are getting well in excess of $30 less per week now than they were getting before?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225667f57d71f94cc695e37348ca7b1037\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: The claim that superannuitants are getting $30 a week less than they should be is pure nonsense\u2014absolute arrant nonsense. When one sets a figure in a simple way as a relative percentage it is to be expected that over time it may erode. The next time it comes up for inspection it will be adjusted back to its level\u2014that member, and all superannuitants, can be assured of that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226f6e1ae1-8aa5-4f71-8e73-30bb378026c4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273beed6273734fb5bd412ebb032b227f\u0022\u003EGeorgina Beyer\u003C/span\u003E: What is the Government doing to meet the concerns, and the welfare needs, of our senior citizens?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e13518d61194fc9b82b7a4ca28c06db\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: When this Government came into office the previous administration had reduced the fall of superannuation from 65 percent down to 60 percent. That was the legacy of the National Party in Government. This Government reversed that and has now lifted the fall back. This means superannuitants, as a married couple, are at least $21 per week better off. In addition to that we have made changes in local driver licensing, reduced primary health organisation charges, brought down the cost of prescriptions, put money into knee and hip operation costs, and have maintained income-related rents. We have done an enormous amount for our senior citizens, and will continue to do so.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u002211e4501127e045378d3c03627e1b67eb\u0022\u003EForeshore and Seabed Bill\u2014Ancestral Connection\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E12. \u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227eab883849ad465a83a386a1f7eb9d9d\u0022\u003EGERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader\u2014National)\u003C/span\u003E to the Deputy Prime Minister: Does the Government intend to support the removal of ancestral connection provisions from the Foreshore and Seabed Bill; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u002217d0e96342b4487583cfa64d55e6123a\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002217d0e96342b4487583cfa64d55e6123a\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister):\u003C/span\u003E I am still involved in a range of discussions with my own colleagues, including M\u0101ori caucus committee colleagues, and with New Zealand First. When those discussions are concluded I will be happy to provide the outcome of that process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229216aa63b96044ea96662bff3d4cf8e7\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Minister have any concerns that the Government\u2019s proposal to enable ancestral connection orders to be recognised for more than one iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau over the same stretch of coastline will have an adverse effect on iwi capacity to establish coastal boundaries for allocation of fisheries and aquacultural quota; if not, why not?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5e70298bcef48609136dc7ced6213a8\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: No, not necessarily, but I do note the range of submissions that have been made on this issue, and they will be considered before final decisions are made.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252bdc753e2ea481d83e6ba6531ea7b6f\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: Has the Minister seen the National Party\u2019s report on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, which affects these matters, indicating that the National Party supports the recognition of customary rights now, and has he received any indication from the National Party as to the manner in which this change of mind can be implemented?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222609f15d6a7f478d8df0125da7f78baf\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: In so far as this relates to the Minister being in charge of this particular legislation, yes, he can answer that part of the question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002282d13c5c7c944ee59d7d3724c62fa281\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have put our report in. To my knowledge we certainly have not been notified that it has been tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229e3d7f6bb79841bdab4b19aadf2c07d1\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: I tabled it today.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222841d67bcebc425f9ddfd0bdd36d4f16\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: OK, I did not hear you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ffc2a5470d44163b90e3a82f893d0f8\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member should have been listening.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226477989215164b41835250dc40361f93\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a new point of order, Mr Speaker.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221016477355ff4031ac99c8d2e7695218\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: This is a new point of order? What is it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022442773c1e8f34f82b96868cc4c69dbf9\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. Firstly, I would hope that when a point of order like that is called you would not tolerate members making the sorts of comments for which I was slung out of the House yesterday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227695ec8417904545a580f69f414a1e72\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member will sit down. He was not thrown out of the House for that at all. He was thrown out of the House because he used an unparliamentary expression that he refused to withdraw. He knows why he was thrown out yesterday. It had nothing to do with that at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022655135770f7c4584b2772fd335f913de\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can the Minister responsible for that bill have any responsibility for what we put in our report?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222bb5c3d5adb9409f8efe9f9c608f43d6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister was asked whether he had received communication from the National Party. He can answer that question.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f4a741373ba4ea7b6552130a00ffb50\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I am aware of the support for customary rights orders expressed by the National Party in the report. To do that requires legislation. Otherwise, one sits with the current law. First, there is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to consider questions of customary title and aboriginal title, and under the Ng\u0101ti Awa decision, to award customary land status to M\u0101ori. I understand that the latter is opposed by National. It completely fails to understand that simply regulating that side of the equation does not cover the issue of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court in this matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002219386ba0-5a6e-485e-abc0-5a3128b4e1f6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e93f39d2d3b42e4902239c6f894e874\u0022\u003EHon Ken Shirley\u003C/span\u003E: Under the current arrangements of the foreshore and seabed legislation, what would prevent a 1/64th M\u0101ori living in Sydney from asserting ancestral connection rights through iwi affiliation?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225feff0a329b94dcf86c78f6d90e147b1\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Under the bill as it stands at the moment, it is possible to apply for ancestral connection orders, which would be on behalf of a group of M\u0101ori. Normally, they would be regarded as iwi, hap\u016B, or wh\u0101nau. The fact that somebody lives somewhere else does not remove the fact he or she has a connection back to his or her ancestors. I continue to support the Tottenham Hotspurs, despite their appalling record over recent weeks.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000217\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002288fb329e61e34495a66d1fbccaa8241f\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Minister consider the Greens option that ancestral connection orders should give practical effect to the kaitiakitanga responsibilities that arise from whakapapa links to the coast, rather than pursue further backtracking on M\u0101ori decision-making in the Resource Management Act, as announced earlier today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c05d21035cd94a10accc07bc0ae9224d\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: What the Government seeks to do arising out of the select committee process is to give clear expression to the impact of common law rights within a New Zealand context. If one approaches that from the context of a treaty framework, then that is not, in fact, the correct legal framework for this matter to be dealt with.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000219\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6931ad5d6634b68b5c40dc7224d6442\u0022\u003ELarry Baldock\u003C/span\u003E: Does the Government intend to support either the removal of clause 8(2) from the bill, or the amendment of that clause, to make it clear that nothing in the foreshore and seabed legislation will affect the common law fishing rights exercised in this country by recreational fishers?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c55c6afaf83547838d5543255b3b4bf2\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, we are still involved in discussions on changes to the bill. However, a lot of very useful technical submissions have been made by a variety of organisations, and they will be taken account of in discussions now occurring, and in the drafting that is occurring as well, as we move alongside in a dual process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000221\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002204c6b97ed133448cb6547d34d4ee0687\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: Can he confirm that the recently passed M\u0101ori fisheries allocation bill prevented iwi from getting hold of their allocation in areas where there were coastal boundary disputes, and can he say how he expects the proposed law, which will give ancestral connection to more than one group, and therefore create boundary disputes between iwi, will assist poor M\u0101ori getting the best effect of their fisheries settlement?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000222\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec69dd3fc2044f758ddba687344ee7a0\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: Even if the provisions remain in the bill it does not give ancestral connection to M\u0101ori. M\u0101ori have ancestral connection\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000223\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229d30a3a156324d69a3eb5848479234f1\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: You\u2019re being pedantic.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000224\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d3e846aea0ab4332a37cca8087f5b310\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: That is not pedantic. That, in fact, is at the very heart of the issue that is under consideration. The reality is that M\u0101ori do dispute where the boundaries are between them. One of the issues in the M\u0101ori fisheries allocation bill was to provide a mechanism to ensure that those disputes did not drag on indefinitely into the future.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000225\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002203e6f7647ff648708e88cfbaa6132b98\u0022\u003EMetiria Turei\u003C/span\u003E: Will the Government look at replacing ancestral connection orders with some kind of substantive process for M\u0101ori decision-making in the Resource Management Act, as was sought by submitters to the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, or is this Government so desperate for popular appeal that it will follow New Zealand First and National, ensuring that M\u0101ori have as little decision making as possible in the Resource Management Act?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000226\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022124138e58a7e431d9c38d2fc424cf739\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: There are a number of issues. One is the issue of the recognition of specific customary rights. The bill provides, and no doubt will continue to provide, a clear set of mechanisms in relation to that, though customary fishing rights are already dealt with in legislation and will not be affected by the Foreshore and Seabed Bill. On the other matter, which is more relevant to the Ng\u0101ti Apa decision, it is clear from the Court of Appeal decision that there is not expected to be some kind of general right held by all M\u0101ori everywhere. It is specific to those with particular rights in relation to what, in the bill, is called \u201Cterritorial customary rights\u201D. That, of course, is the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. I repeat, the National Party does not understand that if we do not legislate around that, then that inherent jurisdiction can continue to be exercised as freely as the court wishes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000227\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e6b4dc55-3561-49a8-a871-ae005354ef90\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cfdb90cf6f924eef861ca0c96ea1b69f\u0022\u003EGerry Brownlee\u003C/span\u003E: In the light of Chief M\u0101ori Land Court Judge, Joe Williams\u2019, recent activist statements, does he think it is appropriate for the Government to be giving M\u0101ori Land Court judges jurisdiction to issue ancestral connection, when clearly those ancestral connections will give some iwi leverage over others in preventing them getting at their fisheries allocations?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000228\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d438eb818d7345f68fbd6850b27a9079\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN\u003C/span\u003E: I know that I have said this a few times, but I will repeat it. The Government is in the process of discussions with its own caucus membership and with New Zealand First. We have not made a decision on whether that part of the bill is staying in.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000229\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00220234d0b5c018424fb02df93306f810d2\u0022\u003ECustoms and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000230\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022c330458fd7d84118972d26f9a7e54687\u0022\u003EFirst Reading\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u00222dde6ac4d4f24b5fb99ae29647da1098\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000231\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222dde6ac4d4f24b5fb99ae29647da1098\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and that the committee present its final report on or before 16 December 2004. To allow for this, I will move at the appropriate time that the committee have authority to meet to examine the bill at any time while the House is sitting, except during questions for oral answer, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and to meet on a Friday in a week where there has been a sitting of the House, notwithstanding Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000232\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E This bill is important because it provides a more secure funding base for the improvements in land transport that are part of the Government\u2019s Investing for Growth strategy announced in December 2003. That strategy was designed to improve the governance of transport in Auckland and significantly boost regional land transport funding throughout the country. Good transport systems, however, cost money, and this bill is about ensuring there is money now and in the future to make improvements to land transport.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000233\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe bill contains two amendments to the Customs and Excise Act. The first amendment increases the amount of duty to be paid on petrol by 5c a litre, excluding GST. This bill provides for this increase to come into effect on 1 April next year. However, the Government will promote an amendment to this bill to provide for an increase in the petrol tax, to be brought into effect by Order in Council on a date no earlier than 1 April 2005. This allows the Government to determine the appropriate time to apply the increase, taking into account the international price of oil. The second amendment indexes to inflation the portion of fuel excise duty used to fund land transport. Indexation will be annual, and will be implemented from 1 April 2006. At expected average rates of inflation, each annual increase will be approximately half a cent per litre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000234\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EOutside the scope of this bill, the Government will also move to make an equivalent increase to road-user charges payable for diesel vehicles weighing 5 tonnes or less. This increase will also be brought into effect by Order in Council on a date no earlier than 1 April 2005. Together the increases in petrol excise and road-user charges will generate approximately $207 million annually, exclusive of GST. All the additional funds will be dedicated to land transport, allocated under the National Land Transport Programme, and distributed around the country according to population. On the basis of population, $1.3 billion will be distributed over the next 10 years to areas outside Auckland. This means, for example, that my part of the country\u2014Hawke\u2019s Bay\u2014will gain approximately $70 million for road transport. The Nelson-Marlborough-Tasman area will receive $66 million extra, and, in the far north, Northland will receive an extra $73 million for road transport. Auckland, because of its population, will receive $716 million and will also receive a special grant of $900 million from the consolidated account, making Auckland\u2019s total funding for land transport for the next decade $1.62 billion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000235\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThis funding is part of a massive Government commitment, over the next 10 years, to land transport nationwide\u2014a commitment worth more than $18 billion in total. This commitment is by far the largest that any Government has made to land transport for some considerable time. As we all know, it is sorely needed as this Government works to rebuild the country\u2019s worn-down infrastructure.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000236\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThe bill also provides a mechanism for collecting those funds, to ensure that the result of decades of underfunding of land transport will be addressed. In the past, successive Governments have had to pass new legislation every time increases in excise tax on petrol were required. Increases to the excise duty on petrol were needed just to maintain the levels of transport initiatives. That is not only because it costs more and more to undertake land transport initiatives but also because new technologies make vehicles more fuel-efficient. While I salute fuel efficiency, it also means that we gather less excise revenue per vehicle per kilometre.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000237\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThis bill provides for the rates of duty on motor spirits to be amended by Order in Council. Any new rate must be calculated in accordance with a specified formula. This formula indexes existing rates of duty in accordance with the consumer price index, excluding credit services, and by reference to the amount of duty required to be diverted to the National Land Transport Fund. So it is carefully targeted, and the increased funding resulting from indexation will be used only for the specific programme for which it was intended. By doing this, the bill puts transport on a more secure funding base than has previously existed.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000238\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EAs I conclude I would like to quote the National Party leader: \u201CThere is no doubt that our roads are under huge pressure.\u201D and \u201CThe real solution to Auckland\u2019s traffic congestion lies in building more roads, and doing so without delay.\u201D So I say to the National Party leader: \u201CWatch this space.\u201D We are setting up the mechanisms to achieve that, and more. Of course, his party does not like the way we are going about it, but I say that people sitting in cars and waiting at bus stops want solutions. This Government is delivering them. This Government has identified transport as a key element in achieving the economic, social, and environmental outcomes that are desired for New Zealand in the 21st century. Our vision for transport is that by 2010 this country will have an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable transport system. There is still some way to go before we achieve our vision, but this bill today is one of the essential building blocks, delivering some of the funding required to make our vision a reality. I commend this bill to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022 data-id=\u0022e24ff398b1334a439cfd3a27e8d0ec05\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000239\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e24ff398b1334a439cfd3a27e8d0ec05\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National\u2014Rodney):\u003C/span\u003E What this Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill reminds us is that when it comes to the Labour Party, voters should be very careful of what that party does not say. The House will remember Helen Clark\u2019s promise back in 1999, when she said that a Labour Government would not increase income tax other than the increase to 39c for, she said, 5 percent of the people. Of course, it did not remind the public of New Zealand\u2014the voters\u2014that income tax is only one of dozens of taxes that people pay. This Labour Government has had a field day in lifting all the other taxes. It is gouging tax out of New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000240\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E At the last count I saw of the tax increases under this Labour Government, this is the 24th since it has been in office. This is the 24th tax or levy increase since Labour has been in office. Those members conned the people of New Zealand that they would put up only the top income tax rate, for people on over $60,000. They said they would not put the corporate tax rate up, or GST. What they did not tell the voters is that there are lots of other taxes that people pay, and this Labour Government just keeps wrenching them up and gouging more tax. How much more has it collected? Thirty-four billion dollars more. That is a 40 percent increase in the tax that is taken off New Zealanders. This is the 24th increase in tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000241\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EWhat will upset voters, and should make them very angry, is that Helen Clark\u2019s Labour Government is going to hit them again with more expensive petrol at a time when petrol is at about the highest price it has ever been. It costs me over 80 bucks each time I fill my car up\u2014more than $80! I am lucky; I am on a better salary than the average New Zealander. But ordinary, average New Zealanders are hit hard, and it hurts, and Labour does not care. It will just gouge another 5c a litre out of the ever-suffering motorist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000242\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f23caa8b761f4efaadea727c7a92d642\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: Plus GST.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000243\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c5daa45d6ed74fd68d06c12f7d6ceebd\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Plus GST, as my good colleague Pansy Wong reminds me. What will make people angry is the fact that this Government is sitting on a surplus of $7.4 billion.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000244\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d6665d72495b497da7150d2af7c71253\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: How much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000245\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229780b73e19e54606a45b91c7316bf6fc\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: It is $7.4 billion. Michael Cullen, the Minister of Revenue, will say that the operating balance excluding revaluations and accounting charges is not that big. It is over $6 billion, and no one is denying that. It is clearly within the Government\u2019s power to change the way we fund our roading in New Zealand. To fund roading out of cash income is like trying to buy one\u2019s house out of one\u2019s piggy bank. If this Labour Government has not got its economic maturity above that level, it does not deserve to govern.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000246\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a8ec742ebe4f44c29fc6b8d417da2adb\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: They are still in cash-flow accounting.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000247\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283e15059e158400a9d1b27e8302731ba\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: As Pansy Wong says, it is still in cash-flow accounting. It is absurd to tax today\u2019s New Zealanders to get cash to invest in assets that will be enjoyed by New Zealand 20 years hence. That is clearly absurd, and it is wrong. There are several ways that the Government could be looking at refinancing roading in this country, because that is what it is about. There is a desperate need. This 5c increase will raise, I understand, about $165 million or thereabouts. That is a laughable amount of money when we look at the investment and the financing required. What this Labour Government does not seem to understand is that the roading problem is huge, and Transit\u2019s 10-year plan does not even start to grapple with the magnitude of the problem out there. Trying to solve it by gouging more cash out of ordinary, hard-working New Zealanders is not the way to finance our roading.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000248\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EIf the Government cannot get its mind round a decent, long-term financing system for roading, it could shift across some of the petrol tax money that goes into the consolidated account. National did that in the 1990s. We shifted money across to help fund roading. The Government could do that, but, no, I guess that would be helping our ordinary citizens, and this Labour Government does not believe in doing that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000249\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI just want Labour members to reflect on what they are doing to this country right now. On 1 April 2005 the tax on petrol will go up an extra 5c, and I suppose that by the time GST goes on top of that, it will be more that that. What will that do to the price of transport in New Zealand, when we are already being charged fuel levies\u2014and members should not forget that the Government will put up road-user charges too\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000250\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226eaaff87e2f2445bb6929d5c0400f8d4\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: And a carbon tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000251\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d23308e6d01e412ba899f53dd80f3899\u0022\u003EDr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014and a carbon tax is coming in, as well\u2014for freight in this country? I know that Labour members would not know that, because none of them run businesses, but I can tell them that when I pay my freight accounts for the transport of livestock, there is a fuel levy as a separate line item. The freight rate charge is one thing, but there is a fuel levy in addition to that. So at a time when businesses are already being charged fuel levies, Labour wants to put the cost of transport up still further by putting petrol taxes up and increasing road-user charges. Do Labour members not care at all about what they are doing to businesses in this country? Do they not care at all about what they are doing to the average, hard-working New Zealander? If one is on the average income in New Zealand\u2014about $37,000, I think\u2014then 80 bucks to fill a tank with petrol is a huge hole in one\u2019s pay packet for the week, and Labour is about to make it more expensive.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000252\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EAnd Labour will increasingly make it more expensive, because not only does this bill put up the petrol tax from 1 April next year but from 1 April 2006 it will be indexed to inflation. If this was a reasonable, even-handed Government, and it was going to do that, one would think that it would also index the income tax thresholds, so that the average New Zealander was not being pushed up into higher income tax brackets. But, oh no, not Helen Clark\u2019s nasty Labour Government! Those members are not interested in the welfare of the ordinary New Zealander. They want to have it both ways. They want to gouge tax both ways. In the last couple of years the average New Zealand worker, according to OECD data, has had the second-biggest increase in income tax in the OECD, largely because of the bracket creep issue. Wage and salary earners are being pushed up into higher tax brackets, because although Labour wants to index petrol taxes it will not index the income tax thresholds. So average New Zealand workers are being gouged more for income tax\u2014the second-biggest increase in the OECD for the average worker\u2014and now the Government is going to make it more expensive for them to fill their cars up at the petrol station.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000253\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003EI want the Labour Government to think about what it is doing to ordinary New Zealanders. I suppose ordinary New Zealanders would say it was OK if it was solving the problem, but I come back to the fact that Minister Barker, who introduced this legislation today, is deluded if he thinks this measure will solve the roading problem. He is in a dream world. It will not. In the next 10 years, for example, north of Auckland\u2014where I come from\u2014there is a plan to take the motorway through to P\u016Bhoi. Many members of this House will not know where P\u016Bhoi is, although it is a lovely place; it is in my electorate. This four-lane motorway will dump out into an area where there is already huge traffic congestion as Aucklanders try to get to the east coast beaches north of Auckland. There is nothing in Transit\u2019s roading plan for the next 10 years to do anything about that, and this money will not solve the problem in any way at all.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000254\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003ENew Zealanders will suffer from the tax gouging of the Labour Government and they will still be caught up in gridlock on our roads.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022 data-id=\u0022a5ed519e6c084e3cbadff51f77beb8c2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000255\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a5ed519e6c084e3cbadff51f77beb8c2\u0022\u003EHon MARK GOSCHE (Labour\u2014Maungakiekie):\u003C/span\u003E That was pathetic. If the National Party could find somebody who knew something about transport, that person would be here making a speech. The National Party has no policy and no ideas. It did nothing. The member who just resumed his seat needs to be reminded that when the National Party was in Government for 9 long years it built half of the ALPURT motorway in Auckland and did nothing else. It froze public transport spending. It had a road toll that it could not control. It had no plans ready\u2014nothing. When I became the Minister of Transport the Opposition said we would see not one motorway project built or even started, in Auckland, in our first 3 years in Government. What happened? We got heaps of projects going and finished. Now the Grafton Gully\u2014as the members over there would know if they had ever been there\u2014is finished, the Puhinui interchange is finished, and State Highway 20 is about to start. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000256\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003EJust as important, more money has been put into road safety. When I became the Minister the Opposition said we were not going to meet our targets of stopping New Zealanders dying on our roads, unless we put in a large amount of money. Between us, the Minister of Police, George Hawkins, and I created the highway patrol and a whole raft of new road safety measures. We have got the best road safety results ever since. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000257\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003EJust as important, we have doubled the spend on public transport. That lot over there had frozen it for 5 years. It is absolutely ridiculous to have the National Party talking about transport. It did nothing. It had a policy called Better Transport, Better Roads. It wasted 5 years running around the country getting rubbished by everybody and it is here today with no policies and no ideas. It does nothing; that is why it is in Opposition and will stay there for a very long time. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000258\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022263be082-dd01-4ef1-9c19-d546d0174793\u0022\u003EThis is a good measure. The public of New Zealand know that we have a transport infrastructure deficit created by 9 years of National Party neglect. They know they have to pay some more to fix it, which is what this bill does.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u00229d76bd84884e481391cb1211596880e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000259\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d76bd84884e481391cb1211596880e6\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I do agree with the statement by the Hon Mark Gosche that during the 9 years of a National Government little was done on roading. But we are not going to support this bill; it is an absolute load of garbage. In 1991 or 1992 I went to the Rt Hon Winston Peters\u2014perhaps in some ways, as that is how I ended up here, I wish I had not\u2014and told him I was a consultant for port reform.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000260\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221804ec3f21244c7f96157e2a6ba4115b\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: He was in the National Party, wasn\u2019t he?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000261\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b04ae10bf074fe79ba67c913c31f05f\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: He was in the National Party at that time, yes. I told him that once we got port reform, and this country was working 7 days a week, 24/7, the trucking on our roads would be enormous and the roads would not keep up with it. In 1993 I went to see the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who had by then formed New Zealand First, at a public meeting. He put on his usual charm as I walked out and asked me to write him a transport policy. I did not dream for one minute that I would be here now trying to put it into place. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000262\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI have to tell the honourable members over there that the only thing they have got right about this is that we need to put some money into roading. I agree with Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith that the way we fund roads in this country\u2014and this is what I told Winston way back in 1991\u2014on a \u201Cpay as you go\u201D system is absolutely ludicrous. People have listened to the Greens far too often in recent times. I am totally ignoring them right now. I am not going to take a blind bit of notice of the member on my left. Basically this country needs more roads fast. Lockwood Smith referred to the fact that they are intergenerational. I think he said 20 years; I hope the roading we build in this country will last a lot longer than 20 years.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000263\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac169d29-4849-42c2-a4a7-f344fd416503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eab1912fead8426fb9c0cf5bbefbe293\u0022\u003EDr the Hon Lockwood Smith\u003C/span\u003E: They don\u2019t; they fall apart.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000264\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223a6fc5d6bd904844b4b3b340261d6f86\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: They do not last, because of construction problems. We should be borrowing the money to finance these roads within the existing funding stream, particularly if the excise tax on petrol that goes into the Crown account is transferred across. That was started when we were in coalition Government\u20142.1c per litre of petrol went across to the roading account. That was a New Zealand First initiative, which would have continued had we stayed on the Government benches. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000265\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWith that money we should be borrowing to build these roads, and building them fast. We have been absolutely dumb in this country. When we had massive unemployment we should have been building roads. A few years ago, in the 1930s, a chap called Francis Chichester came out and said there was a Depression in this country, so we should grow logs. And look at the benefits of that to this country right now. We planted timber, and it has had huge benefits. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000266\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EWhen we had unemployment problems in the late 1980s and 1990s, we should have been building roads. [Interruption] I tell Mr Cunliffe not to take this lightly. Many people have died because of our failure to build roads and because of our inadequate roading. They will continue to die until we build adequate roading, and the way to do that is to borrow money. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000267\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EUnited Future is a party with fortitude to some very limited degree. In the last few days its members have been pushing for tax relief here, there, and everywhere. They have not won one cent of tax relief, yet they will support this bill to increase tax on petrol. Does that make sense? It does not make sense to me, but I am just a simple sailor. United Future members have been going around the country bragging that we need a 5.6c a litre increase on petrol when we have a huge amount of money in the consolidated account. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000268\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EThe tax take in June this year is close to 40 percent greater than it was in June 1999. Now we are talking about slugging the motorist for another 5.6c per litre of petrol. It is an absolute disgrace. On top of that\u2014and it is only 10 seconds away\u2014we know that the Government is going to put in tolls here, there, and everywhere, including on the second bridge in Tauranga. United Future members are actually bragging about this. They are bragging that the motorist should be slugged for another 5.6c a litre and that we should be paying road tolls. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000269\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI say to the honourable members in the Government that, for God\u2019s sake, they should get their wits about them and read the Allen report. It is a very significant report. It tells us what can be done, and the advantages on a dollar basis, with an investment in roading in this country. It is very, very significant. On a dollar-invested basis, the returns in Tauranga would be huge. It states that on a loan repayment at 8 percent there is a $6.50 return on a dollar invested. That is the way to go. There would not be one business in this country that would fund its expansion of business\u2014and that is basically what we are talking about by expanding the road infrastructure\u2014there would not be one company or any business people worth their salt who would want to pay as they go. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000270\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E They would be saying \u201CLet\u2019s use the dollars we get in revenue to borrow and advance this business.\u201D\u2014be it capital, staff, or whatever. That is what we should be doing with roading in this country. We should be taking a more businesslike approach and saying that we need this amount of roading in this time frame, and we will have to borrow on this basis and pay it back from revenue earned. I listened to the argument that we will get better consumption per litre of petrol and therefore that the revenue will go down. That is quite some way away. Even with the energy-efficient cars that were outside Parliament this afternoon there will still be some revenue from petrol that will be a return. There are also road-user charges. The other thing about this bill is that it does not target the road-user charges that trucks pay. It is only the average motorist in the light diesel vehicle who will pay increased road-user charges. This bill represents nothing more than a rip-off for the motorist. This is an approach by the Government to say that motorists are an easy target and it will take them for all it can.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000271\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002266d412a9c6bd41988c6e6fb7ed4a85b9\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: Auckland needs it. The country needs it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000272\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221a6435541b8046f6b826baea91526279\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: There is no argument that Auckland needs roading. Members will not get any argument from me. But I tell Mr Cunliffe that the way of funding it\u2014and he must have some idea of finance as he is the Associate Minister of Finance, although I guess that does not give him any particular qualification\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000273\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225203ef8bc3cf4c31939077e91d094064\u0022\u003EHon David Cunliffe\u003C/span\u003E: No free lunch.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000274\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022731bf383ef45416e8a2e690447fa7644\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: He is exactly right. There is no free lunch and he should not be putting his free lunches on to the working people that he supposedly represents here. You come in here on the backs of average working people\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000275\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002279efabb227ea479db510b8de5a2c4c4d\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I do not do that, Mr Brown.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000276\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cc1c0853c2bf46069f5a8b27d99b52b5\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: The member wants to question what I am saying.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000277\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002268a70d1868cd4199bee6048e3d41ff13\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: You are bringing me into the debate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000278\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298458d41132c4407a534d8dd90e53927\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: I beg your pardon. I realise that you would not do that in any way. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000279\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EI will answer the member\u2019s concerns. If the Government wants to be fair, then it should accept that roading costs are paid for people who use the roads now and for people who will use the roads tomorrow and the day after. That is a fair way of funding the whole thing. Until we get a political party sitting in the Treasury benches that takes a businesslike approach to roading, the Government will have to slug the motorists, or whoever it can. I tell the Government that we will be there. This is the biggest issue that I think this country faces in the next few months, in terms of finances. It will be a political issue. The people who think that they can keep slugging the motorist\u2014the average person who just goes down the road\u2014for more dollars or cents per litre of petrol and then add road tolls will find that they will come a gutser. We will be back after the next election and we will be insisting that this tax is removed. It is not fair, it is not warranted, and we will remove it. I can categorically tell the House now that it will be removed. I say to the poodles now in the United Future seats that they can vote for it, because we will not have to worry after the next election. They will not be here and we will be taking it off.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022 data-id=\u0022d038159167a14799954f8e69e4eb9e7b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000280\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d038159167a14799954f8e69e4eb9e7b\u0022\u003EJEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader\u2014Green):\u003C/span\u003E The Greens are supporting this bill for two reasons. We are not supporting it just because there is a great lag in infrastructure funding after years of neglect, but also because at the same time we have to accomplish one of the most difficult transitions that our society has ever been through\u2014that is, to a transport infrastructure that is much less reliant on oil than the present one. We have to quickly build a much better public transport infrastructure than we have, a much better rail infrastructure than we have, and better facilities for cycling because there is no evidence that oil will come down from US$55 a barrel to any significant degree or for any significant length of time. It will continue to fluctuate but its long-term trend is inexorably upwards. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000281\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EWe know that, because we have senior people in the oil industry telling us that world production cannot go much higher than it currently is, yet demand is continuing to rise. When that happens New Zealand will be hit a lot worse than Europe because Europeans have adjusted to higher fuel prices for their cars and they have bought cars that are much more fuel efficient than ours are. If ordinary New Zealanders have cars that are anything like Lockwood Smith\u2019s, and they take $80 to fill the tank, then they will be in deep trouble because it will cost $160 to fill the tank before too long. My advice to Lockwood Smith if he is worried about the cost of filling his tank is to get a smaller car. The Europeans have learnt how to do it. It does not cost me anything like $80 to fill my car\u2019s tank. There are solutions to this. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000282\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI would warn the Government, though, not to wait for the price to go down to what it regards as the long-term equilibrium before it brings this legislation into force. If the Government is going to wait for the price to go down to US$19 a barrel, which Treasury thinks is the long-term equilibrium, or even US$30 a barrel, which is Treasury\u2019s revised idea of what the equilibrium might be, then this legislation will sit on the statute book and never come into force at all. It is sensible, when oil prices are fluctuating, to put a levy on it when it is in a bit of a dip, rather than on a peak. But we cannot expect that it will be back to business as usual with cheap oil for the foreseeable future. That will simply not happen. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000283\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe other objection I have to this is that diesel users are still not paying their fair share of excise tax. The petrol users pay for the roads and they also pay into the consolidated account. The diesel users pay absolutely nothing into the consolidated account. They pay only their share of the roading. I think that with the second big increase for diesel users who have vehicles that weigh below 6 tonnes, large diesel trucks will be paying less than their share\u2014even within the terms of the Land Transport Fund. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000284\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThe argument that some excise on fuel should go into the consolidated account is made because motor transport causes significant costs to the rest of the economy, which it does not pay. The principle of economic externalities suggests that those costs ought to be paid by the people who create them. The Government has produced considerable research on this. The land transport funding study that was done back in the late 1990s was not able to be very precise about the quantity of these costs that are caused to the rest of the economy, but they saw it as maybe around $1200 million. In fact, if we want to have fair and transparent pricing, then we need to cost those externalities, like the health care costs that are not covered with the ACC levies, the noise, the pollution, and the greenhouse gases that everybody else has to cover. They ought to be covered in the price of fuel itself. In Europe it is, and fuel prices are much more expensive than ours. Europe\u2019s economy is not suffering compared with ours, and Europeans are coping. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000285\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EPeter Brown believes that we should just build large quantities of roads. I wonder whether Peter has ever looked at the outlook for oil, the 20-year outlook for transport, what will be running on those roads in 20 years, and where we will be if we have nothing but roads. There is a terrible short-sightedness around. There is a refusal to even talk about the longer-term future, the huge shift we have to make, and the infrastructure that we have to build in order to be able to keep mobile after prices continue to rise, and also, I have to say, to cope with the effects of climate change. There is a lot of lip service towards climate change and the Kyoto Protocol but, quite frankly, if we continue increasing our use of fuel and our road transport, and neglecting rail and public transport, we have no hope of addressing the climate change issue. We will all go down together in a screaming heap in a warming climate. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000286\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EI also have to take issue with Peter Brown\u2019s suggestion that we should pay for our roads by borrowing, that that would solve the problem, and that future generations can pick that up. There is a rationale for all roads to be paid for by borrowing and amortised over future use. There is a rationale for paying for them on a \u201Cpay as you go\u201D basis. But what one cannot countenance with any sense of justice is that one generation that has inherited a set of roads completely paid for by previous generations should then change to borrowing on a large scale in order to pass the costs of the extra roads they want on to future generations. It is a little bit like what was done by some members of this House, who received a totally free tertiary education, courtesy of the taxpayer when they were young, then decided they no longer wanted to pay the sorts of tax rates that it takes to pay for an educated society. All of a sudden, they decided the next generation would have to pay for its education with little in the way of student allowances, and very high student fees. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000287\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209278070-a54a-41e9-8a27-45166301277e\u0022\u003EThat means that one generation in the middle gets off scot-free. It inherits a really good system paid for by its parents, and it does not bother to hand that on to its children. That is what we would be doing if we turned now from our \u201Cpay as you go\u201D system to a mainly loan-funded roading system. We would simply be passing that cost, along with all the other costs of oil depletion, climate change, and the increasing cost of fuel, to the next generations. It will not work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u00220dfda4a21f504782b51c4199e819f297\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000288\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220dfda4a21f504782b51c4199e819f297\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of the ACT party to vote against the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. We do so based on a number of principles.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000289\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThe first is that the party disagrees with this tax-grabbing Government\u2019s move. The Government has told the country that this increase in petrol tax is to fund the transport plan to fund roading. But when I look back to 1 March 2002 I see that when this Parliament passed a bill to increase petrol tax by 4.7c per litre, that increase was intended to fund the Government\u2019s road transport package. I ask what has happened to all those millions of dollars that the Government told the country would fund roading. Here we are, again passing another bill to fund roading. What has happened? Is this Government so careless that it has managed to lose that money? Why did that money not go into roading? I would like the next speaker from the Labour Party to explain to us what happened to that 4.7c increase. Back in April 2002 we had a 30 percent increase in road-user charges for those people who had diesel vehicles. A 30 percent increase is a huge amount, and this bill that we are passing now provides for a 24 percent increase in road-user charges for vehicles under 5 tonnes. Back then, 2 years ago, we were told that all of that money was going to fund roading to fix the transport problems in this country, and here we are again\u2014we have a sense of d\u00E9j\u00E0 vu.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000290\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThis bill to increase petrol tax and road-user charges makes the fifth increase in taxes on motorists since Labour has been in power. What does this Government have against motorists, for goodness\u2019 sake? Why is this Government picking motorists as the group of New Zealanders who should be socked with increases in taxes? That is pretty unfair, particularly if one sits in Auckland or Wellington rush hour traffic day after day. One can hardly tell one is sitting on a motorway; one probably thinks one is sitting in a great big parking lot. The traffic problems in this country are pretty diabolical, and in 5 years this Government has failed to fix those problems.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000291\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThe Hon Lockwood Smith spoke in his contribution about a particular road that affects his electorate\u2014the Albany to P\u016Bhoi realignment B2, which is the extension of the northern motorway. That road is the gateway to the north, which is where I live. I think it is an absolute disgrace that the requirements to get planning permission for that road were completed in 1996, but it was held up for 6 years before the Environment Court, and through Resource Management Act problems. The Government has failed to address that major barrier to progress in this country. For 6 years that road was held up. The tragedy is that if permission to build that road had come through back then, it would have been seen as a No. 1 priority by the Government. The people of Auckland and Northland were promised that the $150 million\u2014as it was back then\u2014needed to complete that road would be put into it straight away, and the road would be built. Now, because of that 6 year delay, this Government has taken it from a No. 1 priority\u2014knowing that it is State Highway 1, the northern motorway, and the premier road in New Zealand\u2014down to No. 10.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000292\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003ENow, the people of that region and of New Zealand have been told that instead of the Government funding it, like they were promised all those years ago, it will be funded through a toll road. That is completely unfair on those people, who all knew that it was a State Highway 1 priority that was to be Government-funded through petrol tax money. That promise has been broken, and now it will be a toll road.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000293\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EMeanwhile the cost has gone up from $150 million to $350 million. I wonder whether the Government cares about that. I think that sort of increase is outrageous, and I would like to know why we have a $200 million increase for 7 kilometres of roading. We are not talking about a huge amount of road. I would expect the Government to be able to explain in this debate that, yes, it does put all that sort of roading work out for competitive tender, and it does get the best value for the taxpayer dollar. I think that in this case the escalation is so extreme that questions do need to be asked.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000294\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThe Hon Lockwood Smith talked about the number of stealth taxes this Government has brought in since 1999. I just want to set the record straight: this is the 34th stealth tax imposed since this Government took office. I refer to increases in petrol taxes, excise taxes on alcohol and sherry\u2014if members recall, this Government rushed up the tax on sherry\u2014and taxes on cigarettes, and increased levies, tariffs, and fees. If members can name it, the Government has increased it. That contributes to the $34 billion in extra taxes that Labour has taken since coming into office. It is no wonder that the tax now paid by the average working family equals 46 percent of its gross income. That is far too high. That 46 percent of gross income comes back to Wellington to fund all the things this Government is trying to do. Looking at that, one has to conclude that this Government is taking away choices from working families. It is taking away such choices as mothers being able to stay at home and care for their children. Under this Government, the pressure on those families has escalated. That is a disgrace and is certainly not in the best interests of New Zealand families.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000295\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIf we then go to the issue of petrol tax, we find that of the $1.20 or so per litre that we have to pay, over 50 percent of it goes back to the Government. It goes into the consolidated account. I understand that around 13c to 14c of that money goes into roading. Of the 60c or so, only a very small proportion goes into roading. So I would say to the Government\u2014and maybe Mr Cunliffe can put us right and tell us exactly what the figures are\u2014that if it wants to put more money into roading, why does it not just use the petrol tax money that it already collects? Why does it have to add another levy on to motorists? That appears to me to be deceitful and totally unfair. At a time when petrol prices are rising rapidly because of external pressures, we have a Government that is putting its own pressure on to motorists, and making it almost unaffordable to get into one\u2019s car and drive. I say that is something that the average family that owns a car can well do without.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000296\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThis bill is an unfair bill. When the Prime Minister came into office she promised that there would be no tax increases for the 95 percent of New Zealanders who earn under $60,000. We know that because of the inflation that has gone on, and the creep of taxation, a whole load of New Zealanders are now in that high tax bracket, and also that a whole lot of them have to pay the unfair stealth taxes that Labour is imposing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022400ab08065934066b44fb720aa4828f7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000297\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022400ab08065934066b44fb720aa4828f7\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill, and to announce to the House that United Future will support the bill. We understand that nobody in this country wants to pay tax, and we would all like to see tax reduced, but we are prepared to pay tax that goes to specific purposes. Most reasonable New Zealanders, when they see a benefit from paying tax, are prepared to pay their share. We are prepared to support this legislation, because this tax is being raised to improve the conditions of our roads in New Zealand, and to build the new roads we need.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000298\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe want better roads in this country. I do not believe there is a motorist who would oppose seeing a better quality of road, which would mean safer roads for our drivers and passengers, and a more efficient transport system. We go to Europe and see their beautiful roads, and we understand the price they pay to have that. The cost of their fuel is far, far higher than what New Zealanders pay for their petrol here in New Zealand. So we are prepared to support the legislation, because 100 percent of this new tax will go to the National Land Transport Fund to be spent on the construction of new roads and the improvement of roads, which are desperately needed in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000299\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe second reason we will support it is because it will then be redistributed from the National Land Transport Fund back to the regions it was raised from, on a population-distribution basis. We believe that is very good news. United Future has long supported that when we devolve responsibilities to local government we should also give local government the funding it needs to carry out those responsibilities. This is one instance where local communities, which face increased costs in building their roads and in improving the State highway network, will get back the tax increase for their own regions, so that they can have some decision-making power over how the money is spent. We believe that is very good progress on United Future\u2019s policy of devolution of funding to local government and to local communities.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000300\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe agree with the Minister of Finance that it is prudent to allow flexibility as to when to introduce the new tax, because of the recent spike in fuel prices. If, in fact, fuel prices are still very high next year, it will make sense to defer the introduction of the tax for some time; at this stage, no one can predict what the fuel price will be next year. But we do not believe that we should base all our decisions on overseas factors. We need to have roads in New Zealand, and we have to pay for them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000301\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe should have built those roads some time ago, as has been pointed out by other speakers before me. It would have been a lot cheaper to build them in years gone past. The longer we wait to build the roads we need now, the more it will cost us in the future. We should not have been diverting as much of the fuel tax to what was the consolidated account but is now the Crown account; previous National and Labour Governments used to take a lot more of the fuel tax than happens today under this Government. We would already have had better-quality roads, and they would have been built more cheaply than their cost today. The longer we wait the more it will cost us, so, by both fuel tax and other means, we need to get stuck into the important task of building an efficient transport network in our country. The longer we wait, the more construction costs there will be, and the more costs there will be to our economy from the congestion and frustration that people face in trying to move both people and products around our country. To have a vibrant economy, we must have an efficient, affordable, integrated, safe, sustainable, and responsive transport system, and that is part of what our national land transport strategy states very clearly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000302\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EUnited Future is well aware of the concerns of New Zealand motorists about the diversion of what is currently 18.5c per litre from the fuel excise tax to the Crown account. In supporting this legislation, United Future makes it very clear that we continue to have an ongoing concern about that, and we have consistently pressured the Government to complete a study into what the costs to us all in New Zealand are of petrol use for transportation\u2014in other words, the health effects of fuel emissions, and the environmental costs and effects of vehicle use and road construction. For the last 2 years, I have urged the Ministers of Transport to complete the study so that there can be transparency in New Zealand about what the money is being diverted for. I am happy to know that, according to information given to me recently, the study is almost complete, and we will be able to have a discussion in this country about whether it is justifiable for 18.5c to be diverted to the Crown account to take care of those other, non-road costs of the use of petrol fuel in New Zealand. If we cannot answer that question transparently and openly, it is understandable that motorists begrudge the fact that more tax is coming at the same time as the Government is diverting some of the existing tax that has already been raised, without a good explanation of where it goes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000303\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EIn answer to my written question to the Hon Pete Hodgson, I received the reply that last year 3.214 billion litres of petrol were sold in New Zealand. At a rate of 18.5c per litre, approximately $594 million was diverted to the Crown account. We want the Surface Transport Costs and Charges Scoping Study for New Zealand, which is the study being conducted to justify that diversion of expenditure, to be able clearly to convince New Zealanders that there is $594 million worth of reasonable cost associated with petrol use in our country; otherwise, we should see a further reduction of the amount of 18.5c that is currently being diverted to the Crown account. United Future again pledges our commitment today to the New Zealand motorist that we will faithfully and consistently remind the Government of its obligation to answer that question for motorists and to present the information to the motoring public.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000304\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EWe do, however, congratulate the Minister of Finance on agreeing last year to my request to reduce the diversion, to cover the cost of the Auckland funding package announced last year. Somewhere between 2c and 3c will be coming off the amount diverted, as that package comes into full effect. That is more than New Zealand First ever accomplished when it was the coalition partner of National and when the leader of New Zealand First was Treasurer for the country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000305\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI state again, for clarity\u2019s sake, that if the surface costs and charges study does not adequately answer motorists\u2019 accusations of unjustified diversion to the Crown account, United Future will expect the Government, at the very least, to announce a future reduction in the amount diverted that matches the 5c we are asking motorists to put their hands into their pockets and pay for the important project of building new roads in our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000306\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E United Future supports our building roads and paying for them via revenue raised by fuel excise tax and road-user charges, because it does make sense. It is an efficient way to raise revenue. But we do not think it is the only way to pay the cost of road construction. In fact, if we were to rely on only that method, the cost of fuel in New Zealand would rise dramatically, which would create real hardships for some sectors of our society and our economy. The NBR - Phillips Fox poll last week demonstrated that a resounding 60 percent of those polled said they supported the use of road tolls to pay for the improvement of existing roads and the building of new roads. A resounding 60 percent of New Zealanders endorsed United Future\u2019s achievement in this term of Government in passing legislation\u2014with the Government\u2014that allowed for alternative methods of raising revenue to pay for road construction and road improvements. The National Business Review article stated: \u201CThe Labour-led Government has been given a wake-up call on roading issues by the latest NBR - Phillips Fox poll.\u201D It would probably have been more accurate to say that the Green Party was being given a wake-up call, because New Zealanders want roads; or that the New Zealand First Party was being given a wake-up call, because New Zealanders are prepared to pay tolls to build new roads where necessary.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000307\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003ESo we shall be supporting this legislation, which is only one part of a package of measures in order to improve our transport infrastructure in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022 data-id=\u002226a00598e7bd47b6abd1c8e14af40535\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000308\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226a00598e7bd47b6abd1c8e14af40535\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour):\u003C/span\u003E Firstly, I congratulate and thank that member for a very helpful and useful contribution. The United Future party has\u2014[Interruption] Someone is making animal noises and I presume it is someone from the National Party. Oh no, it sounds like it may be someone from New Zealand First. I want to congratulate the United Future party members. I think they have had a constructive debate on, and engagement in, this policy. Their very helpful suggestions as we worked through this policy when I was the Minister of Transport ensured that more funding was siphoned off into transport, and I think that was helpful. I want to thank them for the support they have given the Government on the transport policy on its way through.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000309\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EI also want to thank Green Party members for their support. They made an important contribution, as well, in indicating that transport is not just about roads\u2014roading is an important component, and it is the component that requires the most funding\u2014but in fact transport is about road, rail, sea, and air transport. That is what a transport strategy is about. I always ask people who go on constantly about roads, and who say that public transport does not matter, what the Wellington roading system would be like without the rail network in Wellington. It would be impossible to navigate one\u2019s way through the traffic at a peak-hour of the morning.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000310\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003ESo I welcome the helpful and constructive contributions to the debate from both United Future and the Greens, as opposed to the whingeing and whining that we constantly hear, for example, from the National Party. What do National members want? They want to build more roads, and they want to cut taxes. They want to build more roads, but they do not want to put any more money into it. It is the old Tory policy of somehow trying to make money out of nothing.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000311\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225555549bd1ac4f0c871506d8bf2999af\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Voodoo economics.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000312\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222e867146e9a2495ba0a01320bda91ea8\u0022\u003EHon PAUL SWAIN\u003C/span\u003E: It is voodoo economics. It borders very closely on Social Credit economics, and that is why no one really takes them seriously on transport policy. No one took them seriously\u2014everybody laughed at them\u2014for 6 years when they went around the country with a strategy called Better Transport, Better Roads, whereby they were going to privatise the roads, as I recall. The local authorities did not warrant hardly a mention in it, and that is why the local authorities are very, very pleased with the efforts that have been made now.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000313\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ba6fde7e-93f4-4636-9ce2-02c07007973a\u0022\u003EI congratulate my colleague Mark Gosche, a former Minister of Transport, who got all of this going. He was the person who broke the deadlock. He got rid of the gridlock and began the programme of work. I was very happy as Minister of Transport to work with, particularly, local authorities to move forward a special package for Auckland. We are now working on one for Wellington. All of the money that results from this funding will go into transport, and we will see the next stage of development in New Zealand. I congratulate the very hard-working and conscientious Minister of Customs on pushing this bill through the House, and I thank the parties that are supporting it. What I would like to hear is just one little wee tiny bit of policy from the National Party. I am sure I will be waiting a long time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022 data-id=\u00220629ef33b22647f5914be6d3cb0dc74b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000314\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220629ef33b22647f5914be6d3cb0dc74b\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG (National):\u003C/span\u003E That contribution was from the Minister of Immigration\u2014the Minister who is going to bring in 1,000 Pacific Islanders to build roads in New Zealand and another 1,000 Pacific Islanders to be prison officers. That was that Minister\u2019s contribution.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000315\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EIt brings me to a point that is important for United Future to note. We were told by Minister Rick Barker during the first reading of the bill that the Government was committed to ensuring that all of the 5c of extra tax would go into building roads. United Future members said that the only reason they were supporting this legislation was that all of the 5c would go into building roads. Then we heard from the Minister of Immigration, who said that it was not all about roads. Unfortunately, United Future did not give a wake-up call to the Labour Government; as usual, it just keeled over and was submissive to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000316\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EIt is important to point out that nowhere in the bill does it state that all the 5c will go into building roads. All it states is that the extra 5c will go into the National Land Transport Fund, which has three main objectives: the road safety administration programme, road funding, and funding for passenger transport. So I want to put on the record United Future\u2019s statement that if it finds out that not all the 5c goes into building roads, it will not continue to support this legislation. Currently, out of the $1.20\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000317\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00224e6caa14-14ae-43f5-b9da-fe479511fe74\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d0b9c46ba99a43429112ea97a60bd432\u0022\u003EPaul Adams\u003C/span\u003E: I seek the leave of the House to be able to give a short explanation as to why all of this 5c will be going to road construction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000318\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226fba651b593d484798356fb672d6f788\u0022\u003EThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The reality is, of course, that the House is master of its own destiny. If the member is seeking leave, he is quite entitled to do that. It is up to the House whether it grants it. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000319\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230f4f1f95e064ebd887a387e625ce419\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: That member has already had a full 10 minutes, and he did not even explain United Future\u2019s policy. I think he should negotiate with Labour, because it has many calls left. That member has been so helpful to the minority Labour Government that I am sure it will be happy to yield a call to him.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000320\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EAt the moment motorists pay, depending on where they are, about $1.20 a litre, and out of that 41c already goes to the National Land Transport Fund. Today this bill is stating that they will pay an additional 5c, but I want to make it very clear that it is not just an additional 5c, because there is GST on top of it. More than that, the Government is also going to introduce an indexation formula, which means that the amount will be automatically adjusted according to the inflation rate. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has already told the Finance and Expenditure Committee that in the coming year it is very likely that the inflation rate in New Zealand will hit the top mark of the 0 to 3 percent range. The select committee has been warned that the inflation rate is likely to hit 3 percent or even exceed 3 percent. Make no bones about it, Labour is sneaking in that indexation formula basically to avoid coming back to Parliament to get a mandate to sneak in another tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000321\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc15655385db443d9c2357bc1ddd86dd\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: How much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000322\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002216871c3615a34ecbb9299e0eb5f47833\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: As my colleague Dr Muriel Newman of ACT has already pointed out, 34 tax increases have been sneaked in. Can members guess how much extra tax has been introduced by this Labour Government in 5 years? There have been 34 tax increases, bringing in $34 billion. Thirty-four is a good number to remember\u201434 tax increases, $34 billion. Those are numbers that it is important to remember. This bill before us today introduces the 35th tax increase. National still wants to hear whether it will be put into road construction.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000323\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EAlso, I want to know why United Future would support a bill with an indexation formula, when Labour flatly refused to support United Future\u2019s amendment to the taxation bill that would have introduced an indexation formula into the tax threshold, to relieve some of the tax pressure on individuals. United Future told its supporters that it was coming into Parliament to keep Labour honest, to give it a wake-up call, but today we are still waiting to see that. I see that Gordon Copeland put out a press release stating that United Future\u2019s task in Parliament is actually only to embarrass the Labour Government. Members should just think about that. What sort of political party would come into Parliament only to embarrass the Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000324\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002279db8b64-1f9b-4416-9b81-a12963db9cbf\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224dd084d5d7c84532ad137c16c5e431d6\u0022\u003EHon Trevor Mallard\u003C/span\u003E: Why didn\u2019t the member turn up this morning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233e84d9dc7f743d3bbc07a8eb5e789d4\u0022\u003EPANSY WONG\u003C/span\u003E: We now have the pleasure of the Minister of Education joining us in the House. He is the Minister who has single-handedly caused a 50 percent drop in international student numbers coming to New Zealand. Now our primary and secondary schools have to look for alternative funding to make up for the shortfall. Unfortunately, parents have to mow more lawns, paint more buildings, and bake more cakes to increase their schools\u2019 funding.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000326\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe Minister should take a call. When Labour members cannot hack it, they just sit there yelling their heads off. They should take a call and tell New Zealanders why any political party should support their Government\u2019s 35th tax increase, when it has proudly announced a $7 billion surplus. Yesterday the Finance and Expenditure Committee was told that the Inland Revenue Department has $8 million to spend on promoting the Working for Families package, to attract the 48,000 people who might potentially be entitled to its benefits\u2014$150 per person. The Inland Revenue Department is the department that makes sure everybody pays his or her taxes, but of course, when it comes to a certain Labour Minister, that seems to be overlooked in the process.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000327\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003ELet me make the National Party\u2019s position clear. It was outlined by Dr Smith, but Labour still does not understand it. Labour is still in the cash-flow accounting stage, and it thinks it can tax everybody in order to build roads that will last for a long time. Also, I remind United Future about the NBR - Phillips Fox poll: 60 percent of respondents said that tolls were the way to go, rather than tax increases. Why, when the Government has announced a $7 billion surplus and channelled a lot of money to the consolidated account, should the motorist once again be asked to contribute more? We must not forget that today we are voting in not just a 5c a litre increase; it is 5c a litre plus GST, and also with indexation\u2014and, according to the Governor of the Reserve Bank, New Zealand is looking at inflation being at the high end of the range, which is 3 percent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000328\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003EThe other cynical point made by the Minister of Finance was that he just might defer the introduction of the tax if petrol prices stay high. So, after this increase has been introduced, what will happen in 2006 if petrol prices hit an all-time high? Will that mean that that particular increase is withdrawn?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022 data-id=\u002249dcca9a10d5427db7755f3d8cbf7038\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000329\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002249dcca9a10d5427db7755f3d8cbf7038\u0022\u003EHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Associate Minister of Revenue):\u003C/span\u003E It is a great pleasure to take a short call on the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill. My whips have asked me to keep it to a mere 8 minutes, so I will give the member only four quick lessons in transport economics. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e0192ed9-5715-4f6c-bd52-8db4f3466087\u0022\u003EThe first lesson is this: road transport is good\u2014but so is rail, ferry, air, and public transport. A lot of congestion on the roads can be relieved by a bit of petrol tax. Auckland has a billion dollars worth of congestion a year, according to some estimates. The second lesson is\u2014wait for it\u2014this: roads cost money. They have to be paid for\u2014somebody has to pay for them. Whether it is by a combination of Government spending, the odd toll road here or there, or the odd public-private partnership, in order to be built roads have to be paid for. The third lesson is that there is no free lunch. If there was no 5c per litre excise tax on petrol, the money would have to be taken out of the consolidated account, and that would mean either having another tax or cutting other expenditure. There is no free lunch. The fourth and final lesson in my short call is this: just because the previous National Government ran an infrastructure deficit all the way through the 1990s, that does not mean we have to make it worse now. Two wrongs do not make a right\u2014or was that two \u201CWongs\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022be0d1d5f5f374cbb99d74f841941b5df\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000331\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be0d1d5f5f374cbb99d74f841941b5df\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E When the Minister in charge of this bill introduced it to the House, he bragged about taking money from one section of society and giving it back to another\u2014robbing Peter to pay Paul. He cannot understand why people are not standing in the aisles and applauding him. Then we had the rather pathetic sight of Mr Gosche standing up and taking a call. He is another has-been Labour Government Minister. He had the audacity to say that the National Party had no idea. When we asked him what his idea was, he said it was taxation\u2014 that Labour was going to tax everyone. Well, that is not a novel idea, because this Government has already done that 34 times.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000332\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022521a820597f64342965e948ef9dad3ad\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: How many times?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000333\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a30295fb305e4f84b45a9caf33e83600\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Thirty-four times. That is that member\u2019s idea of how to fix the problem. Then, when he should have sat down and shut up, he made things worse, because he went on to take credit for having split the police force and the traffic department, and for putting cops on the roads. They are the most hated members of New Zealand society\u2014and he wants us to applaud him for that! Then Mr Swain got to his feet, and said he wanted to know what the Tories\u2019 policy was. I say to him that it is very simple: we are going to get rid of the Government he belongs to. Then the big schoolyard bully, Mr Mallard, staggered into the Chamber. He took a couple of cheap shots, but he did not have the strength of character to stand up and take a call. I challenge him now to stand up and take a call. In fact, I will yield the rest of my call if Mr Mallard gets up to take a call. There is the challenge. He had a lot to say before, but will he do that? No, he will not do it. Mr Cunliffe got to his feet as well, and the less said the better about his speech. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000334\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ESurprise, surprise! Here we are again, debating another piece of legislation that is nothing but a cheap and greedy tax take. This Government seems determined to tax anything that moves. I say to people across New Zealand that if they want to avoid being clobbered by the Labour Government\u2019s tax machine, they should change their last name to Tamihere. That is the only way they will avoid getting belted for tax in this country. If this Government would only share some of that koha\u2014just a little of it\u2014with fellow New Zealanders by giving them a tax break, they would not feel as badly off as they do. I find it absolutely staggering that this Government can even contemplate introducing legislation such as this when international oil prices are going through the roof. Rather than give fellow New Zealanders a break when the Government has a surplus of $7.5 billion, what is it doing? It is imposing more and more tax.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000335\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022deccae255f0e47ce8fe9c359879b75fc\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: How much more?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000336\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228c315275efeb41dd81696dbebb430c33\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: How much more have Labour members taken in taxes since they have been in Government?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000337\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dc74c1009aa470d9b6dc531e9198481\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, how much?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000338\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223ef11abe4ea947db8c55551d26c73d88\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: A staggering $34 billion. That is a 40 percent increase, and now they want to take some more. Michael Cullen is smiling, because he knows that I am right. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000339\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EHow are we supposed to encourage production in this country, when we are giving investors every reason to look elsewhere? Our electricity prices are going through the roof. Supply is uncertain, thanks to \u201CBlackout Pete\u201D. Our compliance costs\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000340\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225c51cfe12c4244618b336895ee3b70e6\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: The member knows he cannot say that. If he says that again his speech will be terminated.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000341\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227311375bf502443ab1d18c755789b5fa\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Our compliance costs are going through the roof, and the Resource Management Act is choking off any sort of productive capacity in this country. Yet this Government now wants to put the boot in, just in case there is any doubt that it wants to make this place as unattractive as it possibly can be as an investment destination. What this country needs is nothing less than an extreme makeover. In fact, what this Government needs is an extreme makeover, so it can cut out the endemic dishonesty and deception that it now practises in its everyday politics. Export industries in this country are seriously suffering as a result of the high exchange rate of the New Zealand dollar. The last thing that exporters need is to have another production cost added. Some members in the United Future party will cringe at the fact that they are building costs into the productive sector in this country, because I know that some of them have run businesses before, and they know that the way to erode profit margins is to build in costs. But other members of that undistinguished party, I am afraid, just want to give a tick to the Government, regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000342\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EOur export industries are a bit like John Tamihere. Their problems just keep being compounded and compounded by the fact that someone keeps building in more and more costs and explanations, and sometimes one just does not know which way is up. But, unlike Mr Tamihere, the industries of this country do not have the protection of the Prime Minister. She is not interested in the primary production of this country; she is more interested in taxing hard-working Kiwis. She is more interested in Labour ideology, and in being out of the country when anything difficult breaks. She is more interested, in fact, in reshuffling her Cabinet or putting in place meaningless inquiries in order to take the pressure off Cabinet members who are up to no good. That has become endemic in that party. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000343\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EWhat will this Government tax next? It is a hard one, because there have been 34 tax increases so far. Michael Cullen is going a bad shade of red\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000344\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002280b11f68-6b57-4b8b-8922-aecd1d471975\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ff72dd24d264cecb079db09b0a46709\u0022\u003EPansy Wong\u003C/span\u003E: What about the \u201Cfart tax\u201D?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000345\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c9b376bbbe504c55ab228f602414aaf2\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL\u003C/span\u003E: Carbon tax; that is the answer\u2014there is to be a carbon tax. If people in this country think the situation is bad at the moment with 5c more tax per litre on petrol, very soon they will find it will be 6c more per litre on petrol. And now there is to be 7c more tax per litre on diesel. But let us relax. We are told that is OK, because it will all go into roading. But who would believe that? Who would believe a Government that said that after that one \u201Cenvy tax\u201D there would be no more taxes? Who would believe a Government that had a Cabinet Minister in its midst who said he would not take a golden handshake, and that we could trust him? Well, that sort of thing is endemic. Labour has gone through seven Ministers, and, judging by the way that Mr Barker went a bad shade of red earlier during question time, I suggest the number may be eight soon. I suggest there may be more soon, because the Grim Reaper\u2014the people of New Zealand\u2014will come looking for the Labour people who engage in mistruths. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000346\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003EMembers probably have a strong feeling by now that the National Party does not support this legislation. It is just another cheap tax, and it will not fix our roading problems in this country.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u0022ae04bbb0e29b4be99d639ad0a76efd21\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000347\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ae04bbb0e29b4be99d639ad0a76efd21\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Labour\u2014Otaki):\u003C/span\u003E One can almost hear the groans of embarrassment from the people of Rakaia every time that member gets to his feet to do his Lockwood Smith imitation of being angry about every single piece of legislation that comes before the House. Every piece of hyperbole that one could ever imagine gets thrown around the Chamber. I know, as a rural member of Parliament, how important the roading network is. I look forward to seeing this bill go to a select committee, so that it can investigate alternative ways of funding roading improvements around our country. This legislation will make a big difference in rural areas, and I support it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228f265b3ad13f466d9e919cdeaee28914\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be now read a first time\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EBill read a first time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u0022cd6c0afdf35a439d9ba9416a5e29b7b4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000348\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022cd6c0afdf35a439d9ba9416a5e29b7b4\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Minister of Customs):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Customs and Excise (Motor Spirits) Amendment Bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 16 December 2004, and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time during a sitting of the House, except during questions for oral answer, during an evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224384f469e1ff4baaa425c46c7feaae41\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000349\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002238c70d6d5f5c41178d8bf7312238ef2b\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000351\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022261e55babb4d45ec9047b80bc997e458\u0022\u003EUrgency\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u00224436f1d5ece44146ba403928211fbd07\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000350\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224436f1d5ece44146ba403928211fbd07\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That urgency be accorded the Committee stage of the Care of Children Bill. The motion is moved in order that the House can move to the third reading on Tuesday, and thus complete its consideration of the bill before it rises for the adjournment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e5a26902daa9412aa2e80893f5e13e2b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000352\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022f33612f467f6486d932bc51e53624f55\u0022\u003ECare of Children Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000353\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00228daa1bb5092d4b15af43b794e7ecdd2b\u0022\u003EInstruction to Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b2e607e7b2fb4dfc81a72f7cc184d981\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000354\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b2e607e7b2fb4dfc81a72f7cc184d981\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House on the Care of Children Bill that it take the bill part by part.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f0d790a1c5544943aaf58cee5333567d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000355\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022a64b978d3ba44ee78ce4bd7749d99d11\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e2b59894598449d7a86acee104e1e595\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000356\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00227f8c14fb-b919-46ef-866b-8db68cfa4cf0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e2b59894598449d7a86acee104e1e595\u0022\u003EHon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000357\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022014651a1-9604-485f-a1d1-4f752fff8c59\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f6f124f0358b41059021fe555d2f0e7d\u0022\u003EMr SPEAKER\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000358\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002226096b00de1f4018998f7b2ca249afc9\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000359\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00221ac058a2ca6b48e2964d106820dd77db\u0022\u003EPart 1  Preliminary provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u002258c14fbbee1a4f4394ade1d840e63935\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000360\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002258c14fbbee1a4f4394ade1d840e63935\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000361\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EPart 1 starts off with the premise that the child\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s view is already being taken into account in the Family Court, and by any parent worth his or her salt. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EOf 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000363\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThat 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000364\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThis 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. It  provides for counsel for the child. Counsel for the child has been around for a long time, and it is  a really sad day when we have to state in legislation that counsel for the child\u2014as if it were a really new and wonderful thing\u2014must 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000365\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EOne 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002251e810e011ee486f8760b2eb4efbc81b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000366\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002251e810e011ee486f8760b2eb4efbc81b\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000367\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere 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\u2019s role, but, currently, under the existing law, they could get those orders for custody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000368\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E So what is the point of this bill, other than to put into legislation the Labour Party\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000369\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIn fact, the existing legislation\u2014the Guardianship Act of 1968\u2014states 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\u2019s lives to the nth degree and overturn well-established legal views set in place as far back as 1926. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000370\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWhen we look at section 23(1) of the Guardianship Act, it covers almost everything\u2014in a few lines\u2014that is currently contained in Part 1 of this bill. It states: \u201C(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 paramount consideration.\u201D 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\u2019s time in getting back to virtually the current situation, but using different names. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000371\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere will be awful confusion, as I believe Judge Mahoney said at the Justice and Electoral Committee, as to the use of words like \u201Cday-to-day care\u201D in an order. The terms \u201Ccustody order\u201D and \u201Caccess order\u201D have worked very well. But \u201Cday-to-day care order\u201D\u2014it  will take a long time to work out what that means. Now we have the term \u201Cparenting order\u201D. 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 \u201Ccustody order\u201D for a long time yet, because that is really all it still is. Is the \u201Cday-to-day care order\u201D an access order or not? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000372\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000373\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u00227eac465abedd40ba801d7395f74f2928\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000374\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227eac465abedd40ba801d7395f74f2928\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s 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\u2014 in particular, countries like Sweden, Holland, and many states in America, where they had brought into their family law something that they called \u201Cshared parenting\u201D. 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000375\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIt 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000376\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EWhat 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000377\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003ESo 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000378\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EI suppose the greatest sadness from my perspective is that we heard what rebuttable shared parenting could do. We call it \u201Crebuttable shared parenting\u201D 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000379\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIn 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u00229e752a23278e497d96993859aa219ec4\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000380\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229e752a23278e497d96993859aa219ec4\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E Clause 4 explicitly states: \u201CThe welfare and best interests of the child must be the first and paramount consideration\u2014\u201D. Then when I read new clause 4A(e) stating that the child\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000381\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EThis 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: \u201CThe 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.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000382\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EWhen 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: \u201CChild \u2018lucky\u2019 Couple narrowly escape jail for cruelty to daughter\u201D. The newspaper report notes: \u201CCassandra Marie-Rose Edwards, 31, and her partner Bruce Lloyd Potaka, 26, were sentenced for cruelty to a child.\u201D 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\u2019 community work to Edwards and Potaka. How does this equate to a life living with multiple brain injuries? As I read the paediatric consultant\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000383\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EOn the same day that this child\u2019s grandmother came to see me, I wrote to the Hon Phil Goff and other Ministers seeking urgent advice. I stated in my letter: \u201CI 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.\u201D I did not receive a definitive reply from Minister Goff until 12 July, 12 days after the opportunity for appeal had closed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000384\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EFortunately, I had been given alternative advice to write to the Crown Solicitor, Andrew Cameron, from whom I had a reply. It stated: \u201CI 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. \u2026 Should further evidence emerge which would enable assault charges to be laid, I will ask to review the file with this in mind.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000385\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EOn 1 October, 5 days before the appeal was due to be heard, the girl\u2019s grandmother received a letter from the Deputy Solicitor-General, N M Crutchley, which stated: \u201CI wish to advise that this appeal will not proceed.\u201D What astounds me is the third paragraph, which states: \u201CThe 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.\u201D 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000386\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI wonder as to the efficacy of clause 4, \u201CChild\u2019s welfare and best interests to be paramount\u201D\u2014the \u201Cparamount clause\u201D 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 \u201Cseverely physically and emotionally abused\u201D, 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u00227962f58b3a144804b81d4f7938dc5c70\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000387\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227962f58b3a144804b81d4f7938dc5c70\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E In rising on behalf of United Future to speak to Part 1 of the Care of Children Bill I want to address clause 4A, \u201CPrinciples relevant to child\u2019s welfare and best interests\u201D. That clause provides that a child\u2019s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility for the child\u2019s care, development, and upbringing. It appears that the whole Committee, including the Government, agrees that a child\u2019s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility for the child\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000388\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EWhy 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\u2014far 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\u2014they see children for a few brief minutes in appointments. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000389\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EParents 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\u2014they 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000390\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThat 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u0022c81de9d9179a458fbeb3b641d2834b80\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000391\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c81de9d9179a458fbeb3b641d2834b80\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E 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: \u201CChild \u2018lucky\u2019, couple narrowly escape jail for cruelty to daughter\u201D. 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\u2019s Hospital, advising of the injuries sustained to this little girl.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000392\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EDocuments, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022 data-id=\u0022a3c46fce139e44a486270284ea7359a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000393\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a3c46fce139e44a486270284ea7359a5\u0022\u003EJOHN CARTER (National\u2014Northland):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000394\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EInstead 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\u2014we 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\u2014because the Government would not have brought it in here to the Chamber if it did not have the numbers to do that\u2014will 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000395\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EWe have got to the stage where we have become so prescriptive in our legislation that we cause stupid decisions to be made repeatedly\u2014to the point where we take away people\u2019s 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\u2014something happens; there is a set of circumstances occurring right now that we did not know about and did not write law for\u2014that 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000396\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003EThis 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\u2014enabling people to work together\u2014we 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022 data-id=\u002206a6078fc53046a4ada3ff8ce0ee3c7d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000397\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002206a6078fc53046a4ada3ff8ce0ee3c7d\u0022\u003EHon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (National):\u003C/span\u003E 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 \u201Cwill 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\u2019 procedures, and parental status.\u201D 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000398\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EThe second point is that the background to the change is a woolly-woofter explanatory note to the bill that states things like: \u201CFamily and ethnic demographics \u2026 have changed considerably \u2026\u201D. That is true; we know that. It goes on to state: \u201CThe 1968 Act is premised upon a traditional nuclear family model that does not reflect the diversity of family arrangements.\u201D 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: \u201CMore 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,\u201D\u2014God only knows what that means under a Labour Government\u2014\u201Cand de facto relationships \u2026 That challenge is magnified when the varied cultural dimensions of families are considered.\u201D What does that mean? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000399\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220bd5aa67-2f2b-4a13-a2b4-21a392396f11\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014and I support my colleague John Carter on this\u2014that 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 \u201Cthe varied cultural dimensions of families\u201D must be considered. I do not support that statement. It suggests that, depending on a person\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u002286d63134f6b84e79ab4e84aace6d3b89\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000400\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002286d63134f6b84e79ab4e84aace6d3b89\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I appreciate having a second call on this matter, which is very seriously regarded by New Zealand First.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000401\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EOne 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000402\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe 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: \u201Cthere shall be no presumption that the placing of a child in the custody of a particular person\u201D\u2014it does not say male or female\u2014\u201Cwill, because of the sex of that person, best serve the welfare of the child.\u201D 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000403\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAnother reason that the first part of this bill is invalid is that the Government should have made it clear in clause 3, \u201CPurpose of this Act\u201D, 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\u2014that is the fact of the matter in 85 to 90 percent of cases\u2014without 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EEven Family Court judges have been critical of the changes made in, for example, 1995. Justice Doogue\u2019s article stated that the decision that had been made\u2014regrettably, by the Government of the day, which I will not mention\u2014was 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000405\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EBut 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000406\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis bill is rubbish.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u0022fd6ceddfed5d4cc7806fb83617199832\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000407\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fd6ceddfed5d4cc7806fb83617199832\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000408\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThis 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\u2019 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000409\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EIt 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000410\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI am very sad that Muriel Newman\u2019s 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 \u201Cparent\u201D 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000411\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u00222e1797085cb843578fd399637e527518\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000412\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222e1797085cb843578fd399637e527518\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I would like to bring to members\u2019 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000413\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIn 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000414\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EI 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000415\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ca78375590c4699bfb125451a6f5280\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: Is he going to speak today?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000416\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255270f6646b54c0e827e0cce82bc9291\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000417\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EMy 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000418\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b0d8b0e0-3ece-4865-9145-5eb5983fc54c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6b5cf295b5549a1ad6ecffa39777e26\u0022\u003EHon Richard Prebble\u003C/span\u003E: It\u2019s anti-dad.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000419\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022638f0dc7f72f41178110804b7b200ca9\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022 data-id=\u00222058017578c84aec8b1429cd6f9cb8fb\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000420\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9c512a8-d532-4ef9-ad51-0fe8d752a893\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222058017578c84aec8b1429cd6f9cb8fb\u0022\u003ECLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour\u2014Waimakariri):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022e775943d5f7749dfa7409a6623e0c70c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000421\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e775943d5f7749dfa7409a6623e0c70c\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000422\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EI 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 \u201CTo what avail?\u201D. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000423\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe 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: \u201C\u2026 the Court shall regard the welfare of the child as the first and paramount consideration.\u201D 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000424\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIn 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: \u201CDespite subsection (1)(a), for the purposes of \u2026\u201D two other provisions \u201C\u2026 a de facto relationship may exist between a child\u2019s mother and father even though they are not both aged 16 years or older.\u201D 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000425\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EWhat 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022 data-id=\u00225a295d0842fd4e0d9f0e33111a82e79c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000426\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f9a94bf3-a948-4410-8413-403a7454114b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225a295d0842fd4e0d9f0e33111a82e79c\u0022\u003ETIM BARNETT (Labour\u2014Christchurch Central):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u002238b60e7da396488c8da3d2c972d4bcad\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000427\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002238b60e7da396488c8da3d2c972d4bcad\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I referred previously to the principles in clause 4A, \u201CPrinciples relevant to child\u2019s welfare and best interests\u201D. In United Future\u2019s view those principles, although they are fine in themselves, do not go far enough. I have tabled an amendment to that clause stating: \u201C(aa) the welfare and best interests of a child are best served when the child experiences the love and care of the child\u2019s biological parents when they are living together in a life-long loving and committed relationship to each other.\u201D 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\u2019s 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 wh\u0101nau; and finally, that family membership requires a balancing of the rights, duties, and responsibilities of each member. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000428\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe first of two particular aspects of my amendment is that in United Future\u2019s 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\u2019s real concerns in regard to the Care of Children Bill is the Government\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000429\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000430\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EClearly, the importance of permanency in a child\u2019s life\u2014ongoing permanency, not the sort of permanency where parents decide to stay together on a day-by-day basis, depending on what they feel\u2014is absolutely imperative and should be encouraged by our society. The importance in the child\u2019s life of the parents\u2019 commitment to their relationship cannot be underestimated. Therefore, in the Care of Children Bill\u2014which fundamentally deals with the way we approach the care of children in our society and what is in their best interests and welfare\u2014we 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\u2019s well-being, undermining it by allowing, facilitating, and encouraging the sorts of families that clearly do not statistically provide the same outcomes. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000431\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThat 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\u2014and biological parents, in particular\u2014can 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u0022124c352f4970454b91088bdf828b745e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000432\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022124c352f4970454b91088bdf828b745e\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Minister for Racing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022dfeb4d0a902c4c9cb3b26679e8b22511\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000433\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022dfeb4d0a902c4c9cb3b26679e8b22511\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000434\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206dc927c7a0345b39e49407702d3f6b0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: There will be plenty of opportunity to participate. All those in favour, please say aye\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000435\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022db9474b07bb047009c1ee920e220be0a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Bloody outrageous.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000436\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223cdc0ab7ae0e4264b50b0106ac3708d6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that remark to the Chair.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000437\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225b9bb74c844e403cb35406bc14cbe728\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u00225d27f131aee043ed9dafcdd8a092acae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000438\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225d27f131aee043ed9dafcdd8a092acae\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000439\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c201ccdca1ca43679c3e8d7e66458806\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Part 2 is the main part of the bill, I say to Mr English.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022a7dd19e2f72246c1bc6adc702b6c03e6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000440\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022a7dd19e2f72246c1bc6adc702b6c03e6\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000441\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002283070c368df841a3a5d4af485740a7e2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Is this a new point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000442\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022202d05c6014645ab831686e8bedf6c75\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is. I recall\u2014and I can deliver the quotes to the Committee\u2014over 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\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000443\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022277431a38e764f80b143a2e2a74da077\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Leave is sought by Dr Smith for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00226f93611f4b3c4d31a0890a0ff9b32d08\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 57\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000444\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 4(1) be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000445\u0022\u003Eto insert the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000446\u0022\u003E(c)\tthat the principle of rebuttable shared parenting be considered as the starting point for day-to-day care determinations.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c10ac4fe9e394e7fbcb997865a46d478\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 35\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000447\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Murray Smith to clause 4A be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000448\u0022\u003Eto insert, before paragraph (a), the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000449\u0022\u003E(aa)\tthe welfare and best interests of a child are best served when the child experiences the love and care of the child\u2019s biological parents when they are living together in a life-long, loving and committed relationship to each other.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c9b4b799c0674a919d088a79d39cc0cb\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 62\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000450\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000451\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendments in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 7 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000452\u0022\u003Eto insert, in their appropriate alphabetical order, the following new definitions:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000453\u0022\u003Eshared parenting means joint day-to-day care of a child, arranged in such a way that the best interests of the child is paramount, but that the starting point is the equality of parental responsibility and rights.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000454\u0022\u003Erebuttable shared parenting as a default position for the starting point of day-to-day care determinations is based on the principle that just as two parents are equal in their parenting responsibilities and rights before a relationship breakdown, so too they should be regarded as equal afterwards, unless it can be proved that one of the parents is unfit.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00221affc60d21ac4ee2973b5008519fe970\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EThat the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 35\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 83\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000455\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002284c402fc7f2f433782db2e971fc27d21\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 70\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 49\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000456\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00226f480f313bd347a09868c9f16ead0819\u0022\u003EPart 2  Guardianship and care of children\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022be4c25f3b3a1460b97033683011a1b08\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000457\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022be4c25f3b3a1460b97033683011a1b08\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The debate on Part 2 includes debate on schedule 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022e189657796a149cdb884dfddf68ba438\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000458\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e189657796a149cdb884dfddf68ba438\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s parents, 60.7 percent said yes. What is the Government\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000459\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014and this is very important\u2014there 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000460\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI had a meeting today with the Family Planning Association\u2014a group that we would think would know all about this issue, as it works with it all the time\u2014and 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\u2014I 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000461\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EMy 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000462\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe other point is that the current law affects good parents as well as bad parents\u2014it 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: \u201COh, by the way, Mum, I am pregnant and I want to have an abortion.\u201D 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\u2014if 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\u2019s role to be a parent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000463\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022 data-id=\u002231f5112b9eae4e1999907c2f0899a674\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000464\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002231f5112b9eae4e1999907c2f0899a674\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT (National\u2014Kaikoura):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2014particularly a caring, close family\u2014gets 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\u2019s support. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000465\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI 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\u2019 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000466\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014and they do not have to do so, because substantial changes have been made since Judith Collins\u2019 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000467\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226e8d3299e6f842a1876cfe3ddb89e168\u0022\u003ESteve Chadwick\u003C/span\u003E: Then it\u2019s an absolute nonsense.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000468\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022ac23eedf-0a53-4d88-a49b-d5b440483616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228b5eed7662e640909b3f3086d920997c\u0022\u003EDr LYNDA SCOTT\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022 data-id=\u002273673eaa6e06435587774f4995c27e47\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000469\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002273673eaa6e06435587774f4995c27e47\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH (National\u2014Clutha-Southland):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000470\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EThe 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\u2019s 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\u2014doctors and nurses\u2014have 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000471\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EIt was not a debate of Parliament that took away my right to know about my daughter having an abortion. It was not debated here\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000472\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220f9a2a9f278b4e708df53108529d7c7f\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: In 1977.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000473\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225ec1ade4c6014512bf187847f35ad404\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000474\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003EI 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\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000475\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227a04f44342aa4611ad5d11461df5a8d6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000476\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bb40312ad9e94e899a2bde511a941f72\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000477\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022127b529588894c78965c6c563e58dbd1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is Speakers\u2019 ruling 56/1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000478\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002239a8cce5e3c54c01be9e354f55e71ff9\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014words such as \u201Csell out\u201D, \u201Cno political principles\u201D, and suchlike were constantly badgered at previous speakers. The interjections were neither rare nor reasonable; they were constant and persistent.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000479\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d23e5765371946f98532ff16b6431f6c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I think the message has been well relayed to the members on my right, and I ask them to desist from that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000480\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002206fb7a97af4144dfbe8b913ed2e91646\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000481\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022800fb119658d4a1dbf54075965df8bdb\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, that is in Speakers\u2019 rulings 57/1 and 57/3. If people move in order to interject, then that is out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000482\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022bb158206-360b-4757-8d72-f7d0994e1fb3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b3a27830450742308888dc3dbddd45e9\u0022\u003EHon BILL ENGLISH\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022aa1bbaf604c34696914a84f551e583c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000483\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022aa1bbaf604c34696914a84f551e583c1\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E When I listen to the constant interjections from the other side, which almost form speeches\u2014those members have the opportunity to take a call, but are refusing to do so\u2014it 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000484\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014getting parents more involved.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000485\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000486\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EWhat we in New Zealand First are hoping to achieve in supporting these amendments\u2014those 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\u2014is 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\u2014I suspect, mainly Labour members, judging from the heckling we have had\u2014do 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\u2014the Care of Children Bill. I just remind Steve Chadwick, who was interjecting vigorously, and Darren Hughes\u2014who may become a parent\u2014that 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000487\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs 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\u2014problems 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\u2014which is often the case\u2014and what can be done to protect them, are issues of considerable importance.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000488\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EEssentially, I appreciate Mr English\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000489\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fcfcc7d440c4d8cbd41ddd92ac12b00\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: Even for dental work.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000490\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f9168024c5443ad8ddb33cfd5127f77\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u00227633349fc2354f8bb6fd6fbb933b9b0c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000491\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227633349fc2354f8bb6fd6fbb933b9b0c\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s psychological state she did not take the medication. She became very moody.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000492\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EHer 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: \u201CLook I had better tell you something that happened 2 months ago.\u201D, 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\u2019s guardians, the New Zealand Association of Counsellors upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child\u2019s guardians, the health board upheld the fact that it had been kept from the child\u2019s guardians, and the Minister of Education, Trevor Mallard, also upheld those steps.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000493\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E 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\u2014the mother\u2014had not approached the school with a view to withdrawing the child. It was very fortuitous that that happened.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000494\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000495\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIt 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000496\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIt 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: \u201CParents should be shut out of their children\u2019s lives only in exceptional circumstances.\u201D He did not believe that schools were capable of deciding when parents should be excluded.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000497\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThat 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u0022bed395f630944ad98ce9d9c3d1743b23\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000498\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bed395f630944ad98ce9d9c3d1743b23\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000499\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000500\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000501\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000502\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EStarship Children\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000503\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThose 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022b0d94cdf175b4e46be6723ea97aa8912\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000504\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b0d94cdf175b4e46be6723ea97aa8912\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000505\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c9477c6665c4889a2a9a28387bdf3e7\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: Who\u2019s rushing?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000506\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dcca20b49a974b9d83e8c847acdd4a30\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I will tell the Minister who is rushing. I sought to take a call on Part 1, and Damien O\u2019Connor 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: \u201CWho moved that this House be in urgency?\u201D. The Labour Government moved that we be in urgency. That Minister wants to socially engineer the most important institution in our nation\u2014that being the family\u2014without the proper scrutiny of this Parliament and the people of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000507\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EFirstly, 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\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000508\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d8138a2e19e0477282a55a50d17a6bef\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s wrong with it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000509\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022692a05c215b845ccbf52504a6adfc96a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: Is that not a cheek? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000510\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002212e230db3d504709a03968348692b067\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: It says it all though, doesn\u2019t it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000511\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227c137745a0f7487e95cf16847dd66d56\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The dirty Minister\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000512\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224be73aee0d8440cebcab29d84b958a93\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000513\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225fcabcc80204448db7a2cbca081775a5\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014the absolute scum in the chair\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000514\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c7cce9522c5f4ec68603ab26de5d3151\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000515\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222965030d6c24420396b76f775729c652\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Hansard record will show that Dr Nick Smith said: \u201Cthe scum in the chair\u201D, 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000516\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226dd3ac3a391c4b77856bdc4ad62d2c2b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has made his point. He has taken umbrage under Standing Order 116, \u201CPersonal reflections\u201D.  I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000517\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234fb65f53e9444749171c6b012a5b98c\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: 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?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000518\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236c5ab92242243088924c55ca9b8b9f1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member also has taken objection under Standing Order 116. I ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000519\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228a1cf74a5325421a908a419a76420f9d\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000520\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222df9b90755e842a09bcfc27ccde89a15\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: What we see in this bill is a whole number of increased rights\u2014increased 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\u2014at 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\u2019s life are its mother and father. This Parliament has it all wrong, when it passes legislation that undermines the rights of parents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000521\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003ELast year I saw fit to draw attention to the fact that perfectly good parents\u2014a mum and a dad\u2014in 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\u2019s lives; and, in the case met by Judith Collin\u2019s amendment, locked out of one of the most important, critical, sensitive decisions in the life of a child and a family. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000522\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000523\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis bill is just dripping with PC nonsense. We see, for instance, a radical provision whereby we no longer refer to \u201Cparents\u201D but to family groups\u2014wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi\u2014as if those vague phrases are somehow going to ensure that children in this country will get a better deal.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022 data-id=\u002224dc2a7396eb43b0ae4d8b7d5481294b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000524\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002224dc2a7396eb43b0ae4d8b7d5481294b\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I am really interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, who talked about a \u201Cmad rush\u201D 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\u2014I do not know of anybody else\u2014who 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] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000525\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227489815d93ba4bc280c4264bf24188be\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I just refer members on both sides to Speaker\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000526\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022af8170dc1b5c45cf9ec4290747391c06\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: 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: \u201CYou, Rick Barker, have mistreated your kids.\u201D, 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\u2019 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000527\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EThat 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000528\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014this law has been in place since 1977 and there have been no problems\u2014the young woman\u2019s concerns have to be paramount. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000529\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003EI stress that point. On too many occasions in this country we have looked at parents\u2019 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\u2019s interests primarily. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000530\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ab3e9d295114c1394c962919bbf2f48\u0022\u003EBrian Connell\u003C/span\u003E: The child.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000531\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228acd6ddc73054827bb9f1094df4ba2ac\u0022\u003EHon RICK BARKER\u003C/span\u003E: Now they are saying \u201Cthe child\u201D, 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u0022c1ca172c9b4d455d8ebcdc184feea24c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000532\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022c1ca172c9b4d455d8ebcdc184feea24c\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000533\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EIt 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000534\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI 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: \u201CMum, 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\u2019t know.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000535\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EThat 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\u2019 wildest dreams\u2014and I have spoken to people who were here at the time\u2014did 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000536\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EFrom 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000537\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a0199426aaa7462091057dcb6170e77a\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: Oh! That\u2019s rich.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000538\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022df42294211364108b79652ceb8582568\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000539\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022cbcaa294d6df4813990e54ea9a07a415\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: Claptrap! Absolute claptrap!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000540\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d3f44c9fbc245aeb6738af14e25701d\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND\u003C/span\u003E: It is absolutely correct, and I can give the member case histories showing that that is exactly what has happened. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000541\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EFinally, 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u0022e22643283bb842b7a408fc8bb99e47e0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000542\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e22643283bb842b7a408fc8bb99e47e0\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000543\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d4904d00a7444851ad0a6740c73f794a\u0022\u003EGordon Copeland\u003C/span\u003E: No, no!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000544\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222b5f3494d26049d0bfb8c527d7680eee\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN\u003C/span\u003E: \u2014I 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000545\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThe 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000546\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIt 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\u2014and I do not care what the words are\u2014it 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000547\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThere 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022 data-id=\u0022431b308e21184e3b81ad25383c4ce107\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000548\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022431b308e21184e3b81ad25383c4ce107\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL (National\u2014Bay Of Plenty):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s parents. Sixty-one percent of respondents said yes; 34 percent said no. That is a clear message from the people of New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000549\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000550\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002203bc0052-6dd8-4807-998a-4768a4732e0b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ef739757216d4a1b89c9036b3803ffd9\u0022\u003EHon Rick Barker\u003C/span\u003E: Contempt of court!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000551\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc2bf431beff426d82c74a495235bee8\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000552\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003EDo 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\u2014he has to appear before a judge. But someone who has lived with the mother for a year gets to have\u2014[Interruption] No, that is not right. I have read the bill. The father is not\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000553\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e6ebd671e6284522bf07639a243f5bd3\u0022\u003ELianne Dalziel\u003C/span\u003E: Read the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000554\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227113a4e01a674e4988f965f6b0677c87\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000555\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221f56cb505a744ba9b3d198d333cf8dde\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000556\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c3978d8453a444a9bcca2aed32ea4918\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s contribution you called Government members to order five times for their interjections. What action will you take in the Chair if the interjections continue\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000557\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002208593562bb05482390b92f40aaf38058\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. I refer members to Standing Order 84(3) and Speaker\u2019s ruling 19/6. I ask members to please look at them.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000558\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228acc2e7ea0a646dda871f903414ca580\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: 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?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000559\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227350c41a72bd4828b4dfc79955406543\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000560\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022340ff9a138e64470a97f74106d50743b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s ruling 56/4: \u201Cit is highly disorderly \u2026 to persist in interjecting when the member has been called to order.\u201D I ask the members in the Committee to play the game properly.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000561\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002230f5a5f31b3d4c9c9089f22093ef91f4\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014[Interruption] She proposed different amendments, I thought.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000562\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207d32dc854c2425f823b7e07c4a413ee\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: No.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000563\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022a83ea07a-806c-45ad-95bb-eb2c481cd0e2\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f7ed634b75e4b7aabb4bb4406916b21\u0022\u003EHon TONY RYALL\u003C/span\u003E: OK, she did not. The situation is even worse\u2014it takes 3 years to get de facto property rights, and 1 year to be a guardian. That is not right. It takes 3 years\u2014I apologise to the member\u2014to get property rights, and 1 year to get the kid.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022 data-id=\u0022fafd670028504776971183c8a3713fe0\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000564\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fafd670028504776971183c8a3713fe0\u0022\u003EBRIAN CONNELL (National\u2014Rakaia):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2014the puppet\u2014for 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000565\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ERick Barker stood up in this Chamber and said he cared about children. If he does\u2014and I challenge the member on this\u2014then he will find that he has no alternative but to vote for Judith Collins\u2019 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000566\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c598ffd3-4771-4027-a15f-5d1f643631e0\u0022\u003ERick 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\u2019 sake! He calls them young women. Thirteen or 14-year-old girls are simply that\u2014girls. They are confused, and what they need is for their mum to put her arm around them and say \u201CDarling, I understand. You can talk to me about this issue, and I will help you through it.\u201D 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\u2014the \u201CParker Pimpernel\u201D\u2014is making a guest appearance in the Chamber tonight. He is interjecting. That member has, by my reckoning, 38 flights left to Wellington.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022e163a1169b2b4bad9d2909eaef497a50\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000567\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022e163a1169b2b4bad9d2909eaef497a50\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000568\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f24fca1593cb43c087363042730b5092\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Just social engineering.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000569\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a29785fb58344af1969159a21e4933e0\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000570\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EIt 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\u2014among other things\u2014virtually 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000571\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EI 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000572\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014if they take a rational approach to the matter\u2014understand 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000573\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bfa627d0369f4e36946dd1c09aa2123b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Most do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000574\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022be442197ab5c4429af74de6bed3aae98\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s prejudice, as Judith Collins has\u2014[Interruption].\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000575\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c73e992c12f24d3ca9ee24c7d698c862\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The member on my left knows that under Speaker\u2019s ruling 56/1 running commentaries are out of order. I ask the member to desist.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000576\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222003020c958b41cebd4eab066a80bcaa\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: 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?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000577\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f2044dc1cd7940d9bd0de01111589875\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000578\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226115496053d246b2b72b9454731532c1\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s position. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000579\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe 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 \u201CAbortion law best left as it stands\u201D, and it states: \u201CThere 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\u2019s misfortune probably have the kind of relationship\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000580\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c83347c3c8b848f292b265fa680ad4d9\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000581\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ec6b85472f5f49e78d8bbf47e1c4cc00\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry, that is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000582\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f4e75699061749618385205cf55f78ac\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. You will know that, under Speakers\u2019 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 \u201CCollins\u201D. She is Judith Collins, or the member for Clevedon.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000583\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b9ec18246b234d83a953c2b0a2fc766a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: If that occurred, then I am at fault because I never heard it. If it was the case, Speaker\u2019s rulings 26/7 and 26/8 state that members are to be referred to by their full names.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000584\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00226984d661-9f65-4ed6-b29c-3285b598582d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226f74f814bf434bc7b4b77381c152847d\u0022\u003EJohn Carter\u003C/span\u003E: 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000585\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b63263e238454e8db1366647cbf9fde0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019 rulings. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000586\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c694f84cd24046fc82cf4b402c560eda\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: I continue that quote from the New Zealand Herald on 15 September: \u201CParents who deserve to know of their daughter\u2019s 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\u2019s secrecy. The law is working as well as it probably can. The rest is up to parents.\u201D Two days later the Waikato Times, under the heading \u201CAbortion change hard to justify\u201D, stated: \u201CWe 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.\u201D The Nelson Mail on 14 September stated: \u201C\u2026 if the law is to be changed it will undoubtedly work against the best interests of a small number of especially unfortunate individuals\u2014young 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.\u201D The Marlborough Express, under the heading \u201CAbortion law spectre\u201D stated: \u201CHowever, 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.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000587\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe Otago Daily Times, on the 16th of the same month, stated: \u201CThe 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.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000588\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EI have two more votes of thanks to give at this time. The first is to the number of professional organisations, including doctors\u2019 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\u2014some of whom are no longer with us\u2014who 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000589\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc55c99345b1425dbc00cbcf587a819c\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I take offence at that insult of calling me shallow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000590\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226ce8f74dd114454d845e07a860e39f9b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has taken offence under the Standing Order \u201CPersonal reflections\u201D. The member is entitled to ask for a retraction. I ask the member\u2014[Interruption] I have ruled, Mr Barker. The member concerned has taken issue under Standing Order 116, \u201CPersonal reflections\u201D, and she is entitled to do that. I call on the Minister to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000591\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fd41a7946b284c93a9c7105c33bc29bd\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: Mr Chairperson, can you explain to me what I am apologising for? I did not name Mrs Collins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000592\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224876d71f8d87408187111bec6415672f\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Mrs Collins has taken umbrage at what the Minister said. She considers that a personal reflection. I ask him to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000593\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002224b4b97a373049598f9b3c458eb93bcc\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000594\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002229791b3c9f8d4390b783dd7c432fb45a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000595\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220e1d1027c241434db65fca6b71fe5bf0\u0022\u003EHon Annette King\u003C/span\u003E: What\u2019s your point of order?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000596\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226107fcafb68413281bdc8bcaf34dd10\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I am coming to a point of order. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000597\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252b65d0d09774c3a9a4b7fa60c628220\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Please do.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000598\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022155376f3afec495b8a1ee3360871c191\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000599\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5ce88f4366840da832813dcd99fca98\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member has sought leave. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022 data-id=\u00229ae496b37e444816baeef6f2a0a49a3c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000600\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229ae496b37e444816baeef6f2a0a49a3c\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN (Deputy Leader\u2014NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019 amendment is about notifying the parents\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000601\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f8ac729b6d9941408357bfb08f670ba6\u0022\u003EHon Member\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s very moderate.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000602\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002207bd62cc798540a4a1243a2beaa38bb1\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E:\u2014that is very moderate\u2014not about stopping an abortion from going ahead. It is about parents being notified. I draw the Minister\u2019s attention\u2014and I would like him to respond to this\u2014to the commentary on the bill. I do not want any confusion so I will read it. It states: \u201CLabour 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:\u201D. It then states: \u201CThat 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,\u201D and it goes on. That seems to me to imply that the royal commission recognised that parents had a role in that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000603\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224a0859cc1ca345d38eb5835274fc5c56\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s exactly right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227f97b38cddfd4ba4961e8d2f31434f9c\u0022\u003EPETER BROWN\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s own being. This bill\u2014unbeknown to me when I walked to the Chamber tonight\u2014has touched mine, and no speech more so than that by Gordon Copeland. Some years ago when my children\u2014a son and a daughter\u2014were 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\u2014she did not\u2014had 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000605\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003EParents 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\u2019s little speech that really hit it home to me how I could have been in those circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000606\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e3dc3d88-a571-4ed7-a4b4-b66dedd6134b\u0022\u003E 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\u2019 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 \u201Ccommunity punishment\u201D. 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022 data-id=\u00224866f735b853407a88d9a2c4275773e2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000607\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224866f735b853407a88d9a2c4275773e2\u0022\u003ELIANNE DALZIEL (Labour\u2014Christchurch East):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2014in fact, they are confident that it will not pass\u2014but 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000608\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EWe 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000609\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014that 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\u2014they will do so, and offer all the love and support they can. They will almost always respect their daughter\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000610\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EBut 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000611\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003EI 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\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000612\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022756422919654467c82b45d54d908edc6\u0022\u003EJudith Collins\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. It is bad enough having my speech misrepresented in that way without having the words \u201Cslut\u201D and \u201Cwhore\u201D thrown around in this debate on such an incredibly sensitive issue. I think the member should not go ahead with that sort of language.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000613\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221ad4e6d2afc343e9b4dc1091aba297b1\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: That is not a point of order. The member has said nothing that needs a point of order ruled on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000614\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ca5933fb8a8c485292a52c1a6a91a49d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: Point of order!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000615\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022f953767a568b4ae1a4aa970fa065fe09\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Does the member have a new point of order? I have ruled on Judith Collins\u2019 point of order. There is nothing to rule. It is not a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000616\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b60f2dca2695438e9d1f6ac8a1abe170\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014and I understand there are strong passions\u2014for 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\u2014[Interruption] She did. The member on her feet made direct assertions about what my colleague Judith Collins would do if her daughter\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000617\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022bdbd50f0bc4d4d9dac02f23a9f4aa446\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000618\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5280cc861f646079a14ae7c7741d051\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It is a different point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000619\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223c3a89df0e2745c88cc68cf970a38c82\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the member\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000620\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b631e31c55004bd9835c4886c3b73a0b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000621\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e7e28a48a034e4386315c7492aa638e\u0022\u003ELIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: If she were going to go home and be kicked and beaten\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000622\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228032cb7223764c1a85d5a4133a80ffe3\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000623\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b5f68ce70a314dc4961766cc21c024b5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have ruled on the point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000624\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022970f6f905fc44de9a76ed351c6c650e9\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I notice Damien O\u2019Connor 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000625\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229ba07cd10df84fc787424d226dc72a61\u0022\u003EHon Mark Burton\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s viewpoints and treat them with respect.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002238fce8e72229454f903249a2c6c0772d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: The member makes a good point. That is exactly what I heard.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000627\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c186d0a2-99f4-408b-9b4d-d484cf19724d\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227faa76e930f84d73b4acd8bb99cdbabf\u0022\u003ELIANNE DALZIEL\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014loving, good parents\u2014will support their daughters when they are in that situation, but, unfortunately, there are many who will not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022 data-id=\u002207e231952e0c40f7834c696c0bc94642\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000628\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002207e231952e0c40f7834c696c0bc94642\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP (National\u2014North Shore):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u20144.5 million voters\u2014of 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000629\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E 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\u2019 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: \u201CNo, I do not want my parents notified.\u201D, 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003EThe 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 Denese H\u0113nare\u2019s view that notification, certainly in the terms framed by Judith Collins, is entirely within the intent of the royal commission\u2019s report.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000631\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228ec3734cedca4d44a60b9890e0a3a14e\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not true. That\u2019s not right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000632\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022df788c48-b9be-42fd-b8f2-76629a5572b8\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002252c1247a1cf94539bbebd2811909ca66\u0022\u003EDr WAYNE MAPP\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022 data-id=\u00222b005672058b4a19af11250c986ef268\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000633\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f5d71749-ae91-4af7-b2bd-77260398912a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b005672058b4a19af11250c986ef268\u0022\u003EDAVID PARKER (Labour\u2014Otago):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022 data-id=\u00224086f890ac674784a570b69a67ac8393\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000634\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224086f890ac674784a570b69a67ac8393\u0022\u003EJUDY TURNER (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000635\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EThe committee seemed to be obsessed with the risks associated with informing parents about their child\u2019s condition. It was very hard to bring to the committee\u2019s attention the thought that there were risks involved in not informing the child\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000636\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EEverybody, 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\u2014as my colleague Peter Brown said\u2014the vast number of concerned parents.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000637\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EI 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000638\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EOne 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: \u201CMy parents are going to kill me.\u201D 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000639\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EWe 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\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022 data-id=\u002226cb050d838a438f996536f7875b76db\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000640\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002273f60731-048d-4a21-81c5-52d588de2325\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226cb050d838a438f996536f7875b76db\u0022\u003EMITA RIRINUI (Labour\u2014Waiariki):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022 data-id=\u002289050d27d82145698b0f2558f12d2a1c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000641\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002289050d27d82145698b0f2558f12d2a1c\u0022\u003EMETIRIA TUREI (Green):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000642\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000643\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fc8ab326-1806-41d3-8c41-cd58c95dcb45\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022 data-id=\u0022d88fde6c4d5846c19e48f3d4ae1fd89d\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000644\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d88fde6c4d5846c19e48f3d4ae1fd89d\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s 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\u2014 \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000645\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002292bf8e156f1042e2b297e7166ad6ee04\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but there was far too much talk during the last member\u2019s speech. I ask everybody to give those who are speaking the courtesy of some quiet.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000646\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223569966b1c854c58908964bef5e34df9\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2019s 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000647\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EAll 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000648\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022d25167f33f7843f78a08011df2381af0\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: I have already asked members to be seated and quiet. The noise is not acceptable. The member is really struggling to be heard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000649\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022caa1b70e06924d91bed4554e53033e21\u0022\u003ELARRY BALDOCK\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014a 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000650\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EParents 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000651\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EI 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000652\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221e93d9c8-b183-40db-b200-833697df066c\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022 data-id=\u00221ddca4f84bc94642b79c4e33ee056299\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000653\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221fb8d8db-3e96-49c7-ab1c-b7916a50e30e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00221ddca4f84bc94642b79c4e33ee056299\u0022\u003ESTEVE CHADWICK (Labour\u2014Rotorua):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u002221ca1a0ed79848209f1e3a917081e35e\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000654\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002221ca1a0ed79848209f1e3a917081e35e\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000655\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EI 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000656\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EAs 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022 data-id=\u00224ab7ad749678445ca17d6ad6f945e390\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000657\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022471dee54-f59e-4497-b3d3-c39044ce7169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00224ab7ad749678445ca17d6ad6f945e390\u0022\u003EHon DAMIEN O\u0027CONNOR (Minister for Racing):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022 data-id=\u00229d760887d0a9483089dd9184fd80c7af\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000658\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229d760887d0a9483089dd9184fd80c7af\u0022\u003ERON MARK (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2019s contribution, which ironically was in support of Judith Collins\u2019 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\u2019s right, when the drinking age is lowered from 20 to 18\u2014and therefore the de facto age to 12 and 13\u2014and 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000659\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EEveryone 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\u2014successive administrations\u2014have 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\u2014they 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\u2014not 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000660\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EThe 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000661\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002207dc4112-8a19-4dd6-a57c-878b47f8a9b6\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014and this has been said before\u2014that 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022 data-id=\u0022f48c77659b204b99aab053315cdfd8f3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000662\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002209a5b71a-ca7e-4e7c-9e09-f9e63f18aa12\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022f48c77659b204b99aab053315cdfd8f3\u0022\u003EHon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00227bcb14ae6ff742ffa6b5a4dd5772df15\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000663\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00227bcb14ae6ff742ffa6b5a4dd5772df15\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000664\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI 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\u2019s 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\u2014rights to home, car, and assets\u2014but only 1 year to be able to become the guardian of a child? That is right\u2014under 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\u2019s lives is one of the most important elements in those children\u2019s lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000665\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000666\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002291da10fd90eb43bca5eaa9eb61d69e81\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s not what I said. Don\u2019t misrepresent me.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000667\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b22df6344df64e7693ff04a80bf2c49a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000668\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228aa629987d0b4b53935e909e5bd1b23a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, I have corrected him. Please continue.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000669\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002260f548cedf07483cb250af96526180aa\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000670\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022495fa98b4e2d42eb9889f022aba1a8d2\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: They\u2019re not property.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000671\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226b7a5e2a672a4780b6de6e0971fa4e2f\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: They are not property\u2014so 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022 data-id=\u0022fe5f817667124e56955ecaa64a1de8e3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000672\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fe5f817667124e56955ecaa64a1de8e3\u0022\u003EHon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222ccb006fd9fe4670a2150dcf8938ce16\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000673\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222882200e7af24d7eb5125dd030b037a6\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Before I put the question, there are a number of amendments and they will be held as a personal vote. A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells. Before we do that, as I read out before we started, in accordance with the leave of the House, questions on amendments to Part 2 are to be taken in the following order: Supplementary Order Paper 294 in the name of Murray Smith, Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins, and Supplementary Order Paper 293 in the name of Judith Collins.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022481f05917bbf473c87f0bca641abf3b9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000674\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022481f05917bbf473c87f0bca641abf3b9\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. There will be successive votes?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000675\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002236e540e915754dfeb8487a0ab9c3f59a\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, there will be successive votes.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022 data-id=\u0022fff57c9652064e409f7734d7d75bb42b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000676\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022fff57c9652064e409f7734d7d75bb42b\u0022\u003ELINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip\u2014National):\u003C/span\u003E I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Mr Jones\u2019 Supplementary Order Paper is included in that motion as well. You did not mention Mr Jones\u2019 Supplementary Order Paper.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000677\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022893adc11-ce4e-419c-a079-08f04b3d75f5\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002204c1a65c450d4939b614222678b750d4\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 26\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAdams \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECopeland \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMark \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith M\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAwatere Huata \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuynhoven  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcNair  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith N\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBaldock \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEnglish  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOgilvy \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETuria  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrown  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EField  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParaone  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurner \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGudgeon  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPerry  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECatchpole  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHeatley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EConnell  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EJones \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters W (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECollins \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 94\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAlexander  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDunne  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELocke \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EScott \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAnderton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDyson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EShirley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EArdern  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEckhoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey M\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESimich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEwen-Street  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMaharey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith L (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarnett  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFairbrother  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMahuta \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESowry \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBenson-Pope \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFitzsimons  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMallard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EStewart  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBeyer  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFranks  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMapp  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESutton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBradford  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGallagher  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcCully  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESwain  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrash  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ENewman \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETamihere  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrownlee  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGosche  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EO\u0027Connor  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETanczos  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBurton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoudie  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOkeroa  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003Ete Heuheu  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter C (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHartley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETisch \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter D (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHawkins  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeck  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETizard \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChadwick \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHereora \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPettis  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurei \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChoudhary  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHide \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPillay \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EClark  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHobbs \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPower  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilliamson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECoddington  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHodgson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPrebble  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECosgrove  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHoromia  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWong  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECullen\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHunt  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERirinui \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWoolerton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECunliffe  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHutchison \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobertson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWorth (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDalziel \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKedgley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EYates\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonald  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERoy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonnelly  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKing \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERyall  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuncan  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELaban  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESamuels  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHughes \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAdams  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECopeland \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMark \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith L (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAlexander  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDunne  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcCully  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith M\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EArdern  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuynhoven  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcNair  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith N (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAwatere Huata \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEnglish  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOgilvy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETisch  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBaldock  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EField  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParaone  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurner  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrash  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFranks  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPerry  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilliamson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrown  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoudie  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWong  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrownlee  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGudgeon  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters W (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWorth  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter D (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHeatley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPower \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter J\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EJones \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECatchpole  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERyall  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EConnell  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMapp \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EScott \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECollins \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 75\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAnderton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEckhoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESowry \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEwen-Street  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey M\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EStewart  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarnett  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFairbrother  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMaharey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESutton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBenson-Pope \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFitzsimons  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMahuta \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESwain  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBeyer  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGallagher  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMallard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETamihere  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBradford  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ENewman \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETanczos  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBurton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGosche  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EO\u0027Connor  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003Ete Heuheu \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter C (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHartley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOkeroa  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETizard \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChadwick \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHawkins  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurei \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChoudhary  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHereora \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeck  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETuria  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EClark  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHide \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPettis  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECoddington  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHobbs \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPillay \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECosgrove  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHodgson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPrebble  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWoolerton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECullen \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHoromia  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERirinui \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EYates\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECunliffe  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHunt  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobertson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDalziel \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHutchison \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonald  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKedgley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERoy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonnelly  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKing \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESamuels  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuncan  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELaban  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EShirley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDyson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELocke \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESimich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHughes \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 45\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAdams  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECopeland \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMark \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith L (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAlexander  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDunne  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcCully  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith M\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EArdern  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuynhoven  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcNair  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith N\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAwatere Huata \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EField  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOgilvy (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETisch  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBaldock  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFranks  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParaone  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurner  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrash  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoudie  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPerry  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilliamson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrown  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGudgeon  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWong  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrownlee  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHeatley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters W (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWorth  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter D (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHutchison  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPower \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EJones \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECatchpole  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERyall  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EConnell  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMapp \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EScott \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECollins \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 75\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAnderton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEckhoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESowry \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEnglish  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey M\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EStewart  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarnett \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEwen-Street  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMaharey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESutton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBenson-Pope \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFairbrother  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMahuta \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESwain  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBeyer  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFitzsimons  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMallard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETamihere  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBradford  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGallagher  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ENewman \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETanczos  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBurton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EO\u0027Connor \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003Ete Heuheu \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter C (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGosche  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOkeroa  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETizard \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChadwick  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHartley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurei \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChoudhary  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHawkins  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeck  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETuria  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EClark  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHereora \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPettis  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECoddington \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHide \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPillay \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECosgrove  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHobbs \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPrebble  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWoolerton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECullen \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHodgson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERirinui \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EYates\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECunliffe  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHoromia  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobertson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDalziel  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHunt  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonald  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKedgley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERoy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonnelly  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKing \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESamuels  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuncan  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELaban  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EShirley \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDyson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELocke \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESimich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHughes \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000678\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000679\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 292 in the name of Judith Collins to clauses 35 and 37A be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000680\u0022\u003EAmendments not agreed to. \u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u0022bef0cfee0c92447c8a843dd3610b45d5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000681\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bef0cfee0c92447c8a843dd3610b45d5\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I seek leave of the House to record Larry Baldock\u2019s vote in favour of my amendment. It was omitted by accident from the vote.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5844245eecb484a9aa10f7093ce4838\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000682\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5844245eecb484a9aa10f7093ce4838\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to adding one more vote to the Ayes on Mr Smith\u2019s previous amendment? There is not.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000683\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fae7af0d-c48d-4dd4-88f3-928ccaa3a984\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000684\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dail Jones to clause 37 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000685\u0022\u003Eto omit this clause.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f37baf0bdfec41bdb32b7a7ce2e68acc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA personal vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 22\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAdams  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EConnell  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMark \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters W (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EArdern  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECopeland  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcNair  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith M (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBaldock  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuynhoven  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOgilvy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurner  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrown  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EField  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParaone  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrownlee  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGudgeon  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPerry  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECatchpole  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHeatley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeters J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EJones \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 97\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\n        \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022\u003E\n          \u003Ctable\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAlexander  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDunne  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELocke  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EShirley \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAnderton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDyson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey J (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESimich (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EAwatere Huata \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEckhoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMackey M\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith L (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEnglish  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMaharey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESmith N\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBarnett  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EEwen-Street  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMahuta \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESowry \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBenson-Pope \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFairbrother  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMallard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EStewart  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBeyer  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFitzsimons  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMapp  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESutton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBradford  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EFranks  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EMcCully  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESwain  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBrash  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGallagher  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ENewman \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETamihere  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EBurton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoff  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EO\u0027Connor  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETanczos  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter C (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGosche  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EOkeroa  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003Ete Heuheu  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter D (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EGoudie  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EParker \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETisch \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECarter J\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHartley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPeck  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETizard \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChadwick \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHawkins  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPettis  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETurei \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EChoudhary  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHereora  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPillay  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWard  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EClark  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHide \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPower \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilliamson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECoddington \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHobbs \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EPrebble  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWilson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECollins \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHodgson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERich  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWong  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECosgrove  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHoromia  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERirinui \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWoolerton  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECullen \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHunt  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobertson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EWorth  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ECunliffe  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHutchison \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERobson  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EYates\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDalziel \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKedgley  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERoy  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonald  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKey  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ERyall  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003E\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDonnelly  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EKing\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ESamuels  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ETeller:\u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n            \u003Ctr\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EDuncan  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003ELaban  (P)\u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EScott \u003C/td\u003E\n              \u003Ctd\u003EHughes \u003C/td\u003E\n            \u003C/tr\u003E\n          \u003C/table\u003E\n        \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003C/div\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000686\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Sue Bradford to clause 35 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000687\u0022\u003Eto insert the following new clause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000688\u0022\u003E35A\tInability to give informed consent to sterilisation\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000689\u0022\u003EIf a child is unable, through age or impairment, to give informed consent to sterilisation:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000690\u0022\u003E(a)\tA registered health professional, appropriately qualified to carry out such an operation, must apply to the family court with supporting information from a second appropriately qualified registered health professional that the procedure is a medical necessity; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000691\u0022\u003E(b)\tThe family court is to ensure the provision of a lawyer to advocate for the rights and best interests of the child.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022391bbeda02db406c972af380585f9db1\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 9\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EGreen Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 106\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000692\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 44 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000693\u0022\u003Eto insert, in subclause (1) after the words \u201COn an application made to it for the purpose by an eligible person\u201D, the words \u201Chaving taken into account the default position of rebuttable shared parenting\u201D.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00228310ed1a44d745fabff417973ad5844b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 34\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 6; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 81\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000694\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u002260b4f96ad4da4a4ab276a38ddcdd91cc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 48\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ef25485becd0470aa41b71226bc8e129\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 56\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 6; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1; Independent: Awatere Huata.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id200411048a2c60dde6fa4cb78f68ee107c57a9f4000695\u0022\u003ESitting suspended from 10.16 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Friday)\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000001\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022af9f170bbe944e048fb453d38d1b31b7\u0022\u003EThursday, 4 November 2004\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000002\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u0022087fc6f2aa264a2f9df4e7ae85beb8bb\u0022\u003E(continued on Friday, 5 November 2004)\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n    \u003Cdiv class=\u0022HpsHansard\u0022\u003E\n      \u003Cp\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsProceedingHeading\u0022\u003EBills\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000003\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubjectHeading\u0022 id=\u00221170adbdc7e24262a83ec62b850545a4\u0022\u003ECare of Children Bill\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000004\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002215129b0e145b4130be1b796ebe0b95ee\u0022\u003EIn Committee\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000005\u0022\u003EDebate resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000006\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002217134d7a73ca471dab9eed017a2cc47f\u0022\u003EPart 3 Jurisdictional, procedural, miscellaneous, and saving and transitional provisions\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00229dec9752f98d4a53afbe70ce25a1a9c9\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000007\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229dec9752f98d4a53afbe70ce25a1a9c9\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E New Zealand First is opposed to this legislation, and one of the main reasons for our opposition is that it does not do anything new. All it does do is alter some of the provisions that exist in the law today, and then go on ad nauseam in explaining what happens in the Family Court today. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000008\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EPart 3 is one of the best examples of this volubility on the part of the Government. Part 3 talks about evidence. It talks about reports from the chief executive, reports from other persons, distribution of reports, costs of reports, and publication of reports. That is all stuff that one might expect would be in the regulations. Why waste the time of the Committee with this? If members have read the Guardianship Act of 1968 and if they have any familiarity with the practice of the courts, they will know that these sorts of things get done automatically as part of general rules and regulations of the court today. The Government seems to be of the view that if one presents a report that is hundreds of pages long, it must be good, whereas if the report is short and precise it must be bad. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000009\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ECurrently, the Guardianship Act is a short, precise, clear piece of legislation and we have worked very well with it over the years. Some improvements were needed, and the question of opening up the courts is one of those areas. We in New Zealand First have said that this bill should have taken into account bringing domestic violence legislation within the scope of this bill, and this Government has failed to do the only thing that is really necessary to improve the current Family Court structure. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000010\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EAs I say, this bill is just a waste of the Committee\u2019s time. It was a waste of time for the select committee and the submitters, and New Zealand First does not want to waste any more time on this stupid part of the legislation. I have nothing more to say about it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u0022b3fae80f9edd490eba77e77b5be71029\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000011\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b3fae80f9edd490eba77e77b5be71029\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E As the honourable member Dail Jones has said, Part 3 is just another example of the Government saying it will reword the law a bit, and we will all feel a lot better for that. Well, we will not\u2014not one bit.  Some of the provisions in this bill need to have a very good looking-at. One of them relates to the opening up of the Family Court. There is one person in this Parliament who needs to be congratulated on the work he has done to open up the Family Court, and that is the Hon Nick Smith. Nick Smith has put himself, his career, his family, and his money on the line. He did that for his constituents, and it has resulted in a huge groundswell of support for the opening up of the Family Court. But the Government has responded with a whimper and nothing more, and that is why we are not supporting this part. The whimpering-type opening  up of the Family Court is just that, and nothing more than that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000012\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI am very concerned about the term \u201Caccredited media\u201D. The accredited media will be allowed to report on the Family Court, and will have their reports looked at and approved by the judge. What sort of accredited media are going to report on that basis? Well, I have been told by the news media who might have been interested in looking at the workings and non-workings of the Family Court that they simply will not be interested in reporting like that. The news media are not there to put out the politically correct nonsense that comes from this Government. They are not there to pander to the will of incompetent people who happen to be practising or not practising within the Family Court\u2014and I have certainly seen a lot of that in my time. I have seen people who, as counsel for the child, did not even bother to see the child before they made reports, supposedly on behalf of the child. I have seen social workers who did not get reports back to the court in time, and I have seen people who abused the secrecy in the court and hid behind it, so that their incompetence and greed were hidden. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000013\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThe losers from all that are, of course, the poor little children who happen to be the subject of the proceedings. That is who loses. Dr Nick Smith went out for those kids, and he went out for parents, and this Government, every day that it gets the opportunity to do so in this Chamber, slams him for it. This part of the bill was the Government\u2019s opportunity to make a few amends for children, and it has not done that. The Government members whimpered\u2014because they are not there for parents and for children. They are there for the so-called professionals who are currently not doing their jobs. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000014\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThis provision is a big whitewash. It is a cop-out. It is everything we would expect from this Government when it comes to family issues, and nothing more. This bill will not improve the situation very much, at all. It will improve the reporting for lawyers by lawyers, and that is all. It will improve the system for the professionals. What will it do for those families who feel that their views as families are being ignored? Nothing. What will it do for families who feel that their professional advisors, or their social workers\u2014the people who are there for them and their children, supposedly\u2014are not doing their job? What about the people who feel that those social workers are kowtowing to the political correctness that this Government loves so much, and what about the people who are, in fact, lazy, incompetent people who are not doing their jobs? What will this legislation do for the really good professional people, who are struggling in that environment, and who look around and see their colleagues sit around wasting time, wasting taxpayers\u2019 dollars, and wasting the youth of those people? What will it do for those good professionals? Nothing, because they will not have the opportunity to use this law to expose that. Yet again, secrecy is there for the benefit of the professionals.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u002243cf8e3587264e64ab43171bec64da10\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000015\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002243cf8e3587264e64ab43171bec64da10\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I would just like to respond briefly to the comments that Ms Collins has made in relation to Nick Smith\u2019s championing of the causes of families. I would like to do that by putting on the record a couple of quotes from the judgment of the court case that was referred to. In quoting from that judgment, can I first inform the Committee of this comment from the presiding judge. \u201CThe fact that pressure was applied privately to a litigant did not prevent the action being a contempt of court. All improper pressure, whether applied publicly or privately, had to be considered. The comments to the caregiver were neither fair, nor reasonable, nor moderate. They were contemptuous because their purpose was to persuade the caregiver to give up the case and concede custody to the parents. The comments were not bona fide persuasion\u201D\u2014[Interruption] I say to Ms Collins that she seems to operate, as do many members on that side of the House, on the theory that the fantasy often repeated becomes the truth. I think it is quite important for the people who are listening, and for the parliamentary record of this debate, that people hear just how much that champion of the family and justice, Nick Smith, was in contempt of the Family Court. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000016\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe second quote I would like to put in the record is as follows: \u201CDr Smith had sought to influence the Family Court\u2019s decision. He sought to bring about the return of custody of the child to the parents. He did this by propounding that outcome, by denigrating the other possible outcome, and by calling for an inquiry.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000017\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227e6116b8024c4b63b15cb6968a3ac458\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Members need to confine their speeches to the content of this part. Passing references to other matters have to be very narrow.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000018\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223351163411234e4089de5dd0453d7c3d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am very happy to have a debate in this Chamber about the issues that brought about the contempt of court charge, and I seek leave of the Committee for the Minister to be able to stray in that area, providing members on this side of the Committee have the opportunity to respond.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000019\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220fa4e9c5186d48cbba423a1309c34894\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: No, the Committee has no authority to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000020\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00226a1fd89dc064449f978b1369c5eba19d\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000021\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a9b1775f96984217a454ef7c88f3f948\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Well, the member can always seek leave, but whether it is granted is another matter.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000022\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fc92e47114a844089aa66486a0237f8b\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I seek leave for the debate to be widened so that the aspects of the contempt of court charge that led good parents in my electorate to lose their child are able to be debated in terms of this debate about opening up the Family Court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000023\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eb64b31a99d9462ba76ee2ca8a2b4625\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The Committee actually has no authority to do that. It would require the authority of the House to do so. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000024\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002220fca0eafce14e31ac73797eb2d2f0cf\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE\u003C/span\u003E: I am confining myself, absolutely, to the matter of this section in direct response to the matters raised by the previous speaker, Ms Collins. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000025\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003EThe final three sentences of my contribution are as follows, and I quote from the judgment, which I will seek leave to table in a moment. \u201CBy making public comments and statements that undermined the public confidence in the Family Court decision, Dr Smith at the same time, undermined public confidence in the court itself. The intemperate, derogatory, and unfair remarks of Dr Smith assaulted the authority and integrity of the Family Court and the fairness and legitimacy of its decision.\u201D I seek leave to table the decision of the Solicitor-General v Smith in the High Court in March this year.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000026\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b24eeb25a7ac4c2eaf53879ce7e8149e\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000027\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002257ed0ab7a8c94a35aa60ce378db6bc5a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister\u2019s point of order actually breaches the Standing Orders in that one cannot seek leave to table a document that has already been tabled. The decision of the Solicitor-General\u2014the Crown\u2019s top law enforcement officer\u2014versus myself has already been tabled in the House, and it is not within the Standing Orders to seek leave to table something that has already been tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000028\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022759fa6d6050b437cb5021609448d0970\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I just say to the member that it is a public document, and it is up to the Committee as to whether it agrees to that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000029\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227b0c87f4c2184033ac9ec4ca41e7444a\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: But it has already been tabled.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000030\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002226d50f86632c4136b52be7d15f5704b7\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: It has been tabled, but the reality is that it is still\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000031\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c73c251338c649109de4fa29a67d5420\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: No\u2014there is a very specific Standing Order that says that one cannot put\u2014[Interruption]\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000032\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022039db583938b4e008e7d2e962764e80d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Points of order are to be heard in silence.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000033\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002273358e7adc6e473b83608f3c87da2d63\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: It is a very clear Standing Order, and I have to say, Mr Chairman, that the Speaker has ruled on this. This is the fourth time that Labour has sought to re-table this document. [Interruption] I tell Marian Hobbs that the Speaker ruled\u2014[Interruption] Mr Chairman, you have already told members that they should not interject during points of order. Marian Hobbs has been repeatedly interjecting. What are you going to do about it?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000034\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002255c6042551564a46b4aa5ad22cc77ef5\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I have already called for order on this side. If the member made such comments\u2014I am sorry; I did not hear them\u2014I request her to stand, withdraw, and apologise. She has her first yellow card; the next time she is out.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000035\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022988f2be97907489dbb86271fd1569693\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise for the interjection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022 data-id=\u0022afaca7f38df3453f97ed52818b612d29\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000036\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022afaca7f38df3453f97ed52818b612d29\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Thank you.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000037\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a6ba46b8a8c44198bf6d505f3d56f9f5\u0022\u003EHon Dr Nick Smith\u003C/span\u003E: As I said, this issue has previously been raised, and the Speaker ruled on it. His ruling was quite clear: one cannot seek leave to table a document if the House has already granted leave and the document has already been tabled. The Standing Order is quite simple, and it is one that has been repeated often: one cannot put the question to the House after it has already been put to the House.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000038\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002233e36ac0063149808e4ba1ff0a8111f8\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I just say to the member that it is within his jurisdiction, simply, to deny leave. That has always been the case, and it is a simple matter. Leave has been sought. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be objection.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u00229034a7b08d644a5fa47a92476e997bc3\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000039\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00229034a7b08d644a5fa47a92476e997bc3\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E It was interesting that during the Associate Minister\u2019s contribution, in quoting from the contempt of court proceedings in which I was involved, he chose not to say that the judge had concluded that at all times I had acted in good faith. I hold a very basic view, and that is that good mums and dads in this country have an absolute right to be able to raise their children. I find it absolutely remarkable and gutless for members opposite to raise repeatedly\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000040\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229f5420366ac54d81b271dbd1b02d4c3b\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member is a longstanding member of the House, and he knows very well that to imply that a member lacks courage is a personal reflection and is out of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000041\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229598f46560e04d57b88f871d8d040b0b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw and apologise. The interesting point is this. At the time I was convicted I said: \u201CLet\u2019s have a by-election in Nelson. Let\u2019s have the people of Nelson decide.\u201D The Labour Party was nowhere to be seen. Its members did not have the courage of their convictions to argue that issue in the public arena of my own community of Nelson. Six months later they sleaze around in this Chamber, trying to relitigate those issues, when they did not have the capacity to put those issues to the public at the time.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000042\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022548603f3c4d848ad983e737b9823926f\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I do not know a lot about sleaze\u2014that member might\u2014but I take exception to any member of the Government being referred to as sleazing around the Chamber. The member might like to explain just what it means, because, clearly, he knows.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000043\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227ff4b6165a444eeba7795f2c58625b0d\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The Minister has taken exception to the word used\u2014I would assume, rightly or wrongly, that that is under Standing Order 116. As the Minister has taken exception I ask the member to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000044\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c0d933e57db0436cba908262fc4539f1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw. How sensitive members opposite are! I shall put this very simply. Ever since May members opposite have been very keen to quote all the time what happened in the court.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000045\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00220ad24ca7edd04810a60d5b8be1e27128\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: That\u2019s dead right.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000046\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00221c001ef5c19d4de99c8766895a4de877\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: When Marian Hobbs was caught cheating on her provision\u2014[Interruption] She was caught out cheating. She was sacked as a Minister.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000047\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b6b6a5ea619943dbad8ae47b4deb6e56\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point order, Mr Chairperson. I take exception to that man lying about the actual circumstance and the court order. I ask him to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000048\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022de5f2c758eec4d96bea447745195a59c\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: All members should just take a deep breath. It is not acceptable in this House to say that a member is not telling the truth. That is absolutely out of order. Here, a member\u2019s word is his or her bond. If there are any circumstances where that is found to be otherwise, members have a course of action that they can take. I would ask the member to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000049\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022908c30c4742a481f96b14a4782a84bce\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: Do you want me to withdraw?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000050\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002262ee51003f2c491093989b0ca051ea40\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: The member will withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000051\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002213270a90cd8149b4921b1ffe0a646bd5\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: Can I have a point of clarification?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000052\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a5f9f7e421dd4f3995c915957a1b00db\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: No, I am asking the member to withdraw.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000053\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022fe57a9b2465e40fbacd238e08cf731d7\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: I withdraw first; then can I ask a point of order, for clarification?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000054\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00228fcc0e6a005043069b768cbbc5e34068\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, the member may have a point of order.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000055\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00221583b5cb-f4e0-4981-97ba-193c338ff404\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022e5642b519ac74cbbbdb4991fe44e15f5\u0022\u003EHon Marian Hobbs\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. If the speaker on his feet alleged something that put me in a criminal position, that was incorrect, and that had been proven before an authority to be incorrect, can he continue to say that? What is the difference between that and lying?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000056\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ce20bfa9305f4bb390dac5685b6dc7d2\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: All I can say is that if the member is concerned about the manner in which a speech has been delivered in this Chamber, and if the member believes that it was incorrect, the only position available to me is that I have to take the word of the honourable member. If the Minister herself is not satisfied with what is being said across the Chamber, then she can take a breach of privilege. There is a course of action available for her to do that.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000057\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022dc821c5464ea4241abf2b16059e228ff\u0022\u003EDail Jones\u003C/span\u003E: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As a New Zealand First member I ask you to bring the Labour Party and the National Party back to the bill. They are wasting the country\u2019s time talking about something that is not related to the bill. New Zealand First supports entirely the decision of the Family Court judge and the High Court, which was absolutely right. Clearly, Mr Smith did not support the interest of his\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000058\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270fa4cbd-9380-4916-9f2a-78da059d220e\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00224faec1e2b2ed491aa091413b6c4df417\u0022\u003EThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson)\u003C/span\u003E: I have heard enough. I am on my feet. I am in the process of dealing with the issue. I am the sole judge of relevancy. I ask members to come to the bill. The Committee\u2019s term of reference is what is in the bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000059\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00229c066b10522e48f8b9ecb121d8b69ad1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: The part of the bill we are dealing with is the issue in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. I very strongly hold the view that we need to provide for public accountability of an institution that goes to the core of the most important relationships that we have during the course of our lives.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000060\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EYesterday in the Chamber it was interesting to note that the Minister in the chair was very keen to quote editorials. When it came to Judith Collins he did not come up with his own words. He had to quote editorials from newspapers up and down the country. Well, I want the Minister to look at what editorials state about his provisions, in respect of the opening up of the Family Court. Under those provisions, it appears that he is making our judges editors of our newspapers. It is a flaky and inappropriate form of State control when a judge in the Family Court can tell journalists what they can, and cannot, write.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000061\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EJudges are just people. They are lawyers who have gone on to take up that office. The only accountability of our judiciary is through opening proceedings to the media. The only time I have ever seen a judge resign is when he or she has been exposed by the media. If we have a secret court that is closed, where is the check on those people, who make absolutely critical decisions about people\u2019s families? That is why I have argued consistently that the Family Court needs to be opened. That is why I say that the Minister must reconsider the State control and the editorial control that judges are given in subclause (2AB) of clause 131. I simply say that I could quote editorials up and down the country in which editors have said\u2014and the New Zealand Press Association and the New Zealand Press Council have also said it\u2014that those provisions are wrong.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000062\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMy challenge to Mr Benson-Pope is very simple. Why did he quote editors yesterday but not today? Why is he so keen to quote editorials in the Otago Daily Times, the New Zealand Herald, and the Dominion Post when it suits him, but he is not prepared to take any notice of them when they do not suit him? His provisions in the bill do not provide the open accountability that the people of New Zealand need from our Family Court. Do Government members opposite really believe in open justice? It is one of the absolute, most important principles of any system, and even more so when it involves families. I ask them to reconsider.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u002223a0717bfc41422ebf4bc01102f9a6c1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000063\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002223a0717bfc41422ebf4bc01102f9a6c1\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E As I said from the outset, the ACT party will be opposing the bill, largely because, although it sounds and feels good, it will do little to change the terrible problems that do exist in family law in New Zealand.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000064\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E But I would like to bring the Committee\u2019s attention to an amendment in my name that inserts a new clause 131. The amendment would effectively introduce into New Zealand a truly open Family Court. The problem we all have with the bill as it stands is that, although the Associate Minister of Justice has put forward provisions for a so-called opening up of the Family Court, they are Clayton\u2019s provisions. The bill still enables censorship of whatever is reported by the media. As I understand it, anyone can object to the media being present. I suspect that very rapidly a pattern will develop of the court appearing to be open to the media, the media turning up, but then having to leave because somebody objects; and if they do stay the distance, then whatever they write up will be censored. So I say the Committee should look carefully at my amendment to insert new clause 131. It is based on the member\u2019s bill to open up New Zealand\u2019s Family Court that parliamentary counsel drafted for me. If the parties represented here want to see more open democracy in the Family Court, they are urged to support that amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000065\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThe issue is this: family law in New Zealand, at the present time, is hurting children. It is as simple as that! Family law in New Zealand is denying kids their right to be able to have an ongoing relationship and frequent contact with their non-custodial parent. That is how the system works in this country. If people end up in the Family Court, one parent comes out the winner\u2014gets custody of the children\u2014and the other one is the loser. What we have seen over the years is that the family member who loses out on custody\u2014the non-custodial parent\u2014has to pay large amounts of child support, and often that person\u2019s right to be able to maintain contact with the children is eroded away. We end up with kids who no longer see that parent\u2014usually a dad\u2014or the grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on, on that side of the family. We end up with kids being cut off from what should be their right: contact with their biological parent and that part of the family.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000066\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EI say that the fact this practice has gone on and on for years and years is a reflection of the fact that the secret Family Court has not allowed publication of this information. This information is known to those families who are caught up in family breakdown, but not to the wider public. The public have no idea of the pain and suffering that goes on through the Family Court. That is why it is so important that the media are allowed to attend, and to report on what goes on\u2014obviously, with name suppression and all those other protections. In general, the court should be open and should have a presumption of openness, like our select committees of Parliament. It is important that the media, as the fourth estate, as the fourth leg of our democratic system of Government, can take part in what is going on in the Family Court. The reason why family law in New Zealand is such a mess, why so many families are suffering as a result of family law, is that the public have not been allowed to see what has been going on.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000067\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EI want to set the record straight by saying that the first time this Parliament actually dealt with this issue was in 2001 when a bill in my name was introduced to open up the Family Court. The number of people supporting that move back then\u2014I suppose one could call it a movement; it had been pushed by the media and individuals\u2014became a groundswell, and that groundswell has now caused changes, but they are not enough.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022 data-id=\u00220a40493e115643a7abcaafe4a5f730ae\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000068\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220a40493e115643a7abcaafe4a5f730ae\u0022\u003EJUDY TURNER (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E I rise on behalf of United Future to take a brief call on this part. United Future does not have huge problems with this area, other than to say that a huge opportunity for the Government has been missed. A really big opportunity was afforded the Government to have a fresh look at the procedures around the Family Court. When we look at what has just been developed in Australia, with funding of mediation services in this regard, we see that a hugely innovative approach has taken the sting out of what has been going on in the Family Court, and it is making a huge difference. So Part 3 represents a lost moment in time in New Zealand history, and I look forward to the day when we can redress that issue. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000069\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EI want to raise a couple of issues. Last Wednesday in the House I questioned the Minister for Courts, the Hon Rick Barker, about a programme called Children in the Middle, which is being piloted in the Family Court on the North Shore. That Minister did not even know about the pilot programme that is going on in the courts\u2014which are under his jurisdiction. It is an incredibly innovative programme. The Law Commission has recommended the rolling out of this programme, and that was my question to the Minister. I asked whether he was planning to take up the recommendation. He had been quoting the commission all the way through his answers, yet did not know anything about that recommendation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000070\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EPart 3 could have included aspects of that pilot programme. Let us remember that parents who are using the Family Court to settle custody and access issues are parents who are at war with each other. Most parents who separate and divorce manage to sort this out in a reasonably amicable way with the future of their children in mind. But when couples are unable to do that, they find themselves in the Family Court. The pilot programme on the North Shore requires those parents, prior to getting their date in court, to have participated, separately, in two sessions of parent education that very clearly show them the impact of what their ongoing conflict is having on their children. The evidence is very clear: serious ongoing conflict is one of the most damaging factors of divorce on children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000071\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003E I have offered to help the Government. I have drafted a member\u2019s bill to amend the Family Proceedings Act. It is now in the ballot, waiting to be drawn, but I invite the Government to take the work I have done and make it a Government bill, and get it through the House and into action so that this wonderful pilot that is happening now in the Family Court on the North Shore can be rolled out and become standard Family Court procedure. Then, every couple who are in dispute over the looking after of their children would, first of all, sit down for about 4 hours and have a very serious, heart-searching look at the impact on their children of what they are doing. It would be a chance to be brought to their senses. The strengthening of mediation provisions at this very crucial moment in a family\u2019s life is absolutely vital, and we have the opportunity to look at what is happening in Australia in that regard. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000072\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00220d9640b0-d861-43d8-b321-e7ba56dbe362\u0022\u003EPart 3 has some good points. It offers an improved level of accountability, but, really, it is just a missed opportunity to have done so much more. When we are talking about families that are before the court, we need to understand that the needs of children at this time are absolutely vital. The outcomes for families who have to go through this process are usually pretty appalling. I think it is a huge shame that we did not take up the Law Commission\u2019s recommendations and make Part 3 a much more humane and sensible provision.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022 data-id=\u0022b18c4a0ed07344498ea373e81012391f\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000073\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b18c4a0ed07344498ea373e81012391f\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH (National\u2014Epsom):\u003C/span\u003E Mr Chairperson, may I start by reciprocating the greeting you gave to members when the Committee resumed this morning\u2014m\u014Drena to your wh\u0101nau. I want to talk about Part 3. This part, which is headed \u201CJurisdictional, procedural, miscellaneous, and saving and transitional provisions\u201D, is more significant than at first blush might appear. There are two particular issues that I would like to deal with in this call, which I hope is the first of many calls on a complex and tricky part of the bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000074\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe first clause I would like to deal with is clause 120, which states in summary that \u201Cthe Court may receive any evidence that it thinks fit, whether or not it is otherwise admissible in a Court of law.\u201D Some would say that those sorts of provisions, which are becoming increasingly common in legislation, are well and good, that they are in some way a reflection of a people\u2019s court approach. But in a court like the Family Court, particular care needs to be taken in respect of the material that the court receives because the judgments that are being made on the welfare of the child are just so critical. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000075\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIt is right to say that this is a court where there is a lot of unreliable evidence. There is a lot of double-type hearsay evidence, for example. One of the things that I would have liked to see in this bill, if this were a caring Government\u2014and we know it is not\u2014would be a provision that where allegations of sexual abuse, for example, are made by a mother against a father in respect of a child who is the subject of the proceedings, and those allegations on their face do not seem to be well supported, there should be a clear obligation before that sort of evidence is relied upon that there be proof that a complaint has been made to the police in respect of the particular incident or incidents referred to in the affidavit material. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000076\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThose who have experience of the Family Court would know that allegations of this type are quite commonly made, are difficult to refute, and are often not true. Sometimes they are true, but often they are not. That is the danger of the wording of a clause like this, that it permits a mass of evidence\u2014so-called evidence, in any event\u2014to flow into the record, without a proper opportunity to assess the probative value of that sort of material. Therefore, I note clause 120, and it is an issue that I plan to come back to in later calls, probably this afternoon. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000077\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002232adec3f8d024fa9a66815a133b748b3\u0022\u003EDr Paul Hutchison\u003C/span\u003E: Or tomorrow morning?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000078\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222c03948d11014f25ae2e3ff11100804b\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: My friend says \u201COr tomorrow morning\u201D, but regretfully I think we can only sit as late as 10 p.m. without\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000079\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022803002d1-e810-4bd8-b8e7-2e97d0d6f626\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00223e62fb6104d343f8b7c46be0faefe8f5\u0022\u003ESimon Power\u003C/span\u003E: Start again Saturday.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000080\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002223667c30b3734dcd8dae745dc92ad58e\u0022\u003ERICHARD WORTH\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, perhaps we can do that. Perhaps we can start again tomorrow. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000081\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EThe second matter that I wish to deal with is clause 129, which is about attendance at hearings generally. Dr Muriel Newman has made some comment about this, but not in the context that I will seek to advance. I would say, though, in respect of the issues that she raises, that she has exemplified a really good comment that Justice Brandeis once made, which is that sunlight is the best disinfectant\u2014the concept that if the Family Court is open, its transparency can be better assessed, and the consequence, of course, is a greater degree of confidence in the administration of justice. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000082\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022d21515bb-0193-4167-a21d-982058b53604\u0022\u003EIt is not that point that I want to take up. It is the point that is referred to in clause 129(1)(g). Clause 129 lists the people who may attend a hearing of proceedings under this Act, other than criminal proceedings. There are some obviously identified categories of person. But paragraph (g) states: \u201Cany other person(s) whom the Judge permits to be present.\u201D I just caution members, in looking at paragraph (g), to reflect on what its consequences might be. It will be possible for a determined litigant in the Family Court to seek an outcome, where a significant number of supporters are sitting in the back of the court\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022 data-id=\u002241d437a9ac8d492db472e7b2bbedc29b\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000083\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002276e4b8b7-c205-49d8-a21e-5d7a3ddf1330\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002241d437a9ac8d492db472e7b2bbedc29b\u0022\u003EMARK PECK (Labour\u2014Invercargill):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022b5cc87b1493b47079a324e1e7511bfb1\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000084\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022b5cc87b1493b47079a324e1e7511bfb1\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I, too, want to highlight some of the provisions in Part 3 that deal with court procedure. The fundamental concern I have, as a parent, is this: what is the legal process by which the State can take my child from me? That is a very strong power for the courts and the State to have. If we ask people who are convicted of criminal offences and sent to prison what is the worst thing that can happen to them, we hear that it is to be separated from their children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000085\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThis Parliament needs to be very clear about the circumstances when the State will take children and prevent them from having contact with their parents. Yet if we look at this part and its procedure, and sit it alongside that of the earlier parts we have dealt with, we see that the court can take a child from a parent simply when the court sees that as being in the child\u2019s best interests. Well, that is so vague and open that I do not think it provides anything of the sort of protection that we need in law. In fact, what I would like to see in this part is a provision that is at least as strong as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says that the State should break the contact between a child and its parent only when the child is at risk or where there is clear evidence of risk to the child. But this part does not say that. All it says is that that contact may be broken if the court deems it to be in the best interest of the child, and I believe that that is quite flawed. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000086\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EFurthermore, we have in this part another dose of Labour\u2019s political correctness. Clause 128 deals with a child\u2019s cultural background. Of all the things we think are important for children\u2014a loving environment, committed parents\u2014what is the thing that Labour is now going to add in? It is a cultural background report. With regard to determining the interests of children, it is their ethnicity that is at the top end of Labour\u2019s list of importance. I say that those members are mistaken. They are so immersed in their own political correctness about M\u0101ori rights, Pacific Island rights, and all that stuff, that they have actually forgotten the most important thing for children. What really gives me the willies is when I read the Law Commission report, endorsed by a Minister of this Parliament, that says that if people are part of M\u0101ori families, then their rights to their children are different from others\u2019 rights. It says the children belong to the iwi and the hap\u016B and one\u2019s rights as a parent are somehow lesser. Well, I say to members opposite\u2014[Interruption]\u2014and to Ms Mackey, that whether a person is Asian, European, M\u0101ori, Pacific Islander, or whatever, human beings have a natural bond between parent and child that no amount of political correctness should cut across. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000087\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EWhat we have in clause 128 from this Government is a provision that gives a level of importance to cultural considerations that actually loses the plot about what is important for children in this country to get a good deal. We will have courts side-tracked into arguments about the treaty and all sorts of cultural issues, rather than being focused on those things that are in the best interests of children. So I say to the Government that this dose of PC nonsense is not what the children of New Zealand need. I say that all this focus on taking away the rights of parents will backfire on children; they deserve far better.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u0022bbe29f4929b14472ac93c3573881365c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000088\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022bbe29f4929b14472ac93c3573881365c\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u0022d22ae973e253489f9fd7262a3f52d2c7\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000089\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d22ae973e253489f9fd7262a3f52d2c7\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E Unlike the Opposition parties that can find nothing good about this bill and a Government that, of course, will not admit to any weakness in it, United Future, as a centre party, likes to see good where it can and criticises where it knows there are failings. I refer particularly to the comment of my colleague Judy Turner about the missed opportunities in this bill. Notwithstanding those missed opportunities, in terms of Part 3, I believe, and United Future accepts, that there are some good aspects to this bill. I want to dwell on two or three of those, and perhaps, if I have time, on some we do not agree with. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000090\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI look firstly at the question of openness of proceedings. There is a distinction in the Family Court, as opposed to other courts, and that is that the Family Court deals with situations that are quite different from the sorts of situations that come up in criminal or civil courts. The Family Court is dealing with people who are in very emotive situations and need some help to try to get the best result possible with the minimum of damage to the family relationships involved. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000091\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI know as a lawyer\u2014and other lawyers in the Committee will have had this experience if they have been involved in family work\u2014that the whole area of family work is very, very different from every other area of law because of the emotional loading there is. It was always difficult, I found, in family work to be able to really get to grips with where the truth lay. I would see clients who were on one side or the other, and the amount of emotion colouring their perspective of situations was so heavy that it was very hard to sit down and analyse the truth. In a civil or criminal situation I could sit down and say: \u201CWell, tell me now exactly what the facts are here. Leave aside your own interpretations. Let me just get the solid detail so I know the factual basis, and we\u2019ll work from there.\u201D It was almost impossible to do that in family situations, because the emotions were so dominant in the parties involved. I believe that that is important, and the Act is right in giving flexibility to the courts in the way they deal with things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000092\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EIn terms of the openness of proceedings, United Future believes that the bill has pretty well got it right. We disagree with the view of ACT and National that the proceedings should be open to the public generally. We do not want situations where nosy neighbours can go along to see what the people next door are doing, and we do not want them to have the right to sit in court  and do so. We have a situation where anyone whom the judge thinks it is appropriate to be there can be there. I think that is the right balance. If there are people who should be involved in the proceedings and who have an interest there, and if it is appropriate to have them sitting in the courtroom, then the flexibility is there to do that. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000093\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThere is an automatic right for the media to be there. The National Party is raising the fear that judges will habitually exclude the media. I do not think that will happen. I think we will find that the courts take the view that the media can sit in unless there are exceptional circumstances in which that should not be allowed. Effectively, the Principal Family Court Judge told the select committee that he welcomed the fact that the media would be able to be present. That in itself is a signal that that is the way the judges will approach the situation. I think that is appropriate and I therefore think the balance we have is right. There is an automatic right for the media to be there. They need to be accredited, otherwise anyone could turn up and claim to be a member of the media. Anyone could say that they were the publisher of the local neighbourhood newsletter and, as a result, they could turn up to find out what their neighbours were doing. So there does need to be an element enabling the judge to say no\u2014there is a bottom line in terms of accreditation. I am confident that the courts will handle that properly. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000094\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI do have a bit of concern about the Supplementary Order Paper that the Government has suddenly put in allowing for the publication of proceedings in legal, psychological and other medical journals. That is wider than the scope that was there before. I thought what we had was quite good. It allowed automatic publication as long as the names or particulars likely to lead to identification of the parties were excluded. I can understand that the legal profession, particularly, might say that they do not want to have to go through every judgment and pull it out, but this leaves the legislation open to abuse.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022 data-id=\u0022ed2da1cf510c4f5298306294952f1a42\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000095\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ed2da1cf510c4f5298306294952f1a42\u0022\u003EMOANA MACKEY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022c72b4326b96648db8b083f33f79d512d\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000096\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Dr Muriel Newman to clause 131 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000097\u0022\u003Eto omit clause 131 and substitute the following clause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000098\u0022\u003E131  Proceedings to be open to public\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000099\u0022\u003E(1)\tSittings of a Family Court must be open to the public.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000100\u0022\u003E(2)\tAny person may publish a report of proceedings of a Family Court\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000101\u0022\u003E(3)\tSubsections (1) and (2) are subject to subsection (4) and to the provisions of any other enactment, but are not subject to such provisions where those provisions\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000102\u0022\u003E(a)\trestrict access to the proceedings of a Family Court; or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000103\u0022\u003E(b)\trestrict the publication of reports of proceedings of a Family Court in any case where, and to the extent to which, the Family Court is exercising the function of adjudicating on the proceedings.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000104\u0022\u003E(4)\tWhere a Family Court is of the opinion that the interests of justice, or of public morality or of the privacy of any person require, and outweigh the interests protected by the openness of its proceedings, it may make any of the following orders:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000105\u0022\u003E(a)\tan order forbidding publication of any report or account of the whole or any part of the proceedings, including any evidence adduced or submissions made:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000106\u0022\u003E(b)\tan order forbidding the publication of the name of any person connected, whether as a witness or otherwise, with the proceedings or of any name or other particulars likely to lead to the identification of any such person:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000107\u0022\u003E(c)\tin exceptional cases, an order that the sitting not be open to the public.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000108\u0022\u003E(5)\tAn order made under subsection (4)\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000109\u0022\u003E(a)\tmay be made for a limited period or permanently; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000110\u0022\u003E(b)\tif it is made for a limited period, may be renewed for a further period or periods by a Family Court; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000111\u0022\u003E(c)\tif it is made permanently, may be reviewed by a Family Court at any time; and\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000112\u0022\u003E(d)\tmay be subject to such exceptions or conditions as a Family Court, in its discretion, decides.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000113\u0022\u003E(6)\tEvery person who contravenes an order made under subsection (4)(a) or (b) commits an offence against the Act and is liable on summary conviction\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000114\u0022\u003E(a)\tin the case of an individual, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months, or to a fine not exceeding $2,000:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000115\u0022\u003E(b)\tin the case of a body corporate, to a fine not exceeding $10,000.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000116\u0022\u003E(7)\tNothing in this section limits\u2014\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000117\u0022\u003E(a)\tany other enactment relating to the prohibition or regulation of the publication of reports or particulars relating to judicial proceedings; or\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000118\u0022\u003E(b)\tthe power of a court to punish any contempt of Court.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022f2211ddf468f4777a2dd4df8cf682d5b\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 33\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 81\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; New Zealand First 13; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000119\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 3, and the following amendment in his name to clause 131 be agreed to: \u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000120\u0022\u003Eto insert, the following new subclause:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000121\u0022\u003E(2AD)  In subsection (2AC)(b), psychologist means a health practitioner who is, or is deemed to be, registered with the Psychologists Board continued by section 114(1)(a) of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 as a practitioner of the profession of psychology.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022721b3a07a1c84458827825e7b90014c5\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022310cc1a98f474b5392c73c4c0332c4cf\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 3 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 3 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000122\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u0022d04324a217eb44828028fc643a32fb8e\u0022\u003EPart 4  Amendments to Status of Children Act 1969\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u002270b84ca9f35d420d8b4f9b650f0a69c8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000123\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002270b84ca9f35d420d8b4f9b650f0a69c8\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000124\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000125\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014not 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\u2014and those children\u2019s children and their children after them\u2014do not seem to have any right to know for certain who their father is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000126\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EOne 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000127\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EPerhaps 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\u2014well, some of us do\u2014and, 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000128\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EThat 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\u2014even if that might cause some people some embarrassment\u2014because the child should be first and foremost in our minds. One thing the child needs is a father.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000129\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EI 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\u2019 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022 data-id=\u00220ff30549291d4370a0beb57194a9eef6\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00220ff30549291d4370a0beb57194a9eef6\u0022\u003EDr PAUL HUTCHISON (National\u2014Port Waikato):\u003C/span\u003E The purpose of Part 4 is described in section 13(a) of Part 2, inserted by clause 167, as being \u201Cto remove uncertainty about the status of children conceived as a result of AHR procedures:\u201D. 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000131\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EThe offending part comes in section 14(2) of Part 2, inserted by clause 167, which points out: \u201CA 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.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000132\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EWell, 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000133\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003E 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000134\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022cfdabe42-521a-4dca-afab-3e781731a130\u0022\u003EMuriel 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\u2019s parentage. We certainly have the modern technology, and it is very simple these days\u2014through buccal smears, tissue samples, and, of course, blood\u2014to 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: \u201COh, no. We are going to make some penalties.\u201D\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022 data-id=\u0022ccfbfaa9a6854c6f88235b5fc2288fb8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000135\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ccfbfaa9a6854c6f88235b5fc2288fb8\u0022\u003EMOANA MACKEY (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u00222b36f23b129e444c948a3dfcbbfa2085\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000136\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00222b36f23b129e444c948a3dfcbbfa2085\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E That closure motion shows the absolute arrogance of this Labour Party\u2014its 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000137\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022344ef924a90e4d4898511187cf5b6d52\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: The two-party club.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000138\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022c880ae29d2d349c1b3e22db330fd30fa\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Yes, it is the old two-party system. Labour and National want a closed shop\u2014although it is more that Labour is wanting the old ways than New Zealand First or the National Party.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000139\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000140\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000141\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI 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: \u201CThe 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.\u201D The subcommittee asked for the words \u201Cthe father of, or\u201D to be deleted, and that is my amendment.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000142\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000143\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000144\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThere 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\u2014I emphasise this word\u2014sensitively 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\u2019s \u201Ctrendy leftie\u201D, politically correct supporters. It is totally insensitive. That is what the Auckland District Law Society says.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000145\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIt 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000146\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ENew Zealand First says that that is absolute nonsense. Let us call a spade a spade, as Dr Hutchison said\u2014I appreciate his comments\u2014a 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000147\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003ELet us call a father a father. I am proud to be a father. I can never be a mother\u2014I 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022 data-id=\u002245a0d773190b4e0eafde7fcfa5519739\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000148\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00228e686b62-8dc4-4f03-a7b6-2d0f9c874e9a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002245a0d773190b4e0eafde7fcfa5519739\u0022\u003EHon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u002213f30702a5d04d9bbce996456371807c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000149\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002213f30702a5d04d9bbce996456371807c\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000150\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003ENow we have a situation whereby the Labour Government, in urgency on a Friday\u2014when we have the whole day ahead of us, right through to 10 o\u2019clock tonight\u2014is 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\u2014which he should be doing\u2014or 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000151\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EWe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000152\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EPart 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\u2014given 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000153\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIf 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\u2019s 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\u2014get to know their history and who their dads are? I say \u201CYes\u201D. 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\u2014and rightfully so\u2014stating 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000154\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EIt is an absolutely stupid situation, and the point is that those numbers have escalated under Labour\u2019s 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\u2014one in six women now on the domestic purposes benefit. Nobody can tell me it is because they do not know who the father is.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022 data-id=\u002290661ce399e648f2b305527982b00737\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000155\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002225c22a83-ff2c-474c-a092-883be2dd63d3\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002290661ce399e648f2b305527982b00737\u0022\u003EDAVE HEREORA (Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022 data-id=\u002240845e1a937d4176ae432965dfb487a5\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000156\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002240845e1a937d4176ae432965dfb487a5\u0022\u003EGORDON COPELAND (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E 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\u2014which I will describe to the Committee\u2014to the attention of the select committee, but it fell on deaf ears and I cannot for the life of me begin to understand why. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000157\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000158\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014I might add, on legal aid\u2014and 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: \u201CDeclaration as to paternity (1) In this section, eligible person means a person\u2014(a) who is a woman \u2026\u201D and then it goes on to state \u201Cwho alleges\u201D so and so, and then \u201Cwho can prove paternity\u201D. Why in God\u2019s name does that section not state \u201Ca woman or a man\u201D? Why is it that we, as a Parliament, are prepared to tolerate this unacceptable situation? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000159\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225cee6a89-68e3-40fd-b2d8-d8adb0ba5da0\u0022\u003EWe have the science\u2014we 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\u2014who, by the way, is in a new relationship now\u2014will 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022491b471153804ed4945409a3cd4d86ef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000160\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022491b471153804ed4945409a3cd4d86ef\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E 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: \u201CTo avoid doubt\u2026 \u2018the father of a child\u2019 is a reference to the same-sex \u2026 partner of the mother of the child \u2026\u201D. 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?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000161\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000162\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI say to those members opposite, particularly the male members, that no amount of politically correct legislation can overrule the basic rule of nature\u2014that 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. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000163\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI am sorry to tell the Labour Minister in the Chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, and the \u201Csquawkish\u201D 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000164\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI say to the Committee that that is trying to create a sexless society in which there are not fathers and mothers; there are just\u2014\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000165\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022eae2fae6d3af490d9c65395c4c524e97\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Nonsense!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000166\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002278433ec54c774a2c9be68af95700586a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: 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? \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000167\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022074991f3e06c4a1690ef5063f3ee870e\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Why has nature been so mean to this man?\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000168\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002234bb0c1e49ed482f8e06cc7a923e390a\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: 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\u2014the Prime Minister who believes that the father of the child can be a woman.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000169\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000170\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI 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\u2014that women can be fathers? [Interruption] \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000171\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EMaybe 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.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022 data-id=\u002292e13260002b411eb3b6c26e61b9519c\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000172\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002292e13260002b411eb3b6c26e61b9519c\u0022\u003EDARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip\u2014Labour):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224fdb8dae642049fa83023fe1807b958e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000173\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the following amendment in the name of Gordon Copeland to clause 165 be agreed to:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000174\u0022\u003Eto omit paragraph (a) of section 10(1) and substitute the following new paragraph:\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000175\u0022\u003E(a)\twho is a woman or a man and alleges that a named person is the father of her child.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00227e5367781a3749fcaff3a82482583dcc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 53\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000176\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 296 in the name of Dail Jones to clause 167 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222501d31b92aa4dcb83f994062d21aa7e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment not agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000177\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to Part 4 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ed42d1769fcf4963ac803d957173ca30\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendments be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendments agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00225c0c2cf9be5d473896c8b37f2f681cc8\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That Part 4 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EPart 4 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000178\u0022\u003ESchedules\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022660114b49bac43a1afe38a55218f6fcc\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022314d5ff22cdc44e09234e13bf2ff4039\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222703e7045ab84c3fade664f079344cf3\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 2A be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 2A agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022ad6a46921aed4720b73b27128a18de79\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That schedule 3 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ESchedule 3 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000179\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u002265800dfba48f46ec8dc1a9120596def5\u0022\u003EClauses 1 and 2\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022 data-id=\u00225843d1540a754750ae7043ec79b59522\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000180\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u00225843d1540a754750ae7043ec79b59522\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS (National\u2014Clevedon):\u003C/span\u003E This bill is about lost opportunities. That is a comment that has been made throughout the long hours of the debates on this bill. This bill, if the Government had had the courage to talk to people who work in the area of family law, and listened to families and children, would have gone a lot further when it needed to. Unfortunately, when the heat came on, the Government just whimpered on it. This was an opportunity for parental rights and responsibilities to come to the fore\u2014and note, I say parental rights \u201Cand responsibilities\u201D. Children in this country do not have enough by way of parental oversight in what they do. Instead, the Government\u2019s big issue here is turning custody into day care. One of the big concerns it has is that custody of a child for a parent denotes some sort of ownership. Well, parents do own their children, and children do own their parents. That requires responsibility. Unfortunately, one of the great plugs from the Government is turning custody into day-to-day care, which is nothing more than childcare\u2014unpaid childcare work. That is what the Government says of parents now. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000181\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EOne of the other opportunities lost was that in relation to guardianship. Guardianship is a very, very important concept in our law and for children. It is for the benefit of children. Yet this Government has decided that a partner of a mother can, after only 1 year, and with no court intervention, just fill out a form, trot along to the Family Court, give that form to the registrar, and become a guardian. In the select committee process those of us who actually care about parents, care about families, and care about children, had to fight to get some changes to actually show that at least these people who were going to be given this guardianship would have to front up with a criminal conviction record. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000182\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EHaving said that, that would not have helped those little girls in Masterton, because their mothers would have just gone willy-nilly along with this sort of process and thought it was fantastic. This was a lost opportunity to take guardianship and be even more serious about it. It was a lost opportunity to open up the Family Court. We have this morning talked extensively about why the Family Court must be more open. It was an opportunity to let the sunlight into the Family Court and to free people who are currently feeling that they are subjected to two very, very strange practices from some people who work in that area. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000183\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003EIt was an opportunity to open up so that parents know what is going on with their young children. It was an opportunity for consent to medical procedures to actually extend through a little bit. It was an opportunity for notification for parents when children were having an abortion. Because the stupid thing about this law is, of course, that any parent needs to consent to his or her 15-year-old undergoing a dental procedure. Yet the Government whipped its people; it would not let them really go to their hearts and go to it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000184\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022da9c426601c7460fa9c186584f86479f\u0022\u003EHon David Benson-Pope\u003C/span\u003E: That is not true. The member is telling lies.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000185\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002285ec30d4-6394-433a-a12e-2c4def705dd0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u002298f9867fe5ee433e8e07456d9356aed1\u0022\u003EJUDITH COLLINS\u003C/span\u003E: The Government did that. This was an opportunity to take paternity seriously. It was an opportunity for this Government to say: \u201CChildren need to know who their fathers are, and they need to have their father.\u201D, but it did not. What did the Government do? It wimped. It wimped out on it because all it wanted to do\u2014the whole purpose of this bill\u2014was to say that men are women, women are men, and we are all the same. Well, we are not all the same, and I celebrate the fact that we are not the same. I have no problem\u2014and I want to put this on record\u2014with lesbian couples having children, or gay men having children. I do not have a problem with that at all. What I do have a problem with is when we have to say that a lesbian is a father. Well, she is not. She might well be the partner of the mother. She might well take over a lot of the parenting role, but she is not a man.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022 data-id=\u0022d8c4ee9f4a634fb6972fc050fbd98ab8\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000186\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d8c4ee9f4a634fb6972fc050fbd98ab8\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES (NZ First):\u003C/span\u003E I speak to Clauses 1 and 2, and on behalf of New Zealand First I wish to make it clear that there is no way that we can support this gender-bending legislation. Legislation that states that a father is a mother, and a mother is a father, is gender-bending, and absolute claptrap. It is supported by the Labour Party, which has no regard for natural, biological family relationships. It is absolute common sense. A man can only be a father. A man cannot be a mother. A woman can only be a mother. She cannot be a father. Yet we have deemed in legislation that a woman can be the father of a child. I tried to move an amendment to clause 167 a little while ago to amend the Status of Children Act, which is part of this legislation, to make it clear that a woman could not be the father of a child in those circumstances. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000187\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThat amendment was put forward to the select committee by the Auckland District Law Society subcommittee on those matters. That is not a trendy lefty or a trendy righty organisation. It is a good bunch of lawyers trying to make a good contribution to our society, free of charge. One must remember that the work done by the Law Society, and all those lawyers who contribute to it, is done for the benefit of the public. That subcommittee proposed an amendment to the Status of Children Act, which states currently 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 the father of a child. The Auckland District Law Society subcommittee said that that clause was worded clumsily and could be more appropriately and sensitively phrased. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000188\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThe Law Society is being extremely polite in using the word \u201Csensitively\u201D. It means that it is gender-bending, absolute claptrap that shows that the Labour Party has no regard for the normal family relationship, which is the backbone of our society in New Zealand. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000189\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EIt is interesting in the United States that President Bush seems to have won the election, to a large degree, on the support of normal family relationships. New Zealand First would like to put a challenge forward. Let us have an election where we will see who stands for normal family relationships. We in this House are behind normal family relationships.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000190\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002270dd644d-8bcf-40dc-998a-887d62d24a76\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00225f8c5e522ede409e9361f7c0f1659e91\u0022\u003EMoana Mackey\u003C/span\u003E: Define \u201Cnormal\u201D.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000191\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00222d01456b52fe4594a701a007af12231f\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: Moana Mackey asks what is normal. A female Labour Party member does not know what \u201Cnormal\u201D is, so I will tell her what normal is. Normal is a man; normal is a woman. Transsexual and transgender is abnormal. That is common sense. Homosexuality is not normal; it is abnormal. A man is normal. A female is normal. The Labour Party, with its female takeover of it, has men who should not be called men. Labour Party men are not men. We know by this bill that Labour Party men are women. We know by this bill that Labour Party women are men. Members of the Labour Party do not know what is normal. They are horribly mixed up, and that is what will happen to this country if the Labour Party anti-family claptrap continues by young members who have absolutely no idea, no experience, and who want to take over this country. That is unlike Craig McNair in New Zealand First who is solidly behind normal family relationships, and exhibits that in his own life as well. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000192\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EThis legislation does little to change current practice. It is an utter waste of the taxpayer\u2019s money and time. There is more important legislation that we should be confronting in this House, rather than this absolute nonsense that the Labour Party has spent tens of millions of dollars on to try to enforce the view that men are women, and women are men. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000193\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003EI have no objection to lesbians having custody of children. They can do a very, very good job in the circumstances in which they find themselves. But, there will be situations where lesbians will have the custody of children of natural parents, and we saw that in the select committee. A lesbian mother came along, she was doing a very good job, but she had the custody of the children of a normal father in the earlier relationship of her lesbian partner. The world is getting terribly complicated these days.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000194\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022c437bda8-4741-4ac5-89ab-b0818e1ab9fa\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022b78c70eb059040189d88cca41b1a293e\u0022\u003EDarren Hughes\u003C/span\u003E: Catch up with it.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000195\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022f4da5811-fb5a-4721-b57a-518446bd7796\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022a189f551b6bd422287421fd9b580a32a\u0022\u003EDAIL JONES\u003C/span\u003E: The member wants to deride me. Darren Hughes does not support normal fathers and normal mothers. That is his choice. I support normal fathers and normal mothers. The people in Levin should know that Darren Hughes does not support the natural father or the natural mother. He can interject as much as he likes. I remind the people of Levin that that is what he stands for.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022 data-id=\u0022836c70655c7845568091dbe2864eaee2\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000196\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022836c70655c7845568091dbe2864eaee2\u0022\u003EDr MURIEL NEWMAN (Deputy Leader\u2014ACT):\u003C/span\u003E I rise to make a contribution to this part of the bill that talks about the title, the \u201CCare of Children Bill\u201D, which Opposition parties have realised is a complete and utter misnomer. This bill is replacing the Guardianship Act, an Act that has withstood the test of time, and does need a little bit of tweaking, but not in the way in which the Care of Children Bill has done. I guess that one of the most concerning aspects of the legislation is that it is another step in the relentless drive of the Labour Party to thrust political correctness down the throats of unsuspecting New Zealanders. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000197\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThis bill redefines the family. I looked through it to see where it celebrates marriage, because this is all about children. Of course, as we all know, and common sense tells us, kids in a good married relationship family do better than children who have gone through family breakdown and all of the other trauma that that brings. Yet this bill does not celebrate marriage. In fact, when members look where marriage is defined they will find that it has been redefined. What is now in its place is that, according to Labour Government law, a married woman is no longer a married woman, but a partnered woman. A partnered woman means a woman, one, who is married; or, two, is married, but living with a man, or with another woman as a de facto partner; or, three, is not married, but is living with a man, or with another woman as a de facto partner. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000198\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EThis bill dilutes what has been an institution in New Zealand that has long been regarded as something that should be protected. In fact, Governments in other countries go so far as to encourage marriage. They do not do it for any moral or religious reasons, but simply because marriage is an institution, and kids do better when they are brought up in a family where mum and dad are committed, both emotionally and through law, to the ongoing family relationship.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000199\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003E This bill is a lost opportunity. It was an opportunity to put right family law in New Zealand\u2014a law that has seen the marginalisation of children, and certainly the marginalisation of fathers. I was very hopeful that the Government would see fit to introduce concepts like shared parenting, like a proper open Family Court, and I have been disappointed to see that the Government has voted those amendments down. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000200\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EOne of the real concerns about the bill is that although it sounds good and has a \u201Cfeel good\u201D feeling about it, if it were renamed the \u201CMarginalisation of Children Bill\u201D, then maybe people would realise: \u201CHang on a minute! This bill might not do the things the Government is telling us.\u201D \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000201\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EOne of the real concerns is the concept of guardianship in the bill. The old way we looked at guardianship was that there was a mum and a dad and they were the guardians of the child, and other people could become guardians, in exceptional circumstances. But this bill totally erodes that concept. The Government will claim that it extends the status of guardianship, but effectively it erodes guardianship, because under this bill one can have any number of guardians. As we heard in the debate, another person could come into a child\u2019s life, for no longer than a year, and then be made a permanent legal guardian. I say that that may be not very wise, and we may, in the future, regret the passing of this bill with such a provision in it. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000202\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022b62240ad-adda-430d-887a-8f999ef4bbc4\u0022\u003EBut, more worryingly, we have already heard a lot about fatherlessness in New Zealand. It is a huge cause of concern, I believe, when one in three New Zealand children is growing up in families without a dad; and one in two M\u0101ori children is in that situation. Under this bill, because of the erosion of guardianship, the poor old dad, the biological father, who is no longer living with his child and in that family, is marginalised even further. So I say it is a sad day for New Zealand that this bill, which really gave so many people such a great deal of hope that family law was going to be fixed once and for all, is failing those people.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022 data-id=\u002226ded1aad2c14516a38cc40e6a311fef\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000203\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u002226ded1aad2c14516a38cc40e6a311fef\u0022\u003EMURRAY SMITH (United Future):\u003C/span\u003E This bill, to my mind, reflects the Labour Party\u2019s term of Government. It started off with some promise, but as it has gone on through the last 2 years it has deteriorated. We have had legislation such as the Prostitution Reform Bill and the Civil Union Bill, where the Government has started to introduce the social engineering that is so damaging to our society. We also have examples like the Supreme Court Bill, and now the Foreshore and Seabed Bill, where the Government rushes things through Parliament, contrary to widespread public opinion. We have just seen that occur with regard to clause 37 of the Care of Children Bill. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000204\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe bill starts off with very nice-sounding principles. They are ones that United Future welcomes, although I suggested in Supplementary Order Paper 294 in my name on Part 2 that they do not go far enough. Nevertheless, those principles reflect the important role that parents have in their children\u2019s lives. New clause 4A states that the child\u2019s parents and guardians should have the primary responsibility for the child\u2019s care. Further on, the bill states that there should be continuity in the arrangements for the child\u2019s care, and that the child\u2019s relationships with his or her family group, wh\u0101nau, hap\u016B, or iwi should be stable and ongoing. That is excellent. It refers to both of the parents. It states that the child\u2019s care and upbringing should be facilitated by his or her parents and guardians, and by all persons exercising that role. It also states that relationships between the child and members of his or her family should be preserved and strengthened. Those are really noble principles, so the bill starts off fine. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000205\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EBut by the time we get to the end of the bill, we find that it has degenerated into situations that are nothing like those concerning the care of children, and they are totally contrary to what is in the best interests of children. So the Care of Children Bill should be renamed \u201CThe Care of Children (but only if consistent with our PC social engineering ideology) Bill\u201D. That is effectively what happens, because as soon as anything that is in the best interests of the child gets in the way of the ideology of this Government, then the Government moves away from that and follows its ideology, even though that will be damaging to families, to parents\u2019 relationships with their children, and to the children themselves. United Future is strongly opposed to this bill for that reason. In this bill the Government has moved away from fine principles, and has started into those other things. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000206\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EThe obvious example of that is the debate we had last night on clause 37 and the Government\u2019s refusal to interfere with the secret abortions that go on, whereby nobody knows that an abortion has happened except the doctor and the girl concerned. Parents do not know about abortions, and that has serious consequences for their children. I quoted an example of a rape situation that fortunately did not result in a pregnancy, but did result in sexually transmitted diseases and serious psychological harm to the daughter. The parents did not know about the rape and were not told about it, because the misguided codes of ethics of the medical practitioners\u2019 bodies state that privacy rights extend to not telling parents what is going on in the lives of their young children. That is reprehensible, but there is nothing that this Government is prepared to do about that. It thinks it is just fine that parents do not know about the serious consequences that happen to their children. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000207\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI was just rereading my Hansard notes about the case I mentioned that happened earlier this year. A girl was raped, and the parents did not know about that. Let us think about the distress of those parents, who were left in a situation where they had a girl who had changed in her behaviour and who was clearly affected by certain situations. There were bizarre situations when the girl was in a restaurant and she would suddenly flip out, and the parents had absolutely no idea what was causing that. They were at their wits\u2019 end. They came to the conclusion that it could only be the result of the school environment. They got to the point of thinking that they had to do something, and about what they could do, so they thought they would withdraw the girl from her school and put her in another school\u2014that maybe there was a problem at school. Only then, when they approached the school about that, after having been distressed for 2 months about the girl\u2019s attitude, were they told that in fact their daughter had been raped. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000208\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EI think that is absolutely reprehensible. When this Government allows that sort of thing to happen without the parents having any right to know what is happening, then it is moving right away from the care of children, and from a situation where the best interests and welfare of the child are paramount, to a situation where it is prepared to protect doctors and allow that sort of thing to go on. It is prepared to protect criminals. That was a criminal offence\u2014the rape of a girl. Yet the medical profession did not even report it to the police. Nor did the school report it to the police. That is a reprehensible situation. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000209\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u00225caeb43f-d5eb-4780-bddc-0fc23950543a\u0022\u003EUnited Future will not support this bill.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022 data-id=\u0022941cf780a5634fc9b87cb65895a7cd31\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000210\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022fd427be0-7196-4605-b39e-d665553240b0\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022941cf780a5634fc9b87cb65895a7cd31\u0022\u003ELYNNE PILLAY (Labour\u2014Waitakere):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the question be now put.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022 data-id=\u0022d27009801ade44f789de80c28a3cf794\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000211\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022d27009801ade44f789de80c28a3cf794\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH (National\u2014Nelson):\u003C/span\u003E I am not surprised that the Labour Party, under urgency, is trying to shut down debate on one of the most critical areas of New Zealand life, which is the area of family law. This bill is a radical experiment in social engineering. It is about undermining the critical role that parents play in children\u2019s lives. What this bill does\u2014and we can talk about the detail of it, as we have over this morning and last evening\u2014is to increase the legal rights of the child, of new partners, of social workers, of lawyers, of judges, and of the police, and to improve the legal rights of iwi, family groups, and hap\u016B. Every time we do that, we take away the legal rights of parents. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000212\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI was just astonished that when the Government introduced this bill, the Minister had the audacity to say in this Chamber that Labour was interested only in parental responsibilities, not in parental rights. It is interested only in parental responsibilities, not in parental rights. Is that not interesting? How many speeches have we heard from Labour Party members talking about gay rights, workers\u2019 rights, and indigenous people\u2019s rights? They are interested in all those rights, but when it comes to parents\u2019 rights they do not give a toss, and that is a disgrace. It was interesting for me that again the Minister in charge of the bill, David Benson-Pope, said that we have a simplistic view in the Chamber that it is a parent who raises a child, and that that is wrong\u2014that it is the community that raises a child. Do members know what my wife said about that? She asked whether the community would come around and change my son\u2019s nappies at midnight. Will the community ensure that my child receives his food, and receives the love and care that is needed to bring him up? Of course not! That is political garbage, and this Minister and this Labour Government are imposing that on our country. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000213\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EThe Labour Party somehow believes that the family\u2014a mother and a father who are bringing up children\u2014is dead. I say to Labour members that the institution of the family predates the Labour Party, predates this Parliament, and predates the very philosophies that may drive them. The family is a lifelong institution that will survive. The people of New Zealand know that the only way they will stop this sort of PC nonsense is to sack the Labour Party at the next election.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000214\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u002272e48ab0-e7ae-427f-bedc-793b7a91adba\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u0022ad0ca7600dce4c8fb82e6adc56d48913\u0022\u003EHon Mark Burton\u003C/span\u003E: Oh!\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000215\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsBy\u0022 id=\u00227293b9ea268148f89fbe7a08d073de4b\u0022\u003EHon Dr NICK SMITH\u003C/span\u003E: I wonder whether Mark Burton told his constituents in Taupo that he wanted a law that stated women could be fathers. Did Mark Burton tell his constituents in Taupo that he believed that in this country women can be fathers? Did that member tell his constituents that the momentary de facto partners of this country will have all the legal rights of guardians? Well, we will be telling the people of Taupo that, which is one of the reasons that the member for Taupo will be out on his tail at the next general election. The people of New Zealand know that we cannot separate children\u2019s best interests from the best interests of families. The most important thing for children is the family. What we should have is a families bill that states how this Parliament will support the work of families, in order to ensure that children get the very best deal. \u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000216\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022e978865e-57e5-41d6-a7f6-b49daae78630\u0022\u003EI say that the National Party looks forward to being in Government, when its members can put in place some laws that will work for children. We on the Opposition side of the Chamber understand that parental rights are important, and sit right alongside parental responsibility. In contrast with the Labour Government, which wants to water down both rights and responsibilities, we on the Opposition side of the Chamber say that parental rights and responsibilities go hand in hand, and that children\u2019s interests are best served when this Parliament recognises that it is parents who are the most important people in children\u2019s lives. But sadly, that will not occur without a change of Government.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022e62cde7d79994c018d1dc0cbbcba15af\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 1 be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 1 agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000217\u0022\u003EThe question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 297 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to clause 2 be agreed to.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00222521ae80f00e432a84ae30238cd95d87\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the amendment be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAmendment agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022b621beb6b3ae44fd8ea2a1a74db3ecac\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That clause 2 as amended be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EClause 2 as amended agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca name=\u0022member\u0022 data-type=\u0022article\u0022 data-memberid=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022 data-id=\u0022ecf464c9183a48d5adc9b8d7ddf4c499\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000218\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsNormal\u0022 id=\u0022330c030b-99be-4461-8aaa-9a10ee5bd889\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsByToc\u0022 id=\u0022ecf464c9183a48d5adc9b8d7ddf4c499\u0022\u003EHon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice):\u003C/span\u003E I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Care of Children Bill and the Status of Children Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 290.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u0022612ff056bb324407bacfaf13385e5499\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the motion be agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 68\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; United Future 8.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 46\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EMotion agreed to.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000219\u0022\u003EHouse resumed.\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000220\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsSubproceedingHeading\u0022 id=\u00224e0f4ac27ece48959ead3071960d5ea6\u0022\u003EProcedure\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000221\u0022\u003EThe bill was reported with amendment.\u003C/p\u003E\u003Ca id=\u00224251afd5523542049ddf333aa4bd073e\u0022 name=\u0022division\u0022\u003E\u003C/a\u003E\u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EA party vote was called for on the question, That the report be adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EAyes 60\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENoes 54\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003ENew Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 8; M\u0101ori Party 1.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp class=\u0022HpsDivision\u0022\u003E\u003Cspan class=\u0022HpsItem\u0022\u003EReport adopted.\u003C/span\u003E\u003C/p\u003E\n      \u003Cp id=\u0022id20041104ebf6ee0fb49347739fe5d8ef335c64d7000222\u0022\u003EThe House adjourned at 11.03 a.m. (Friday)\u003C/p\u003E\n    \u003C/div\u003E\n  \u003C/body\u003E\n\u003C/html\u003E"