Ryall Tony: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
Ryall Tony: Care of Children Bill — Instruction to Committee Procedure In Committee 
[Volume:621;Page:16654] 
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay Of Plenty) 
: 
 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’s parents. Sixty-one percent of respondents said yes; 34 percent said no. That is a clear message from the people of New Zealand. 
I 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— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Contempt of court! 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: 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’s 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. 
Do 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—he has to appear before a judge. But someone who has lived with the mother for a year gets to have—[ 
Interruption 
] No that is not right. I have read the bill. The father is not— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Read the bill. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: 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. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 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. 
Simon Power 
: 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’s contribution you called Government members to order five times for their interjections. What action will you take in the Chair if the interjections continue—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is to be no comment at all during a point of order. I refer members to Standing Order 84(3) and Speaker’s ruling 19/6. I ask members to please look at them. 
Simon Power 
: 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? 
Darren Hughes 
: 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. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: 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’s ruling 56/4: “it is highly disorderly … to persist in interjecting when the member has been called to order.” I ask the members in the Committee to play the game properly. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: 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—[ 
Interruption 
] She proposed different amendments I thought. 
Hon Annette King 
: No. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: OK she did not. The situation is even worse—it takes 3 years to get de facto property rights and 1 year to be a guardian. That is not right. It takes 3 years—I apologise to the member—to get property rights and 1 year to get the kid.