Civil Union Bill

I move, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will propose that this bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. At the outset, I thank my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel for all her efforts in initiating and progressing this work until I took portfolio responsibility for family law earlier this year. I also convey my thanks to the officials for their considerable work during the development of this legislation.

Providing for civil union in New Zealand will contribute to achieving the Government’s objective of creating a more positive human rights culture. Civil union provides for different-sex couples who want formal recognition of their relationship but for some reason do not wish to marry. Civil union will also address the current situation in which same-sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationships. The Civil Union Bill therefore provides a mechanism for those couples to publicly declare commitment to each other and have that commitment legally and socially recognised.

Our intention is that civil union will be a new legal entity, designed to reflect the diversity of New Zealand society and people’s personal choices about their relationships in the 21st century. This is a bill appropriate to the times, which recognises the reality of relationships instead of attempting to deny their existence. The Civil Union Bill will provide for the registration of civil unions, while the recognition of civil unions in other legislation will occur through the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which I will also introduce this afternoon.

New Zealand, which has for a long time taken a leading role in the evolution and promotion of human rights, is not alone in promoting equality of treatment for de facto and same-sex couples. During the past three decades, nations across the world have been grappling with the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter the institution of marriage, or be granted the various rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have enacted legislation that regulates the legal status of same-sex partnerships in a comprehensive manner.

In Britain, the Civil Partnership Bill, which provides for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, was introduced on 30 March this year. Only Belgium and the Netherlands have enacted legislation opening the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples, with the possibility that Canada may soon join them. The Government’s proposals are thus in step with the international community, and certainly not ahead. This is moderate and conservative legislation.

Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government is introducing the mechanism for couples to publicly declare commitment to each other, and have that commitment recognised legally and socially. It is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. The Civil Union Bill will not amend the Marriage Act of 1955. The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain.

The bill sets out the requirements and processes to enter a civil union. The key points are as follows: A civil union will be registered under the law. It gives legal status to a one-to-one relationship, and will be open to different and same-sex partners. The bill includes provisions about who is able to enter into a civil union, and the formalities that are necessary. A commitment by each partner to a civil union will be made publicly in front of a registrar or celebrant. Religious denominations will decide themselves whether or not to conduct such ceremonies. Provision is made for an organisation to apply to solemnise civil unions in accordance with its beliefs and practices if these are inconsistent with the requirements of the bill. The bill provides for dissolution of civil unions under the Family Proceedings Act of 1980. Married couples will be able to convert to a civil union, and civil union couples who are otherwise able to marry will be able to convert to marriage.

Providing for conversion is about choice and making sensible laws. There are reasons why couples may wish to convert their relationship, and the law should provide for that. It would be nonsensical for a married couple to have to go through a period of separation, in order to have their relationship recognised as a civil union, just so they could take up an option that was not available to them when they married. Equally, the option should be available for a civil union couple to convert to marriage—a couple who, for example, were planning to travel to live in a country where civil union was not recognised.

This Government is committed to promoting respect for the human rights of all individuals in New Zealand society. We wish to support the choices of the one in five New Zealanders currently living in a relationship who have chosen not to marry, and who may now choose to commit to each other in a civil union. It is our belief that this legislation will create more stable relationships, not fewer.

It is simply an issue of choice. This Government is not forcing anybody to do anything. People will be able to put their own value on their relationship and decide how they want to present that to the world. There are no victims here. This is about giving some couples rights that others already have. What harm could there be in that? That, for me, is the nub of this issue. I look forward to informed discussion and debate on this important civil rights matter.

I have been advised by a number of parties that they will split their speeches. I have recognised all of those, and so the first call goes to Mr Gerry Brownlee.

If this is “moderate and conservative” legislation, why has the Government not brought out the whip, showed the strength of its leadership conviction, and required all its members to vote for the Civil Union Bill? It has not done that because this is an issue that New Zealanders should be speaking on in a much wider forum than just this Parliament. If this bill does progress today, it will be by a very slim majority. I ask the Government’s subsequent speakers to explain why they have called this issue a conscience issue, while trying to promote this bill as being progressive, moderate, conservative legislation from the Labour Government.

Having said that, when I consider the position of various gay couples whom I am familiar with or know of, I have to ask myself why we would want to deny those people the right to make a commitment to one another in a legal sense. That causes the mind to range over all sorts of things, but it also causes us to ask what the general state of society today is. Members have just come through a question time where a Minister had to explain how two children in particular came to be so brutally treated by the people whom they were in the care of. I cannot help wondering whether those sorts of terrible situations are occurring with such regular occurrence in our society today partly because we have not done the work to protect families, to value families, and above all to value children. I do not think this bill does much to improve that situation.

I want to send a message—as I have previously—to that brave band of bishops in this country who are willing to storm Parliament, and particularly the Opposition, on all sorts of secular matters, but on this essentially moral issue are silent as a group. I think that if they want to leave it to politicians alone, the result will be one they are not too happy with.

The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That was a split speech. I call Brian Connell.

This is not a civil union; this is a civil disgrace. I could not think of anything that would have done more harm to New Zealand society than legalising prostitution, but if this Civil Union Bill is passed, it will have that distinction. This bill will tear the social and moral fabric of New Zealand society asunder. Let us be clear: this bill is a calculated and carefully promoted strategy to undermine the role of marriage and families as the cornerstone of New Zealand society. It is being promoted by a few powerful Government politicians who are abusing society’s trust in them. Let us be absolutely clear: this bill is being promoted by the Government. Those members are abusing their position by foisting their type of morality on to the many.

I want topick up on a point raised by Mr Brownlee about conscience votes. I do not believe that the Labour caucus truly will have a conscience vote on this issue. What happened with the Prostitution Reform Bill tells us otherwise. Labour colleagues confided in me—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Connell; this will not come off your time. This is an important debate and a conscience debate. This is the sort of debate I want to hear, without interjection. I do not think any is necessary. I want Mr Connell to be heard.

Some Labour colleagues confided in me that they had been intimidated into voting for the Prostitution Reform Bill by none other than the Prime Minister with the words: “If you don’t vote for this, you’re not going to go any further.” So why would we think that is not happening now? In any other institution, that would have been called harassment, and the full force of the law would have been brought to bear on the perpetrator.

I believe that it is probably happening again. I believe there are back-bench Labour caucus members—and probably some others—who will have the courage to stand up for their convictions, but others will vote for this bill simply because they feel intimidated. As for those who feel like sitting on the fence—like Professor Choudhary did the last time such an important issue was before the House—I am reminded of this quote: “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

What has ever happened to New Zealand society to allow this type of social re-engineering to prevail? This politically correct nonsense that preaches that homosexual and lesbian relationships are the equal to marriage, and are a satisfactory environment in which to raise kids, is an absolute disgrace. Worse, it is a disgrace that a Government in New Zealand would bring this bill forward. I for one will not stand for that, and I am asking colleagues in the House to have the courage to stand with me and vote against this bill. We need strong people who are prepared to rail against this type of nonsense. It will erode the values that New Zealand holds dear to its heart.

What this bill is doing is casualise relationships. This trend has been happening in this country for 30 years, and we can see the damage it has done to families. I ask members of the House to put self-interest aside and answer this question: is this really the type of society we want? Is this really the type of society we want for our kids? I believe that the answer is no. I am not suggesting that marriage is perfect, but as Winston Churchill simply responded when asked whether there was a better system than democracy: “It’s not perfect but I can’t think of a better one.” I cannot think of a better institution than marriage. I cannot think of a better role model for our young kids than to see mum and dad with two or three kids as the cornerstone of our society.

I again ask members in this House to put self-interest aside and stand up and be counted on what is probably the most critical issue they will decide in their term in this Parliament.

I am pleased to speak to the introduction of the Civil Union Bill, and thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that had been done prior to his very ably taking over responsibility for the bill. I too want to acknowledge those who have gone before—in particular, Russell Fairbrother, who did a lot of work on preparing a member’s bill on this subject.

The year 2004 is a significant anniversary for this Parliament. It is the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 1 February 1994. The Human Rights Act was significant for a whole range of reasons in terms of expanding human rights in this country. It applied, for the first time, non-discrimination laws to volunteers. It expanded the definition of “age”, and it applied to disability. By way of a Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Hon Katherine O’Regan, it applied to sexual orientation, and organisms in the body capable of causing disease. These measures were both conscience votes in this Parliament, were passed by this Parliament, and must be honoured by this Parliament.

Despite the wide-ranging nature of the changes, many of the over 800 submissions received on the bill focused on the subject matter of the Supplementary Order Paper, rather than the bill. The weight of evidence supported the inclusion of those grounds in our human rights laws. However, many submissions opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation on morality grounds. The dire consequences predicted by many who submitted on the bill have not come to fruition in the 10 years that have passed since the bill was enacted.

There was a provision in the legislation that is highly relevant to the debate today. It was a sunset provision. The Government of the day was given 5 years to review all existing legislation that conflicted with the Human Rights Act. The subordinate status of the Human Rights Act to all other legislation was to have lasted 5 years, and within that time the Government was to have been required to make express decisions to continue with any discrimination—if that was the intention. Unfortunately, the Government of the day allowed the situation to continue beyond the 5 years, and extensions were required by legislative follow-up in both 1999 and 2001.

The Civil Union Bill is part of a commitment this Parliament made 10 years ago. The Marriage Act allows only for a man and a woman to marry. That is discrimination. Essentially, the Civil Union Bill maintains that discrimination, but in order to meet the underlying civil right, or human right, that marriage allows only to a man and a woman, an alternative mechanism is proposed for legally recognising a relationship between couples who cannot, or for personal reasons, do not wish to, enter into marriage.

Let me say at this point—as people have said on occasions—civil union is not for me personally. For those who argue about setting aside personal interest, there is no personal interest for me to set aside. I am a very happily married woman. I am proud to refer to Rob as my husband, and to me as his wife. What I like about being married is that I have a way of explaining my relationship with Rob with a single word that requires no further explanation. The ceremony itself entailed a public statement of commitment that we made to each other, but in front of friends and family. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but it truly was the happiest day of my life.

So will the Civil Union Bill affect me personally? No, not at all. It does not undermine my commitment to Rob, or Rob’s commitment to me. If civil union had been an option when we decided to make that level of commitment, we would not have chosen it. We would still have chosen to get married. That was our choice. So how does providing choice to those who cannot, by law, choose marriage, affect me or anyone else who chooses marriage? It does not.

If two people want a mechanism to have the State recognise their public declaration of love for each other, their commitment to fidelity and support for each other, how does the strengthening of the support for that relationship diminish the strength of another relationship? It does not. Does it undermine marriage? There are those, including me, who believe it gives strength to the principles of marriage—love, honour, respect, fidelity, and lifelong support. People can already live together in a de facto relationship without any public declaration of those commitments.

I guess the question that can be asked is does the relationship change after making those commitments? I used to think not. However, my experience says it does. It will not save a failing relationship. Marrying somebody in order to save the relationship will not save it. However, I believe it strengthens a committed relationship, because the public ceremony is the calling upon of friends and family to support the couple in meeting the declarations and commitments they have made to each other. To offer this opportunity to other couples denied marriage must be a societal benefit.

I noticed a news report in the Dominion Post yesterday whereby the survivor of a same-sex relationship secured through the House of Lords the same legal rights as a married couple, even though the rights were expressed in the Rent Act as applying to those living together as “his or her wife or husband”. Baroness Hale said in the leading judgment: “Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability, and interdependence that heterosexuals do. The guarantee of equal treatment is essential to democracy. A homosexual couple, as much as a heterosexual couple, share each other’s lives and make their home together. There is no rational or fair ground for distinguishing one couple from the other in that context.”

Those comments are just as relevant to this bill as they will be to the next bill on the Order Paper. This bill, at its heart, is about human and civil rights. The guarantee of equal treatment is, to quote Baroness Hale, “essential to democracy.” Ten years ago, this Parliament extended the grounds in our Human Rights Act to sexual orientation. If we as a Parliament make no provision for the State to recognise such relationships legally, we will not be meeting our obligations under the law.

This bill is designed to uphold human rights. That is what it is all about. The fact that it provides a choice for gay men and lesbians to have their committed relationships recognised by the State does not increase the prevalence of homosexuality any more than the Human Rights Act did, despite its outlawing of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That was one of the dire warnings the select committee heard back in 1993. It simply has not come to pass. This bill is about human rights.

I am on the Justice and Electoral Committee that will be considering the bill. I look forward to scrutinising this bill and making any necessary changes. I look forward to both reading and hearing submissions from people who are committed to New Zealand’s human rights, and reporting back to the House so that this bill can become law, in this, the 10th anniversary year of the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act.

Before Mr Brown starts his speech, I am advised that there will be two 5-minute speeches.

That was one of the best speeches I have heard the former Minister make, but she has got it all wrong. She made a good speech, but the facts were wrong. I suggest to the House and to the former Minister that when MPs voted some 11 years ago for the human rights legislation that she referred to, not many of them thought that in a very short space of time we would be trying to legalise a de facto type of marriage by passing a Civil Union Bill. I do not think that would have been at the back of their minds, at all. By passing this bill we will be one step closer to allowing gay people—gay males in particular—to adopt children. I cannot go along with that, at all. That is experimenting with children to the worst degree.[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will only ever warn a person in the gallery once. Anyone who makes a noise who is not a member of Parliament will be leaving this gallery immediately. This is a serious debate, and the gallery, as part of the democratic process, is allowed to participate in listening. The only people who participate in the debate are those who are speaking, and members of Parliament.

This is a very contentious issue. I do not think I have had more correspondence on any other issue. The vast majority of the correspondence, the email and faxes that have come to my office, tell me that I should not support this bill. New Zealanders out there are worried about the effects of this bill. They see it as undermining marriage, and that is a concern that I have. We here in this Parliament represent people. We are not dictators to tell them what they should have and what they should not have. If the Government is so determined to pass this legislation, then why will it not put it to public referendum? Why will the Government not ask New Zealanders what they want? Why does the Government just want to impose another set of values on ordinary New Zealanders out there, who, I would suggest, in the main do not want anything to do with this? By a public referendum, I mean something similar to that conducted when the New Zealand First - National coalition Government wanted superannuation. We had a campaign to educate people what it was all about; we then asked them: “What do you think?”. We know the answer there, and I would say the answer on this issue would be about the same level percentage—that is 90-odd percent no. New Zealanders are not ready for this. If they have to be ready for it eventually, they are not ready for it now.

Marriages and families are exceedingly important to this society. It disappoints me, and my colleagues in New Zealand First, that the definition of a family in the Families Commission Act is so liberalised. To my mind this is a flow-on effect from that type of liberalisation. By and large, New Zealanders are conservative. They are fair-minded and conservative, and they do not buy into this sort of legislation. Almost without exception every average New Zealander I have spoken to on this legislation has said: “Please vote against it. Please honour my wishes. Please recognise that you are here to represent me, not to impose what you personally feel in terms of this type of contentious legislation. Please do your job properly.”

I say to this House that if there were to be a referendum at the end of this, and if New Zealanders had the final say, then I think there are MPs in this House who would think differently about our opposition. If we knew that New Zealanders were to have a say in the final process, we might be a little bit accommodating in supporting such legislation. But we were given a firm no. I put a question to the Minister only this afternoon and he admitted that this was a contentious issue, but he said the process would be decided by select committee. That is not good enough on this sort of thing. This is not good enough, at all. If we really wanted to improve things in this country, we would be educating parents, because parenting is becoming an increasingly challenging task in this day and age. We would be providing assistance to parents and giving them some guidance in bringing up children.

Children are the future of this country. Young people represent what this country will be in years to come. We should be putting maximum emphasis on educating parents so they can bring up their children in a safe and fair manner. This sort of Civil Union Bill should be thrown where it belongs, on the scrap heap.

Kia ora tātou e huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare. Greetings to all who are gathered here this afternoon. I will be straight; this bill is an abomination to all mankind. What is the percentage of New Zealand’s population that is against this bill, and how many are for the bill? Has it ever dawned on the perpetrators of this bill that there is a right and a wrong in this world? Does it ever dawn in the minds of those who wish to pass this bill that the family is made up of mother, father, and the children whom they have through the sacred ordinance of marriage? This is not about rights. This is about marriage between husband and wife, man and woman, and not those of the same gender. The word “despicable” is mild in comparison with other descriptions that have come to my notice.

When will this Parliament realise that in this bill the beginning of a very deep decaying process is being set in place for future generations? If this bill is passed, today is a day that will dawn in our history as a day that in conjunction with the prostitution reform legislation is an indictment on the people who wish to lower our standards.

In conclusion, I honour the members of this House who will vote against this bill, and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, because they are all part and parcel of the same deal. We will be recipients of good social management, and likewise recipients of those that are negative, if the bill goes ahead.

We can talk about the rights of those who desire that lifestyle, but to make it into law will have serious repercussions for future generations of families. I recommend very, very strongly that this bill not be recommended to the House. I look at the concept of whānau and the social structure of Māoridom, the collective, made up of mother, father, children, and grandchildren, and then listen to all the Acts that have been passed, or were supposed to have been passed. Does that still make this bill right? In the eyes of the majority of New Zealanders it is wrong—simple. It is spelt “w r o n g”.

We seem to have fiddled around with Acts and laws to cover up those things that are wrong. Now, what do we have today? One in five New Zealanders wants this bill, according to the statistics, and the majority is being ignored. This will be remembered by the people when the next election comes around. This is what will happen. If we want to live in a society that will have this kind of standard, I think we will have to uproot and move to Australia. It might be a little better there. But let me remind us as parliamentarians that there is no place in family society for a bill such as this. In case members have forgotten, the family is made up of mother and father, and the children they produce through that marriage, in all sanctity.

The Green Party is very proud to support the Civil Union Bill at its first reading. The Greens have had a longstanding sexual orientation policy that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partnerships are equally entitled to respect and support, and therefore we support the extension of legal partnership arrangements and rights to same-sex couples. The Civil Union Bill is merely one form by which that extension can occur.

The Civil Union Bill sets out the process by which different-sex and same-sex couples can formally solemnise their relationship in law and be entitled to the same legal rights and obligations as those who are married. It reduces any discrimination against couples because of their sexual orientation.

Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. Contrary to the beliefs of some, this institution is not universal but stems out of a particular Christian tradition. That is nothing to be ashamed of. I encourage those who try to claim that marriage is universal to embrace the particular historical and cultural tradition from which marriage was born.

Prior to the colonisation of this country, marriage in this tradition was not the institution that existed here in our country, Aotearoa. Rather, personal loving relationships between adults were formalised and validated in other ways, by other processes culturally appropriate to the whānau and hapū. Legislation made some changes to that process. The Native Land Act 1909 declared Māori customary marriages to be valid for some purposes only, and required Māori to undergo legal marriage ceremonies. Prior to 1911, only marriages between Māori and Europeans were required to be officially registered. Among Māori, customary marriage practices continued and were common, and were to some extent recognised by the State until 1952, but thereafter only marriages registered and conducted by a State-licensed marriage celebrant were deemed legitimate.

In New Zealand, as a result of colonisation, the institution of a Western system of marriage was introduced and other traditional forms of validating and recognising relationships were sadly lost. Since that time the institution of marriage has become the sole means by which this society recognises these kinds of personal relationships. But not everyone in our community wants to participate in that institution. Couples who choose not to marry have developed other means to solemnise their relationships, to make public declarations of their love and commitment to each other. None the less, law has built up over time around the institution of marriage, and we are now in a legal situation where only those who are married can access a significant body of legal rights and responsibilities. But what is the important value here—the institution that derives from a particular culture and history, or the validation of stable and committed personal relationships to which the law applies equally?

Over time, legislation has developed to recognise, in some circumstances, different kinds of relationships—most commonly de facto relationships, and more recently there has been some recognition of same-sex relationships. But this development has been piecemeal and has not addressed the principle that the law should apply equally to those who choose to formalise their personal relationship, whether by the institution of marriage or in some other form. We finally have in the House legislation that enables couples who are in a committed, stable, and exclusive relationship to have a choice as to the means by which they formalise their relationship, so that they can have access to the law. It is a mark of a mature and tolerant community. The Greens are very pleased that the civil union process will be accessible by both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples. For both these groups, exclusion from some legal rights causes considerable distress and difficulty, for no good reason.

One example is that de facto couples cannot ensure they are able to be buried together, because the Burial and Cremation Act overrides any personal agreement or contract between de facto people. This causes extraordinary hardship in times of crisis, for no reason other than a historical discriminatory anomaly that has no application in a modern, tolerant, and diverse society.

For same-sex couples there is the very serious problem that a person’s partner is not considered in law as the next of kin. Where, for example, significant medical issues arise for this couple, often in very stressful situations, the same-sex partner, no matter how long the couple have been together or how stable their relationship, is not entitled to make the very serious decisions necessary in those circumstances.

The issue of next of kin is not, however, a problem simply for same-sex couples. Many unmarried people would welcome the opportunity to identify a particular trusted person to exercise that special responsibility. The Greens would support an additional simple next of kin register that would enable any person to identify a particular person as his or her next of kin.

I have received some terribly violent and vicious mail from those who oppose this bill. There has been some extraordinary vitriol levelled at gay and lesbian people and couples, and I am sad that much of this has come from a minority of Christians. Where is the compassion of Christ?

Others have tried to explain how the bill will undermine the institution of marriage. I have not found any single compelling argument as to how allowing some to solemnise their relationship through a civil union, which then entitles them to recognition under the law, will undermine the institution of marriage. This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage. Those who consider marriage a divine responsibility of God will know that human law cannot disturb divine law, so therefore nothing that we do in this Chamber will undermine the divinity of marriage.

Those who argue that stable and committed relationships form the fundamental basis of a good society should welcome this bill as supporting and identifying in law an even greater number of stable, committed, and exclusive relationships with legal rights and responsibilities. It is miraculous that there are so many stable, committed, same-sex relationships when our law provides such little support for them.

The news is not all bad. I have received some fantastic supportive mail on this issue from people from a variety of relationships. It has been really heartening to know just how tolerant and accepting New Zealanders from all sorts of religious denominations and other sectors in our society really are.

In the end, despite the vitriol that comes out of both the public and this Chamber, it is important that we do not get too precious about this issue. Marriage is an important institution in our country, revered by some and practised by many New Zealanders, including myself, for a variety of practical and at times religious reasons. But despite the technicalities of law and the moral imperatives of religion, relationships, whether marriage, de facto, heterosexual, or homosexual, in the end are matters of the heart, driven at worst by fear or resignation, at best by passion, commitment, respect, and love.

Our personal choices as to whom we will love and commit to should be subject to no judgment but our own. The Civil Union Bill simply applies the law equally to all couples without judgment or favour. It is time that in our country the law recognised how our society is changing, and that our law reflected people’s lives in the 21st century. The Green Party of Aotearoa urges all members of this House to vote for equality before the law for all New Zealand citizens.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): As the vote on this bill is a so-called conscience vote, I rise to explain my personal reasons for the vote I will cast today. But the time that I am given for this speech is time allocated to the ACT party, so I also owe it to my colleagues, and to the thousands of thoughtful New Zealanders who are worrying today, to set out some of the things that are in the minds of my fellow ACT MPs. We have discussed this bill. Some of us will weigh some issues more than others. But each of us will vote according to what we believe is best for New Zealand.

It has fallen to me to speak because I have done, before any of my colleagues, something that I wager has probably still not been done by most of the members present in the House. That is, I have read the actual words of the law, or of the bill. I did that because it is what I always do. I refuse to come to any conclusion on a bill until I can judge what the words will mean in their practical application. We will see and hear—and we have already seen and heard—slogans, hysterical claims, and noble statements of intention, none of which may have any effect in law. The law is what the words in the legislation state. Until 4 days ago those words had been available to only the tight inner circle of the Prime Minister’s chums, who are indifferent to marriage or do not want it, and to their ineffectual allies in United Future.

What did I find then when I read the bill? I found the Marriage Act. The bill is a copy of the Marriage Act, with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced by the words “civil union”. Of course, there are one or two trivial drafting upgrades—the kinds of parliamentary fashion changes that are no more important than whether trousers will have cuffs on them this year. This bill is a transparent, cute trick. Accordingly, although I will support its referral to the select committee, I confidently expect to vote against it when it re-emerges from the committee. I believe that some of my colleagues who also want to see it go to the select committee will share that pessimism, for similar reasons. We will vote to send it to the select committee because that is also an opportunity—it is a chance to force a thorough review to be undertaken of the law affecting healthy families.

It could be that the bill is a nail in the coffin of our family structure, or it could be that it is simply a reflection of a change whose time is due. But whatever it is, it needs a thorough airing. If there is genuine open-mindedness on the part of the Government promoters of this bill, there is a possibility that I could vote for the bill that will emerge from the select committee. The select committee will have to re-examine the product of three decades of political correctness, clerical cowardliness, left-wing feminism, male selfishness, and widespread opportunism. Together, they have done grave damage to thousands of our families and their children. But if the select committee is willing, we could use this bill to start to rebuild a marriage law that is worthy of the name. If we do not do that, I will not be party to it.

Secrecy was the first ominous sign of legislative dishonesty in this case. A bill that is as simple as this one could have been around months ago. The bill would not have been kept under tight wraps, and preceded by as many months as it has of hints, public relations summaries, and earnest lobbying without any test, had the Government not felt it needed the momentum of a wave of emotion before any non-believer was able to analyse the words objectively. The Government must have wanted to drown the sober questions of people who try to decide on matters on the basis of substance instead of slogans. Marriage is already a civil union as far as New Zealand law is concerned; it has been a civil union throughout our entire living memory. Registry office weddings have been part of our law for so long they are folklore, and for generations the sacramental nature and the social and psychological power of marriage has rested entirely on voluntary ceremonies and sanctions. Those voluntary ceremonies and sanctions have had next to nothing to do with our law.

Why, then, does this bill repeat the Marriage Act but with a different label? The reason is very simple: to avoid passing an amendment of three words, which would simply remove the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman. That is why the Prime Minister has said, in effect, “Marriage, ‘schmarraige’; I’d rather have a civil union.”, when she knows she already has one. It is simple. The Prime Minister and her Government are pretending there is a difference between a marriage and a civil union in order to disguise the sole true purpose of this bill—namely, to allow gay marriage. The question is whether admitting gays would mean the death of marriage. I doubt whether it would.

Legally, of course, the bill will not change any rules, benefits, or burdens of marriage. It will just allow more people to share in those benefits. It is not irrelevant that more people would be let into the club. There are lots of important institutions that can be judged only when we know whom they exclude. For example, we know the value of a knighthood only by knowing who is excluded from receiving one, and the value of a general’s baton by knowing how many batons are dished out.

But I am not going to dwell on or prejudge the issue. I want to do what any thoughtful Government, any responsible Minister of social development, any caring cleric, or any earnest reformer should have done. I want to explore what this bill should be doing. It should be rebuilding marriage. Marriage cannot be destroyed by this bill, because in legal terms it has already been trashed. The argument over this bill is like kids fighting over the silver chocolate wrapping after the chocolate is gone. It is choice that lies at the core of marriage—the choice to make a set of promises. But marriage has been trashed because the State has emptied it of all meaning. It has done that by making those promises empty. There are no consequences for a breach of those promises, even for the most cold-blooded breach.

The legal destruction came in four stages—five, I think. The first was no-fault divorce. Of course, that was well meaning; I thought it was a great idea. Secondly, we have a welfare system that makes it financially better to seem single than married. That makes mugs out of honest couples who believe they should only incur responsibilities when they are prepared to meet them themselves. Thirdly, the Matrimonial Property Act—replaced by the Property (Relationships) Act—insisted on no-fault property sharing, and I think that was far more important than we ever imagined at the time. Fourthly, when anti-discrimination law prevented any preference for or practical honouring of marriage, it eliminated the normal social and cultural reinforcements that penalise those who spurn marriage obligations and favour those who do not. Fifthly, 2 years ago the Hon Margaret Wilson made the distinctiveness of marriage into a mockery by imposing its property-sharing consequences on any couple who live together, even when they have explicitly chosen not to marry.

The failure to respect marriage, that ideological pride in simply decreeing changes in our fundamental social contract, is not confined to one party. I do not even lay the blame entirely at the feet of politicians. Those who should have guarded the institution of marriage have been caught up in fashion. We have all seen that at select committee hearings. We have probably been faintly embarrassed on behalf of the representatives of the decaying churches, who come along with their obsequious moral relativism, being so terribly non-judgemental, and who are clothed with the cant of “inclusiveness”, “reaching out”, and so forth. Meanwhile, the treasures that they should be guarding are washing away. I look at them as I would at Jane Austen’s Mr Collins. Members may remember that he praised Lady Catherine de Bourgh all the time, in the hope that he would be included and not thought of as a fuddy-duddy. At least we know what the Bible Christians are trying to say, and at least they stand for something.

Similarly, I respect the candour of the gay activists, who make no secret of what they want. They want civil union or marriage as a sign that the State, on behalf of the people, approves of their way of life, and the honest ones do not clothe that in an unctuous pretence that registration will somehow transform a liaison into a secure partnership. They welcome a debate that is honest—a debate over gay marriage, not this “civil union” euphemism. I believe we will have that more honest debate in the select committee. I believe that there is a prospect that we will come out of it with strengthened institutions.

Today is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when the decision we make is the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole, and not just of the Government of the day. Every single one of us will make a judgment at the end of this debate about the way we will vote and the reasons for that vote. For my part, my colleagues in United Future have treated this issue as one on which we have made individual decisions. We happen to have decided individually that we will vote against the bill, probably for eight different sets of reasons. In the time available to me this afternoon, I want to outline my reasons for opposing this bill, and why I for one do not believe it ought to proceed any further. For me, this is not a moral or a religious issue but is an issue about what is in the best interests of our society as a whole.

I start, personally, from the premise that the nature of people’s relationships is actually their own business, and that relationships are not strengthened or weakened by the possession of a certificate or a piece of paper. The only reason that we have a Marriage Act as a civil institution is the so-called consanguinity—in this bill we use the phrase “prohibited degrees”—option. In other words, as an earlier speaker said, we recognise that one of the products of the union we know as marriage is often children, and that we need to put in place protections for those children in terms of their genetic strength, to put it bluntly. That is the only reason I can see why the State ought to be involved in sanctioning a person’s choice. I start from the position that where there are discriminations or limitations on people’s ability to live their lives freely and openly, we ought to deal with those. I have heard and dealt with many sad and tragic cases over the years, where issues such as next-of-kin status have arisen, and the rights to be with a loved one in his or her last stages of life in a hospital, to be buried together, to make other financial and insurance arrangements, and so on and so forth have been denied people. I am strongly in favour of the elimination of those discriminations.

But here is where, for me, the rub comes: I do not believe that the Civil Union Bill is either honest or necessary. It is not honest because it purports to import into people’s lives a state that cannot be achieved. I have listened to various advocates of the bill over recent times say that it confers rights and entitlements upon people. The bill—and Mr Franks was quite right when he said it is the Marriage Act with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced with the words “civil union”—merely sets up a process by which a civil union can be entered into and established. It does not confer any new or additional rights on anybody. We have even had confirmation that if this bill does not go any further, then the issue of the rights that are the cause of concern is dealt with in the second bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which we will debate after this one. So I say this bill is dishonest because it purports to create something that is, in fact, not there. The rights that people clamour for and seek to have recognised are not adjusted in any way by this legislation, and that is why it is unnecessary.

The bill is unnecessary because if one thinks about the types of people who are likely to benefit from it, one draws some very quick conclusions. According to the last census in New Zealand, there are approximately 1.3 million New Zealanders who are married. Just over 300,000 New Zealanders are living together in a relationship akin to marriage, but are not married to each other, and about 10,000 New Zealanders are in same-sex relationships. If one then starts to think about what is in it for each of those groups, the following conclusions can be drawn. There is not much in it for married couples. The 300,000 people who have chosen not to enter into a civil form of marriage, as they can today, are probably in the main unlikely to choose to enter into a civil union. After all, if they had wanted to have their relationship recognised, codified, and solemnised without the religious overtones, they could have done so already. So then we come back to the question of the 10,000 or so New Zealanders in same-sex relationships. We have been told by the proponents of the bill that it is not about same-sex marriage, and that marriage will continue to be available only for a man and a woman. Yet we have a bill that legislates for something that looks like marriage, walks like marriage, talks like marriage, and sounds like marriage, but is called a civil union. I think that that is far too clever, by half.

What we are doing is establishing a parallel form of marriage, even though the proponents of the bill say that is not what is intended and that marriage will be only available for a man and a woman in the future. If that is so, let them answer this question: if we are talking about two completely distinct and separate institutions, where ne’er the twain shall meet, why is there a provision in this bill that states a civil union can be traded in for a marriage, and a marriage can be traded in for a civil union? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are setting up a separate, distinct institution that is completely different from marriage, while at the same time saying that people can go along to the registrar and have that separate and completely distinct institution that is not related to marriage turned into a marriage—and then say that we are keeping the two separate. That is a logical inconsistency, to put it at its most charitable.

Over the last few months many New Zealanders have expressed their views on this matter. They have been divided right down the middle between those who favour the idea of a civil union because they want to see the rights issues resolved, and those who oppose it. If this bill goes no further and the second bill—which I give notice I will be voting for—does proceed, then those matters will be resolved to their satisfaction. Nothing will change as a consequence of the proceeding forward or the defeat of the Civil Unions Bill. It is therefore irrelevant, which brings me back to my point about the fundamental lack of necessity for it and its dishonesty. I think we owe it to our people to be honest, to be straightforward, and to make decisions that we consider to be in their best interest and to deal with the issues of concern. This bill, because of its limited nature and the inconsistencies within it, will not achieve that objective, and that is why I will vote against it.

I rise to support the Civil Union Bill before the House this afternoon. I care deeply about this bill. My colleagues and I have fought long and hard for it to appear in this Parliament, and I am delighted that after decades of trying it is finally here. This bill and its companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, will give my partner, Peter—who is here today in the gallery—and I, alongside thousands of other New Zealanders, gay and straight, an opportunity publicly to register our relationship and to obtain proper legal protection for our rights.

For Peter and I that opportunity comes for the first time after 31 years together. My partner and I met in 1973 when we were both students. At the end of that year we travelled to Europe together and we have not been separated since. Everything we have done in life we have shared together, from farming to involvement in politics. Peter has been my support and my motivation. He is currently secretary of the Parliamentary Spouses Association. Many members of this House know him well, including a number who will be voting against this bill this afternoon. We share the parenting of three children. He has a son aged 13, and I have a 14-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old son. We love our children very much. We watch over them, nurture them, and educate them in the same way that good parents try to do all over New Zealand.

In every respect our relationship is fundamentally the same as the many thousands of long-standing marriages shared by New Zealanders everywhere, with one critical difference: one of us is the wrong gender. That fact has required us to fight for every shred of validity that our relationship now has. That fact has required us to be wary of prejudice all our lives. That fact has prevented us from ever being able to swear a commitment to each other that is recognised by the State.

Some in this House have questioned how much this issue really matters. After all, we can still have our relationship. I ask them whether they remember their wedding day. Do they hang a photo of the event on the wall? Do they celebrate each anniversary? Perhaps a person understands how much those small opportunities mean only when they do not exist—when everyone else has them but not oneself.

The irony is that this bill does not allow couples like Peter and I to marry. I am often asked whether I am comfortable with this—and, actually, I am. I accept that marriage has a traditional and religious heritage, which is why our churches are so protective of it. I recognise that those churches often cannot include same-sex couples in their world view. Therefore, I accept that it could be difficult for the State to apply the institution of marriage to same-sex couples until the majority of our religions have done so. Having said that, I utterly reject the idea that the State cannot create an alternative way of recognising couples—be they straight or gay—like Peter and I who wish to make a different, public, legal expression of their relationship.

That is what the Civil Union Bill does. It does it in such a way that it gives same-sex couples like us a fair go for the first time, and gives opposite-sex couples a choice for the first time. The bill will not undermine marriage. I do not believe the institution of marriage is so fragile that it cannot withstand justice for some and choice for others. It seems to me that a couple that actively choose marriage over a civil union as the legal expression of their relationship has enhanced the institution of marriage, not devalued it.

Over the past couple of months I have been bombarded by people claiming that marriage between a man and a woman is the only appropriate environment for children to grow up in. I utterly reject the notion that my family is less valid than anyone else’s. My children have two fathers and two mothers. I utterly reject the suggestion that the State should discriminate against my relationship, my family, and my children, because it suits someone else’s personal morality for it to do so. How do I explain that situation to my children, or to anyone else’s children? Do I explain to them that we live in a country where the law says that it does not matter whether one has a good or bad relationship, and it does not matter whether one is a good or bad parent—it just matters that one marries someone of the opposite sex? I could never do that, and I never will. My children know, by personal experience, that it does not matter what gender the people in a relationship are. What matters is that those people are truthful and loyal, and love and care for their children and for each other. That is the foundation of a just, compassionate, and mature society. That is the kind of New Zealand I am working for.

This bill takes us a little closer to it, so it has my full support. I urge members to put aside the politics of this, to consider the justice of this issue, and to support the Civil Union Bill.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge that members in this House are showing each other a great deal of respect in this debate. It is a debate that people feel very emotional and passionate about, and I hope that this approach continues for as long as this bill continues through the House.

I will be voting for this bill out of the strength of my convictions, and for that reason I am voting for the first reading of the Civil Union Bill. This bill harms no one, but because it is so important to a large number of people in our community I think it should progress.

Some people have claimed that this bill demeans marriage, and I invite those people to tell me how this manifests in a tangible way; how, in their marriages and in their everyday lives, the passage of this bill will affect their relationships with their partner, their husband, their wife, and their children. The strength of my relationship with my partner is not determined by the status of other people’s relationships. When I consider pledging my trust, my commitment, my loyalty, and my love to my partner, I do not consider other people’s relationships with their partners as part of that. This bill, if it goes through, will not make a blind bit of difference to my family. Our lives will go on as per usual. Again, I challenge opponents of this bill to tell me exactly how this bill, if it becomes an Act, will adversely affect their families, other than in their own minds.

People have written to me to ask what they should tell their children. If they tell their children that marriage is now demeaned, and if they tell their children that the Civil Union Bill means their marriage is less important or has less status, then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. I suggest that opponents of this bill go back to their families and remind them that they love them, and that whatever other people do in New Zealand—whatever other kinds of relationships they have—has no bearing on the importance of their relationship or their relationship within their families and with their children.

This raises an interesting point. According to the Maxim Institute, which, frankly, I think ranks somewhere below the Flat Earth Society, marriage is not about whether one loves somebody. Well, I do not think that statement will enhance anyone’s view of marriage. Marriage is not an employment contract. If that is the vision of opponents of this bill, then I tell them to look no further than their own backyard if they are worried that marriage will become less popular. In light of this view that marriage has always been just about duty and tradition, and not primarily about love, I would say that marriage probably has changed. I think that if we asked New Zealanders, if we asked married couples, what is the fundamental basis for marriage—what is the most important thing—they would say love. If marriage has changed because it is now based on love, then I believe that is a positive thing. Marriage is more than a package of legal rights. If we just had to fill out a form and send it off, and we got back in the mail a certificate that said we were now married, I do not think as many people would marry. It is about a celebration: a celebration of one’s relationship, and a celebration of love.

Like Mr Carter, I appreciate that some churches may not want, or may not feel ready, to include that as part of their services, and that is why I support the Civil Union Bill. A lot of my friends are in de facto relationships. Most expect to marry, but some absolutely do not want to. Their reasons are many and varied, and I suggest that they go far further than what this House and past Parliaments have done. But some have indicated to me that they would consider a civil union. I have received correspondence from many in the same position.

I believe that this bill is a positive step. Monogamy is important. Marriage is important, but only if it involves commitment and only if it is monogamous. I believe extramarital affairs to be far more demeaning to marriage and far more destructive to families than our allowing people who love each other to engage in a civil union.

Opponents of this bill are asking me to look one of my best friends in the face—a friend who is like a brother to me, who came out in his 20s, and who has been in a committed and loving relationship with a fantastic guy for nearly 6 years—and tell him that his relationship is not worthy of legal and social recognition, and that it is less valid than my own relationship with my partner. I will not do that. Marriage and civil union are not the same. One has behind it thousands of years of interesting tradition and history; the other’s history begins here today. In that light, I record my support for the Civil Union Bill.

I rise to speak against the Civil Union Bill—not because of any sort of homophobic views, not because I do not recognise the relationship that Mr Carter and his spouse have, and not because I do not wish to see gay marriage, but because I believe that the bill as presented to us today is a travesty of the truth. We have been told by supporters of the bill that it is not about creating marriage, but everything in it is about creating a parallel form of marriage. Civil unions will be registered under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act—not the “Births, Deaths, Marriages and Civil Unions Act”. It is marriage by another name. People who want to join in a civil union will have to get a licence from the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry.

We have been told that it will not be a marriage, because it does not use the word “marriage”. If the proponents of the bill think marriage is simply a word, then they do not know a thing about marriage. The previous speaker said that marriage is about love. It is actually about a lot more than love; it is about commitment. That commitment goes through years and years, even stages when couples do not love each other very much at all, but they are there because of a commitment. What often happens is that they come back to loving each other because of that commitment.

We have been told that civil union will not be a religious ceremony, yet in the last few days we have seen that there are churches that will be quite happy to have civil unions celebrated within them. We have been told that marriage has a religious connotation. My husband and I were married in a non-religious civil service almost 20 years ago. My parents were married in a non-religious civil service in 1941, and the marriage dissolved only on the death of my father 52 years later. Marriage is not a religious ceremony or a religious institution; in this country, it is a civil institution, and we are quite happy for people who wish to have that civil institution recognised in a church to do so. Many religious organisations will help them do that in places other than churches.

The argument against marriage, or for civil union, on the basis of religion is fallacious—in fact, it is downright wrong. The statement the Green member made about marriage being a Christian institution is quite wrong and culturally insensitive in the extreme—which is surprising for the Greens. I am sure that people of the Muslim persuasion would be shocked to hear that their marriages are simply Christian relationships.

Who would we be passing the Civil Union Bill for? I had a look at the census statistics for 2001, because I know it is not for heterosexual couples. That is one of the things I want to say about the bill—it is the “Gay Marriage Bill”, and it is about time we acknowledged that. I personally am not particularly opposed to or for gay marriage. I am happy to debate it, and I am happy to do so from a position of honesty that that is what we are talking about. I have said to the proposers of the bill that if they want to talk about gay marriage, I am happy to talk to them about it, and happy to listen, but the civil union nonsense that is being dreamed up as some sort of de facto marriage for gay couples is wrong.

If this bill is passed in its current form, we will be back in the House in 2 or 3 years’ time looking at the “Gay Marriage Bill”, because this bill is a sop to gay couples, in which they are being told that they can have second best. That is not good enough. Either people are entitled to look at themselves as married, and to get married, or they are not—not some halfway house, which in the meantime demeans marriage for those people who do believe in it.

Is this a human rights issue? I looked at it, because I wondered how many people we would be looking at here. The census figures stated that 0.3 percent of adults in New Zealand say they live in a same-sex relationship—not a very large portion of the population—as opposed to the more than 45 percent of adult New Zealanders who are married. So why would we be looking at this as a human rights issue? Look, if civil union were a human rights issue, I would be the first one in there championing the cause, but I do not think it is. Nor do I think that marriage is a human rights issue, because the moment it is, then so is polygamy. Why is the House not pushing a bill along to the select committee today celebrating polygamy?

We have heard from a speaker before who said that a marriage should be between two people. Well, why? We know that in our culture marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been defined and used over many, many years—well before there was a State, a Crown, or the Christian religion. So why do we not have polygamy? The Ministry of Women’s Affairs put out a discussion paper last year—and one knows how its discussion papers end up in Government policy—suggesting that we should be recognising polygamy on the basis of cultural sensitivity. Well, what about the cultural sensitivity of New Zealanders?

Marriage is an institution that requires a great deal of commitment and, with the no-fault divorce laws we have these days, far more commitment than ever before. There is also a public policy issue here. While I am on the issue of human rights, why is it not a human rights issue that so many Māori women are not allowed to speak on marae in this country? What has happened in this country is that anything that is flavour of the month becomes a human rights issue.

What about the harm to marriage? We are told by some people that this bill will not affect marriage. If two lots of currency are put into a country, there will be a change or some effect. When the euro went into Italy, the lira suddenly became unpopular with young people. If this bill goes through, civil union will become the new thing for young people. It will replace marriage. In 20 years’ time, the only people who will be married will be old fogies like myself and my husband. Members have already heard from the young Labour member who said that some of her friends were thinking about a civil union. That is what will happen.

I do not think there is a tremendous amount wrong with marriage, and that is one of the reasons I would be willing to look at how marriage could be extended to other than heterosexual couples. I am not saying that I necessarily support it, but I am happy to look at it. But I cannot support this bill. It is a dishonest bill. It is not about truth; it is about the manipulation of words, and the people of New Zealand will not be fooled by this nonsense.

I am who I am, as we all are in this House. Each of the 120 members of Parliament here is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. I did not choose my sexuality; no one does. It was in me from when the genetic strands started to gather in my mother’s womb. I spent my teenage-hood in trauma, not understanding why I was not driven by what drove and excited most of the boys I knew. I was 21 before I met someone who described himself as gay. I was 24 before I came out to myself. As the mist lifted, I told person after person about my new discovery, with what Paul Adams might recognise as evangelical zeal.

Back in 1986, this House recognised that homosexuality was a reality when it decriminalised gay sex. In 1993 it banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But laws can do only so much. Some in society see homosexuals as a threat to be resisted. If they are physically rather than mentally strong, they attack us. In hate crimes, they target our mouths, our genitals, and our anuses—symbols, they believe, of our sexuality. Those who have the power freeze us out of jobs. Many tell lies about us: that we attack young boys, that we are poor parents, and that we are incapable of a monogamous, one-to-one relationship. Anyone who denies the reality among New Zealanders of hatred based on homosexuality need only read a handful of the emails that we have all received in the past few days. That hate hurts. It costs lives. And what else explains the suicide attempt rate among young lesbians and gay men—six times that of other young people?

So how is the Civil Union Bill relevant to all of this? Of course, many more heterosexuals than homosexuals will benefit from this bill, but I will speak from the perspective of this nation’s thousands of lesbian and gay people living in same-sex relationships and seeking a name for, and an acceptance of, those relationships.

There are three reasons why voting for this bill is as important as voting for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. First, there is discrimination in the Marriage Act. That is why the Court of Appeal decided in 1996 that although lesbian and gay people could marry—someone of the opposite sex, of course—Parliament should address the issue of the status of same-sex relationships. That is why 20 Parliaments worldwide have given legal recognition to same-sex relationships. That is why complaints that our Marriage Act breaches the Human Rights Act on the grounds of sexual orientation are weaving their way through our legal system. Discrimination can be removed, or broadly equally alternatives can be provided. The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched.

Second, the difference between me and a heterosexual member of Parliament is pretty tiny. It lies in our sex life, in who and how we love, and in our life experience. As the UK law lord Baroness Hale said this week: “Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability and interdependence that heterosexual relationships do.” So why should the State, which has, since the start of this nation, chosen to offer a self-funding legal status to heterosexual couples, not do the same for homosexuals? No reason, I suggest.

Thirdly, a civil union gives status. It makes it easier to prove a relationship. It provides a start point and an end point. It provides a chance for a great party! It protects children of rainbow families, and it harms no one.

Finally, I give one personal reflection. In a conscience vote we identify what is right and we support it. I congratulate the British Conservative leader, Michael Howard, and most of his Tory colleagues for backing legislation in the British Parliament very similar to our bill. What insight do they have that so many National MPs here seem not to have? Both the bills before us today are acts of acceptance that we are here and we are citizens worthy of what comes with citizenship.

I regard it a privilege to take a brief call in this first reading of the Civil Union Bill. I stand to ask members please to give dignity to this bill by sending it through to the select committee for its due process, for that is where, I believe, the debate really needs to occur, in order to scrutinise the merits of both sides of the argument. It is a very good way of being able to engage with the public more fully, and for them to have their proper say, and I hope all members will consider voting in favour of this bill going through to the committee.

I am a taxpaying citizen of New Zealand. I was very lucky to be born into a country that, at this time, affords human rights, liberty, and dignity to people such as me—a transsexual. Members who have been in this House for some time may recall that, thankfully, in 1996, due to an amendment to the Birth, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act, people such as me—post-operative transsexuals—were able to be made legally female, and therefore enjoy all the legal rights of being female, including marriage. So at this point, if I so chose, I could get married.

I put that view to a well-known pastor of a church called Destiny Church New Zealand, Pastor Brian Tāmaki, and he was horrified. He was horrified that that was allowed, and believed that it should end straight away. The kind of opinion held by people such as Pastor Brian Tāmaki and churches of that ilk is not, I would say, reflective of all churches and religions in New Zealand. In fact, I would say that only a glaring minority in this country would share their hateful opinions towards people like myself, and gay and lesbian people. This bill will give, once and for all, solemnised recognition of a civil union. It does not, as previous speakers have said, affect marriage in any way.

Although some opponents of this bill will argue that it undermines the very fabric of the family in this country, I say that is absolutely wrong. It does not. If anything, it will enhance the cornerstone of our society, the building block we call the family. We have marginalised people who are taxpaying citizens of this country, and law-abiding for the most part. They should also be able to enjoy the same rights and status in this country that every other member in this Parliament and every other citizen of New Zealand enjoys. Why do we continue to perpetuate discrimination and prejudice against—admittedly, as somebody said—a relatively small proportion of this population? That is no excuse to have negative discrimination against them—certainly, when we are talking about the very foundation of love and commitment. We want to enhance our society, I would have thought, by allowing children to grow up—whether in different-sex or same-sex relationships—being nurtured by the nurturers. If we undermine those nurturers who happen to be in same-sex relationships, it does not aid or help at all those young people whom we are trying to give the best start in life.

New Zealand is a fantastic country. It is a world leader in some human rights issues it takes on. So we should stand proud, and we also should endorse this bill by, at least, sending it through to the select committee for it to have the scrutiny it so richly deserves. That is acknowledged by many, whether for or against this bill. The committee could flesh out the whole story, so to speak.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that many thousands of New Zealanders would become greatly happy—very happy—if this bill were passed. I do not believe that many thousands of New Zealanders—as spoken by those who oppose this bill—will be horrified if that happens, because they are unaffected. Let us give ordinary New Zealanders a chance with this bill.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The 11th call goes to New Zealand First, which is splitting its speech.

I used to often tell my students: “You don’t make your own candle shine more brightly by blowing out somebody else’s.”, and the converse of that adage is: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I should light somebody else’s.” Therefore, I ask this question: how will my own marriage be diminished by the passage of this legislation? The answer, and I am convinced it is the correct answer, is it will not make one iota of difference. If that is the case, what is so dreadfully wrong in allowing other New Zealanders of a different disposition to make a long-term, public commitment to someone they love?

During the debate on the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill I argued there were three categories of sexual relationships: the forbidden such as incest and paedophilia; the accepted, tolerated, and legal such as casual, de facto, or same-sex relationships; and the preferred—in other words, marriage. My opposition to the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill was based on the fact that all legal relationships, including marriage, were being brought down to the same denominator. I felt that those different relationships should have been treated separately. The Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill is an example of what happens when we deny a group of people who are in legal relationships any way of publicly expressing that relationship. I believe that this Civil Union Bill, rather than diminish the law’s recognition of marriage as a special relationship between a man and a woman, will serve to protect that relationship as the preferred form of relationship. The alternative is to have marriage morph into other relationships to the stage where it is legally considered to be no more preferable than a one-night stand. That would be hugely detrimental to the well-being of our society.

I want to approach this issue from another angle. I say to those who would have us believe that the passage of this legislation would lead to the destruction of our society that the real issue about which we need to be concerned is not whether the exclusive relationships of couples who either do not wish, or are presently unable, to express publicly a long-term relationship can be recognised; the real issue is whether this legislation would affect levels of promiscuity. It is levels of promiscuity that public policy should be concerned with. By the way, the institution of marriage has not eradicated promiscuity completely, but there is no doubt that it has reduced it. Within the homosexual population there are no such incentives. Without a public recognition process, the incentives towards exclusive relationships are lessened. My contention is that this legislation will, over time, reduce multiple relationships within the gay community, with concomitant health and social benefits, because it incentivises long-term, exclusive relationships.

There is no doubt that this legislation will change the social fabric of our society—I believe for the better, but others may disagree. This being a conscience vote, the result should reflect the conscience of the nation. However, there can be no denying the political agendas that will determine many people’s decisions. Political consideration, in many cases, will override principles. The question I ask is whether, with legislation such as this, the final determination should be made by the people of the country. Even if it is the will of this House to proceed with this legislation, should not such a decision be ratified by the public of New Zealand? I believe so. Therefore, I give notice that I will be seeking an amendment later on in the process, to add to the legislation a clause like the one Peter Brown had in his voluntary euthanasia bill that will require a referendum to be held at the next election, and only if that referendum were passed would this legislation become law.

What is not being told to the public is that, at present, the law discriminates in some cases against married couples, in favour of same-sex partners. This comes about because gay couples are treated as individuals when it comes to benefits, superannuation, student allowances, etc. The two unemployed owners of the dog that savaged young Carolina Anderson, for example, receive from the State much more than a married couple does. This Civil Union Bill is the precursor of the bill that will eradicate some of those circumstances that discriminate, believe it or not—and it has been mentioned—against marriage and married couples, in favour of same-sex relationships. Therefore, I argue that many of the things that have been said in this House do not make any sense.

To finalise, I will be voting for this legislation. In doing so, I hope I will be able to light the candles of many New Zealanders who, for so long, have been forced to live in the dark.

I oppose this bill, as do 11 members of New Zealand First, including the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I am a simple sort of person. I have listened to some of the speeches here today from members about how this legislation would affect their marriages, and whether they should take their marriages into account. If I were really concerned about my marriage, and if all of us married people were really concerned about our marriages, we would not be members of Parliament, because it puts the greatest strain on marriage of anything. I believe that members talking about their marriages is absolutely irrelevant to this legislation. We show how much at risk we place our marriages by being here in the first place.

As I say, I am a simple sort of person. I looked in The Concise Oxford Dictionary to see what a marriage is meant to be. It stated it is the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together, and, often, to have children. I just happen to regard that that is what marriage is meant to be. If people do not want to get married today—and many people do not—they can live in a de facto relationship. If people want to have a civil union, they can go to the registry office, sign up, and be married, because that is all that this bill does—it takes away the reference to the Marriage Act, and refers to a civil union. There is no difference between entering into a de facto civil union and getting married in a registry office. So there is a lot of camouflage behind this bill and behind some of the statements that have been made today.

Of course, I was concerned that members are saying that marriage is purely a Christian concept. We know that it is a Hindu concept and a Muslim concept. I was disappointed that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs did not make that point, as well, and that the Greens suggested that marriage was somehow only a Christian matter. I will be very interested to see how the Muslim member of this House votes on this issue, knowing what the Koran has to say about the concept of marriage.

Quite simply, I believe that marriage, the living together of a man and a woman, sets some sort of standard in society. I think this type of legislation reduces standards in society. I think that our role as members of Parliament is to try to set standards in society, not to reduce standards in society.

Over the years I have been very concerned about the way in which homosexual legislation has been introduced into this House. I have been concerned about the relationship property legislation. I have been concerned about the way in which immigration regulations have been specifically changed by the Labour Party Government to encourage and permit, by definition and reference to lesbians and homosexuals, lesbians and homosexuals specifically to come into New Zealand. That is clearly Labour Party policy. This bill is another part of the agenda. The Civil Union Bill is supporting homosexuals and lesbians. I do not call them “gays”, because I can see nothing “gay”, or happy, about a homosexual or lesbian relationship. In my view, it is another distortion of the English language. I am a simple sort of bloke, and, for me, “gay” is being happy, not being homosexual or lesbian. That is my way of looking at “gay”. I would say that “distortion” aptly describes the situation and the use of the word.

That is really all I want to say about the matter. I support family life being that of a man and a woman. I cannot believe that two males, or two females, can have the same degree of enjoyment of life as a man and a woman can. Two males, or two females, will never know, but as a man living with a woman in a heterosexual relationship I am sure that my way of life is infinitely better than the others.

The Progressive caucus—Jim Anderton and myself—had no problems in supporting this bill from the beginning, once we knew the details of it. It is quite a simple measure for us, as our policy is to oppose all forms of oppressive discrimination; that is what both this bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill do, and that is why we support them.

I have heard a number of comments today on the nature of marriage being the same for thousands of years. That is absolute nonsense. I direct those people to read a book like The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels, and have a look at how the shape and form of marriage have changed over thousands of years. From primitive communism through to slave society, through to feudal society, through to capitalism, it has changed its shape at a number of times and in a number of ways. In fact, the big role of this Parliament in terms of women’s rights has been to turn marriage from an oppressive institution that treated women as second-class citizens, as property, into one as close to equality as we can get—and there is still a long way to go.

On the question of homosexual rights, it has been the role of this Parliament finally to recognise thousands of years of persecution, oppression, and downright discrimination in every form that one can find it. When we have risen to the occasion and recognised discrimination for what it is we have been a noble Parliament. But when we clothe our opposition in sanctimonious talk about the joys of all forms of marriage, then we are purely ignoring our history. To New Zealanders in same-sex relationships or different-sex relationships who have the closest and most intimate relations but have often been legal strangers, these bills will bring justice. They also complete the obligations that Parliament set itself in the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to remove discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status. We also meet our obligations in international law to remove oppressive discrimination wherever we find it.

This legislation is in the tradition of a long line of measures to lift social, economic, and political discrimination. Whether Parliament was looking at universal suffrage, in terms of the right of everybody in New Zealand over a certain age to vote, whether it was looking at providing votes for women, or whether it was repealing the Blasphemy Act, which was used to suppress freedom of speech, Parliament acted nobly. When we brought in legislation such as the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 we brought in repressive legislation that took away people’s rights. When we brought in the Employment Contracts Act of 1990 we brought in repressive legislation against workers rightly organising to promote the needs of their own members. What this Parliament is doing is in the tradition of Parliaments that look to remove discrimination.

I would also ask all members in this Parliament who are running a ruler over legislation or practices to see whether they are discriminatory to have a look at other legislation that we are bringing in. I remind members that a bill has been tabled called the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. That bill hits at the rights of migrants in New Zealand. The Security Intelligence Service of New Zealand will be able to go to a Minister and say that New Zealanders who have travel documents and passports are a threat. When we look at anti-discriminatory legislation, at legal rights, let us have some consistency in our legislation.

Finally, what actually strengthens relationships, whether relationships under the Civil Union Bill or those in the nature of marriage, whether originating in a civil registration ceremony or in a religious ceremony, is the support that society gives them. Therefore, legislation like the 4 weeks’ leave provision and the Families Commission Act, and practices, policies, and Budgets such as we have had that aim at ending poverty and lifting up everybody in New Zealand to a situation where they are independent and able to protect and help their families, are truly the types of legislation and policies that mean that we remove discrimination in New Zealand.

Listening to the arguments in the House today certainly reminds one that this really is the House of Representatives. It also reminds one that we are capable of conducting a debate of substance on matters of importance. This is a House in which all citizens are to be represented. The bills that are before the House this afternoon—the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill—are an important step in giving full legal recognition, and thus full citizenship rights, to a sector in our community that has experienced harassment and discrimination for far too long: the gay and lesbian community. Since 1993 the Human Rights Act has recognised that family status, marital status, and sexual orientation were grounds of discrimination. That placed an obligation on this House and on the Government to reform the law in order to remove discrimination on those grounds, which are unjustifiable in terms of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This Civil Union Bill is part of the fulfilment of that obligation. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the other part of that fulfilment.

What does the Civil Union Bill do? The purpose clause states that it enables two people to formalise their relationship by entering into a civil union. That means any two people who are not already married can publicly and formally affirm their commitment to each other. I support this bill, because I believe every citizen has the right to express his or her commitment to another person in a formal and public way. I also respect those who want to express that commitment in the form of a marriage as defined in the Marriage Act. I do not, however, believe that respect for marriage should prevent those who do not choose to marry, or who are legally barred from marrying because of their sexual orientation, from expressing their commitment to each other publicly. The question for the House is how to respect the rights of all citizens to formally make that commitment, without causing harm or detriment to others. The Civil Union Bill, lying alongside, as it does, the Marriage Act, provides the legal way in which all citizens can affirm their commitment to each other. It is the inclusive way to address a real, heartfelt need of those people who have for too long been excluded from formalising publicly their commitment to one other.

Opponents of the bill ask what the difference is between this legislation and the Marriage Act. The difference is obvious: the Marriage Act applies only to heterosexual couples. The opponents of the Civil Union Bill feel strongly that that should remain so. The Government respects that view, which is why there is no proposal to change that Act. Respect for the view of those New Zealanders who want to keep marriage as defined in the Marriage Act should not, however, be used to prevent gay and lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples who choose to do so, from being able to make their own public, formal commitment to each other. The Civil Union Bill is about this House being a place all people can come to for just laws. It is the only place, in fact, to which people can come. Gay and lesbian couples have been to the courts, and to the international institutions. They have been told to come to this House.

The Civil Union Bill is an expression of how we as a House of Parliament can, through the advocacy of representatives in this House, enact just laws. When the argument and plea is made for laws that will recognise and promote loving relationships, this House is under an obligation to listen and to act in a way that enables the best of human aspirations, love and commitment, to be supported and promoted. That is why I support this bill.