English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
English Bill: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:609;Page:6129] 
3.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she have confidence in her Associate Minister of Justice with delegated responsibility for family law? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Prime Minister support her Minister’s changes to family law in clause 17 of the Care of Children Bill which creates female fathers by declaring that a woman who is a parent in a same-sex relationship will be known as the “father of the child”? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: My advice is that it does not have the effect that the member suggests. It is an issue of drafting succinctness. The member and his colleagues should take it up with the select committee if they have a better wording. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Does she think it furthers United Future’s commitment to strengthen families to declare a lesbian mother’s partner a child’s father and will it be the Families Commission’s— 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question may be of interest but I respectfully suggest that the Prime Minister does not have any responsibility for what United Future’s position on this bill might be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is perfectly correct. Perhaps Dr Newman could rephrase the question slightly so that it brings it within the Standing Orders. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: Did the Government have regard for United Future’s commitment to strengthen families when declaring a lesbian mother’s partner a child’s father and will it be the job of the Families Commission to determine disputes over when a woman is defined as a dad and when a man is defined as a mum? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I understand that it is widely recognised in this House that families come in many forms. I am advised that the aim of this bill is to give the same-sex partner of a birth mother who has conceived using assisted human reproduction technology the same legal parental status as an opposite sex partner who is not the biological parent of the child. This is a matter of drafting detail and if members wish to pursue that in the select committee they are free to do so.  
Hon Peter Dunne 
: Will the Prime Minister confirm that United Future has advised the Minister responsible that there are significant areas of difference between us within this bill and that discussions are continuing on these matters as they have been for some months? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was very clearly an interjection from the Leader of the Opposition while this question was being asked. I suggest that there is only one appropriate remedial action given the warnings you have given. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: That particular member is very close to leaving. However I have not asked him to leave. I am just saying that he must not interject when I am on my feet. I heard an interjection. I did not see who it was. Did the Leader of the Opposition interject? 
Hon Bill English 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want him to stand withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Bill English 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know you struggle in this House with maintaining order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Please come to the point of order. 
Rodney Hide 
: It is about consistency. Three times you have been interrupted while you are on your feet and you have given a warning. Mr Ken Shirley deputy leader of ACT interjected once on someone making a point of order—and we accept that was wrong—and he was thrown out without warning. I just say that that is a signal that it is all right to interject on the Speaker of the House when he is on his feet but not on some member. I do not think that is appropriate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was not and I made a ruling there and I stand by my ruling. 
Ron Mark 
: I take this opportunity to apologise. I thought my “Nah nah-nee nah” comment as a result of that was to myself. It was not actually meant as an interjection or to be too loud. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should keep his comments to himself by not opening his mouth. 
Hon Peter Dunne 
: I repeat the question I asked the Prime Minister which was: will she confirm that discussions between her Minister and United Future are continuing on certain aspects of this bill as they have been for some little while now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I can confirm that and I am sure that in respect of drafting changes can be made at the select committee stage if that is the will of the committee. 
Hon Bill English 
: Given the Prime Minister’s answer that the clause does not have the effect that I said it has—of creating female fathers—what alternative meaning could one give to a clause that states that where a woman is a parent in a same-sex relationship she will be known as “father of the child” which are words taken directly from the legislation; and why does the Prime Minister not for once stand up for a policy that she has approved even if she is embarrassed about it now? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: It is amazing how trivial the things are that some people will get their knickers in a knot about. It is simply amazing. I can advise the House that the advice I have received is that the wording is a drafting technique that saves repeating about 32 words every time the matter is referred to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer in respect of that clause that she agrees with same-sex parents? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: I have no idea what the intent or effect of the question is. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very clear what the question is and I will state it again—because that was not an answer. Given the clause that Mr English has read out and her answer is she prepared to tell the House and the country this: does she agree with the concept of same-sex parents? Yes or no? 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Was that a point of order or was it meant to be another supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it was not another supplementary question. It was a point of order and I was about it rule it out. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You ruled out my question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: On what grounds? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On the grounds that an answer—please be seated. I ruled out the second one as an attempt at a question. There was a question asked by the member and the Prime Minister addressed it in an answer. She certainly addressed that question. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. She said she did not know what the question was about. I believe that my question is as plain as daylight and as clear as anything. It is a principal issue of division in this House on this legislation and she must surely understand what I am talking about. Does she or does she not agree with the concept— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is up to the member to make his question a bit clearer than he did. I heard the question and I heard the answer given. It addressed the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Only one member can stand and have a point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I have it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now both members will sit down. When two members ask for a point of order and I have not heard one from one of the persons that person usually gets precedence. The two members can sort it out. I will hear one of them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: The difficulty I have is that I do not have eyes in the back of my head although some think I have. In today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 members will see what is being talked about—the concept of same-sex parents where the new mother is the father according to that legislation. I asked the Prime Minister whether she agrees with that yes or no. She refuses to answer me. She refuses to give an answer because she says that she does not understand the question. Somehow the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and everybody else can understand the question and the issue. I am saying that she can and she is deliberately avoiding it. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No there is no need for me to say it. It is just unfortunate. The Prime Minister gave an answer. I adjudged that it addressed the question. 
Ron Mark 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you clarify for me in particular and the House in general that what we now have is a new standard when answering questions. Am I now to see— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no new standard at all. I am following precedents and rulings given over many many years. 
Ron Mark 
: Mr Speaker you have not let me finish. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well hurry up then please. 
Ron Mark 
: Is that right? Well I will talk as fast as I can. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Points of order must be terse. 
Ron Mark 
: My question is this: will we now have a barrage of answers from Ministers to every question where they say “I don’t understand the question.” and are you going to accept that as an answer? I do not think so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No neither do I and I will not be. 
Ron Mark 
: Well she just did that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I said that I will not be. On all occasions I judge each issue by the supplementary question concerned. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Today’s  
New Zealand Herald 
 has a very brief summation of the issue that is the subject of my question. It states in the fourth paragraph: “And a same-sex partner’s position will be regarded as being the same as that of an opposite-sex partner.” That is as clear as daylight. I asked the Prime Minister whether she accepted and agreed with that yes or no and she would not answer it. Frankly this is the second time today that we have seen a display where there has been an attempt to defuse an attack or a direct line of questioning and in this case the Prime Minster now pleads ignorance of the question. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: I think this would have been easily answered some little time ago if we had been clearer on the first point of order I raised. Mr Peters got to his feet on a point of order and appeared to ask another supplementary question. The point is that it is not for the Prime Minister to answer a question raised in a point of order. The point of order had to be ruled on. If the member wanted to ask another supplementary question he could. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not interpret answers for MPs. Members do not get a second chance on a point of order. When the member raised the point of order he asked a question that was different from the original one that he asked. I could hear the actual question being asked. It was expanded on at some length. It was not the question that was originally asked. I invite the member to check  
Hansard 
. I will certainly show it to him. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the  
New Zealand Herald 
 article of Wednesday 11 June—today—the fourth paragraph which refers to these words: “And a same-sex partner’s position will be regarded as being the same as that of an opposite-sex partner.”; does she agree with that position in respect of the legislation and does she accept that that is right? 
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK 
: Yes in respect of the guardianship of a child which is what the bill is about. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 4. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [ 
Interruption 
] 
John Carter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member on his feet but now we do have a matter of consistency. During an earlier point of order Mr Ken Shirley made an interjection. You have already ruled on interjections. You had called Mr Peters to ask his question. The Minister of Education made an interjection and should be asked to leave the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had not started the question. I am asking him to start it now.