Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debates 
[Volume:609;Page:6145] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 I am sure the Pharmacy Guild of New Zealandcould not put that better itself. I want to make a single point on the matter and it is that I have had constituents who have raised with me for a number of years the fact that they have had to go back to the pharmacy three times instead of once to pick up a prescription for medication they have to take for the rest of their lives. So the argument is not all one way and I wish people would listen to the other side of the story as well. The patient would be a good person to listen to in this regard.  
The Opposition really is in disarray. I cannot understand the response of the Leader of the Opposition in respect of the Care of Children Bill. In his press statement he states that clause 17(2) effectively declares that the legal definition of a father is to be changed to include women. He states: “I find this kind of social engineering objectionable and so will many people who believe our laws should reflect common sense.” That is just nonsense. I would have expected quite a bit more of the Leader of the Opposition. It just shows how desperate he is becoming to get a headline. The bill says no such thing. The amendments in respect of the policy issue are to be found in the legislation amending the Status of Children Act which provides that in the case of a child born of an assisted human reproduction procedure undertaken with the partner’s consent the same-sex partner of a women has the status of parent as does the opposite sex partner under the current law. So all that it is doing— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s true. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It states that such a person is a parent under the amendment to the Status of Children Act. The member should read the bill. He has already been made an idiot of in his own newspaper tonight. In the  
Nelson Evening Mail 
 tonight he is reported as attacking the bill while hailing what he jokingly called—because he knows he is making it up—a new miracle of biotechnology. That is not what clause 17(2) does. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Read the bill. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I will read it out because that is what the member has asked me to do to avoid doubt: “a reference in this section (or elsewhere in the Act) to ‘father of a child’ is a reference to the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 that de facto partner is a parent of the child”. The policy matter is dealt with in the Status of Children Act. All this is is a drafting technique so that all the words that follow “father of a child” do not have to be repeated every single time the word “father” is used. That means that where there is a reference to the father of the child in the bill we do not need to write out these words: “or the same-sex de facto partner of the mother of the child if by operation of Part 2 of the Status of Children Act 1969 that de facto partner is a parent of the child (see section 14(2) of that Act).” That is 35-41 words if we include the words in brackets. It is to ensure that the policy decision contained within the amendment to the Status of Children Act is effective in terms of the Care of Children Bill. If the select committee does not like the way the technique is used then by all means it can explore whether there is an easier way of writing it. It just means that we do not have write out 41 words every time— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: So a woman can be a father? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is not appointing a father and I wish the member would stop interjecting on an ongoing basis in respect of this matter. He is adding nothing to the debate. If Opposition members had anything of any substance to say about the bill then they would raise the policy sections not the section that is prefaced by the words “To avoid doubt”. It is quite clear from the use of the words “To avoid doubt” that it simply enables the intent of the policy to be clear throughout the bill. In respect of the policy I think Ian Hassall put it very well on the front page of the  
Nelson Evening Mail 
: “If you are a child you don’t care what sex your parents are.”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member knows that he is interjecting from a seat closer to the member. He should not be doing that. I have ignored it for most of the time because I did not want to interrupt the debate. The member will now keep quiet for the rest of the speech. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: “You only care about whether they love you or not” and “No amount of chest thumping is going to make any difference when what matters is that children are looked after properly.”