Hutchison Paul: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16687] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 The purpose of Part 4 is described in section 13(a) of Part 2 inserted by clause 167 as being “to remove uncertainty about the status of children conceived as a result of AHR procedures:”. It seems extraordinary that that is the stated purpose because what the Labour Party has created in this morass of politically correct nonsense just cements once more total uncertainty over the status of children conceived as a result of assisted human reproductive procedures. I believe that Dail Jones will move an amendment to try to clear that up but with this Labour Government it is very difficult to do so because the Government is absolutely all over the place. 
The offending part comes in section 14(2) of Part 2 inserted by clause 167 which points out: “A woman who is not the birth mother of a child but who by operation of this Part is a parent of the child must for the purposes of an enactment or rule of law (other than this Part) that refers to or contemplates a mother and a father of or 2 parents of a child be treated so far as practicable in the same manner as the father of or as the other parent of the child.” 
Well which way does the Labour Party want to have it? It just cannot help mixing itself up in a morass of political correctness. Why can it not call a spade a spade? Why can it not call a woman a woman and celebrate that and a man a man and celebrate that and celebrate whatever might be the combination? But no the Government has to jumble it up in a combination of gobbledygook. That is all this Labour Party can do. 
 My colleague Katherine Rich has quite clearly said that there are situations in New Zealand whereby parenting by same-sex partners is carried out wonderfully in an absolutely ideal form. That is not the argument. I totally accept that there are a whole range of parenting arrangements in New Zealand and that in many respects some of those combinations do absolutely wonderful jobs. That cannot be denied. But what is of huge worry to me is the way this Labour Party dances around the edges and refuses to define or to celebrate either masculinity or femininity or whatever the mix is in-between. It is totally fixated on jumping around the edges and confusing the public with politically correct gobbledygook. 
Muriel Newman has often pointed out that more children are losing fathers on a daily basis in New Zealand through separation or divorce than they did during the entire Second World War. My colleague Judith Collins has also made the point about how hugely important it is to know one’s parentage. We certainly have the modern technology and it is very simple these days—through buccal smears tissue samples and of course blood—to be extremely certain of parentage. Yet we have this ridiculous situation in New Zealand perpetuated by the Labour Party whereby 19000 women refuse to name the father. The majority of those women are not in situations where there is violence a threat of violence or a danger. The Labour Party has just said: “Oh no. We are going to make some penalties.”