Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Care of Children Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:621;Page:16688] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 That closure motion shows the absolute arrogance of this Labour Party—its 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. 
Darren Hughes 
: The two-party club. 
DAIL JONES 
: Yes it is the old two-party system. Labour and National want a closed shop—although it is more that Labour is wanting the old ways than New Zealand First or the National Party. 
This 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. 
There 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. 
I 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: “The 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.” The subcommittee asked for the words “the father of or” to be deleted and that is my amendment. 
I 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. 
The 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. 
There 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—I emphasise this word—sensitively 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’s “trendy leftie” politically correct supporters. It is totally insensitive. That is what the Auckland District Law Society says. 
It 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. 
New Zealand First says that that is absolute nonsense. Let us call a spade a spade as Dr Hutchison said—I appreciate his comments—a 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. 
Let us call a father a father. I am proud to be a father. I can never be a mother—I 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.