Baldock Larry: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Future Directions (Working for Families) Bill — Second Reading Instruction to Committee In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:617;Page:13500] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the amendment that has been put on the Table by Mr Peter Brown. It is another attempt by New Zealand First to make this bill better—though its first attempt went down in a screaming heap. New Zealand First members have been making claims all week about how they will govern when they get into power yet it was clear from the first amendment that they did not understand the budgetary process. 
I have to say though that there are some problems that New Zealand First members would solve if they got into power. One of them would be the traffic congestion problem in Auckland. If New Zealand First ever got its hands on the Treasury benches again so many people would leave New Zealand that there would be no problem with congestion anywhere in the country. 
This definition that has been put forward for consideration is nothing short of simple political point-scoring. We had a very interesting discussion on Radio Rhema yesterday when New Zealand First tried to convince New Zealanders that somehow this definition would solve everybody’s problems and questioned how we in United Future could be opposing civil unions and the omnibus bill yet could have a definition of family that supposedly opens the door to same-sex parenting. Well let us look seriously at New Zealand First’s definition to see whether what its members proudly claim is correct—that is that their definition does not cover same-sex families. 
First of all their definition excludes orphaned groups of siblings who have tragically lost their parents. [ 
Interruption 
] I hope New Zealand First members will be quiet for a moment and consider this. According to the New Zealand First definition of a family there must be at least one adult member. So not only could a family of three or four kids say aged 14 to 6 suffer the loss of their parents overnight but also with New Zealand First’s definition of a family they would suffer the loss of instantly ceasing to be a family which would cause more pain for those children. We were a little bit clearer in the use of words in our definition to make sure we did not exclude anybody. 
Secondly does their definition exclude same-sex families in which there is at least one adult member and in which the members have a biological or legal relationship? Clearly it covers same-sex families in this country right now because they may have a biological attachment because of the way they have become involved with in vitro fertilisation treatments and so on—something I am very strongly opposed to. So their definition would include them. Everyone in this Parliament knows that the Care of Children Bill perhaps soon to be passed by the Labour Government with the support of the Greens will give legal recognition through guardianship to those same-sex families so this definition is nothing more than simple political point-scoring. It has nothing to do with improving this legislation at all. 
This bill that we are supporting and debating today is about families. It is about kids. We want to help the children of New Zealand to be able to have a reasonable standard of living through giving assistance to those who are raising them. Everyone who knows me knows that I have very strong beliefs about marriage—marriage between a man and a woman. In fact I will introduce a member’s bill into the ballot very soon that will make it clear that our Marriage Act relates to marriage between a man and a woman. I disagree with gays claiming the right to have children and to raise children because I believe that it is the right of children to be raised by a mother and a father—that is the child’s right not the adult’s right—but given that society has already allowed the circumstance where children find themselves being raised by two fathers or two mothers it would be adding insult to injury for us to come up with a definition of family that excluded them. That is why United Future will not support this amendment. It is simply a political game to try to gain points. 
Peter Brown 
: The member didn’t say that on Radio Rhema. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I will be happy to go on Radio Rhema at any time with the member to discuss this as we have been doing for so long. This legislation should not exclude any child in New Zealand whatever the make-up of his or her family and that is the point that we will continue to stand up for. We will not exclude one single person from the benefits of this very good legislation.