Relationships (Statutory References) Bill

This legislation and the bill that has just been referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee are fundamentally flawed, because they are based on two quite flawed assumptions. It is a fiction that all relationships are the same. De facto, same-sex, and married relationships are different. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. It does not always last the distance, but it is based on that ideal, and that ideal deserves recognition in law. The second fiction in the bills assumes a sort of sexless society, in which men and women are not only equal—and I agree with that—but the same. In Labour’s eyes it just makes no difference whether a couple is two men, two women, or a man and a women—it is all the same. But those couples are fundamentally different, because a man and a woman are the foundation of a family—of a new generation and a future for our society. I openly accept that there is a private good associated with all sorts of relationships, but there is also a public good when it comes to marriage and the relationship between a man and a woman, and that is why it should be accorded a higher status in law than other relationships. There has been a huge focus in the debate this afternoon on the issue of gay relationships, but far more significant in numerical terms is what this bill says in respect of de facto relationships. We are talking about 400,000 or 500,000 New Zealanders who live in de facto relationships, and fewer than 10,000 who are in gay relationships. I want to focus on the significance of those changes in respect of this debate.

A couple of myths are being perpetrated by the Government in this debate. The spin doctors in the Prime Minister’s office are saying that this is not a gay marriage bill. I say it is, in every single sense. The registration of marriages and civil unions will be the same, the process for celebrants will be the same, the process of exclusion from marriages and civil unions is absolutely identical, the process for divorce is the same, the issue of bigamy and the penalties for that are the same, and there are exactly the same rights in respect of children. If we look at the 19 specific Acts that are to be amended, we see every single Act—dealing with births, deaths, and marriages, family proceedings, child support, insurance—will state, in effect, that de facto relationships, same-sex relationships, and marriage are exactly the same. The Minister, Mr Benson-Pope, is saying there is a difference between them, because civil unions will not have a religious connotation. I am sorry, but we have had marriages by registrars in this country for decades, so that is not a difference. There has already been a recognition by the churches that some will allow civil unions. The last difference that the Minister attempts to hang his hat on is that the words “marriage”, “husband”, and “wife” are not used in the civil union legislation or in these de facto provisions. That is an argument over semantics. A civil union and a marriage will be synonymous in law; there will be no difference. I simply put it this way: if something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck it probably is a duck, and calling it a web-footed bird does not change anything.

The reality is revealed fully in this Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. It actually states that the terms “marriage”, “civil union”, and “de facto” are to be completely interchangeable. It states that the terms “wife”, “de facto partner” and “same-sex partner” are to be treated similarly within the law, and it states “spouse” will mean all the above terms. That is radical social engineering, and those who say it will make no difference to society are trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and culture in respect of marriage and the family. We are emasculating the family by making it into such a diverse range of arrangements that it will become meaningless.

I have also heard the argument that by making de facto and same-sex relationships the same in law as marriage, we are not somehow downgrading marriage. That is bunkum. It is the same argument that the Government put up with regard to School Certificate. If we say that everybody gets School Certificate, whether a person is any good or not, does that downgrade it for those who do pass? Of course it does. The Government’s approach in education and in social policy is the same: everybody is just the same, we are not allowed to have difference, and there is to be no judgment about that which is good and that which is better. The truth is that giving the same legal status to marriage and to same-sex and de facto relationships does downgrade marriage. Quite simply, why would anyone bother to get legally married, if under this legislation one can get all the benefits of that and, what is more, one can walk out of it tomorrow if one is in a de facto relationship? The tap can be turned on and off with a de facto relationship. The difference between a marriage relationship and a de facto relationship is that one is entered into with a commitment of permanence, whereas the other can be turned off tomorrow. That is why they should be treated differently in law.

There is an even more important dimension than that. I challenge this Parliament to reflect on what is in the best interests of children, because we know that that is in the long-term interest of society as a whole. We know from all the social statistics that despite all the attacks that this Government has made on the traditional family, it is the traditional family that out-performs every other relationship in terms of the statistics that matter for children. Child abuse figures are markedly lower for stable, long-term relationships. If we look at issues like the immunisation rate, the figures on educational achievement, the figures on youth suicide, and the other figures on health and well-being, we see the fact is that children do best in long-term, committed relationships. If we are serious about addressing some of the woeful statistics that this country has in respect of children, then we as a Parliament need to support the very institution, marriage and the family, that can make for doing that.

I want to challenge Government members. The onus is on them to prove that this legislation will make for a better society. I concede, quite openly, that there are single-parent families that do a damn good job, and there are also gay couples that do a good job of raising their children. But the statistics show us that, on average, committed, long-term relationships are far better for children than other relationships. Research in the UK, in Sweden, and in the United States, and even our own domestic research in New Zealand, shows us that. I challenge the Minister to put the case as to how increasing the recognition of de facto relationships, by saying that de facto partners will enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage without making that long-term commitment, will benefit children. I say that it will not.

I want to make a further point. The other point that comes out very strongly in the social research is the importance of children having both a mother and a father. We have a social tragedy going on in New Zealand, in which thousands of children—principally boys, but girls too—do not have a male role model. I come back to the point I made at the beginning—men and women are different but equal. Children need to have a relationship with a father as well as a mother. This bill undermines the important long-term relationships that make for stable families.

I will put it quite plainly. I have no difficulty in providing for the legal recognition of de facto relationships. They are a reality. But what I object to in this bill is the approach that says that all relationships are the same. To say that a commitment for life—a long-term commitment that states one will try throughout one’s life, and through all its ups and downs, to stick together—is the same as just moving in with someone is a mistaken view. I say that Parliament should not suspend its judgment. It should put de facto and same-sex relationships on a different footing from marriage. That is not what this bill does.

I agree with much of what the Hon Nick Smith has just said. I will not go over that ground again, but I do endorse what he said about marriage being quite different from a de facto arrangement. That difference should be recognised. In my view, marriage should be put on a pedestal, and nurtured and encouraged. I do not deny that there is some merit in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, particularly if the Civil Union Bill goes through. But it is a contentious bill. It represents a very sensitive area of society, and it is my view that such legislation should have the support of, and a mandate from, the public at large, rather than just be passed into legislation at the behest of a majority of 120 MPs. I do not think that that is a fair go. Some people will argue that certain bills have to be handled by Parliament because the public will always vote against them, and that is true. If there were to be a referendum on taxation, I do not think any member of the public would vote for increased taxes, or whatever—and it is the same with law and order, safety, highway safety, and those sorts of things. I think those matters are the responsibility of Parliament to push through in a proper and an appropriate manner. But this bill and the Civil Union Bill will actually change the values of society, and actually change what average New Zealanders think about the society they live in. That is a huge issue in itself.

I listened to Judith Collins in the earlier debate, and I think she touched on the issue very well. She said that if there has to be a debate on homosexual marriage, let us have it. Let us have the debate on that. But let us not have a Civil Union Bill and this accompanying legislation, which is, in fact, a disguise for the debate on homosexual marriage. We all know that the pressure to push this and the preceding bill through the House has come from the gay community. I am hesitant to use that word with my colleague next door, because he is a little old-fashioned, like me, and he thinks that people who are gay are happy people. They probably are, but the word “gay” has been somewhat hijacked by the homosexual community.

I have had literally hundreds of letters on this and the preceding bill. Not many of them were standard letters—some were, but not many. Most of the standard letters were from people who supported this bill. Most of the mail I received against this bill was made up of individual letters or emails crafted by people who were expressing their concern about it. I have done a provisional check, and those letters are running at nine to one against this and the preceding legislation. Yet the members of this Government sit over there on the other side of the House and do not bother even to listen to those people.

I was encouraged by my colleague Brian Donnelly’s speech on the Civil Union Bill. He supported it going to the select committee, but he said that if it comes back to the House he will move an amendment to make it subject to a binding public referendum. If he does not do that, I will do so, for both this bill and the Civil Union Bill. I know that New Zealand First’s commitment to citizens initiated referenda is strong; it is a strong commitment that we have made. I am hopeful that when the Civil Union Bill comes back to the House, and when this bill, if it passes its first reading, comes back to the House, other members will say that they want the public at large to have a say on this legislation. I hope they will want the public to determine whether we are to enact legislation that will change society’s values in a very significant way.

I will be voting against this bill, because it sits very, very uncomfortably with me. But my principal reason for voting against it is that the people who put me here in Parliament have made it quite clear that that is their view. They have told me in no uncertain terms that as MPs, we represent them and we should not impose legislation on them.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is interesting legislation. I saw the bill for the first time only on Tuesday. That is the amount of time one gets in Parliament to look at legislation. I was asked how I would vote on it. Not having seen it, obviously, I could not say, but now I have had a chance to look at it. It is called the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, but it amends over 100 Acts of Parliament. I do not think people getting in to this debate realise just how wide-reaching this legislation will be. A hundred Acts will be affected by the two bills that are before us today.

In the light of my past legal experience, I have looked at some of the Acts that will be amended. For example, one of the most contentious Acts to do with families, the Family Protection Act of 1955, will be amended by schedule 13. Schedule 13 is a very secret schedule, because if one did not look at it closely, one would not realise that 86 statutes are being amended in that schedule alone.

The amendment to the Family Protection Act, which is the Act that comes into effect when people die and there is an argument about their estate, also changes the definition of “child of a marriage”. There are enough arguments in family protection situations today without the type of amendment here, which repeals the definition of “stepchild”. That definition can be awkward enough, but the new definition states: “stepchild, in relation to any deceased person, means any person—(a) who is not a child of the deceased, but is a child of—(i) the deceased’s husband, wife, or civil union partner; or (ii) a de facto partner who was living in a de facto relationship with the deceased at the date of his or her death”.

I mention the de facto issue because there are people who live in de facto relationships intentionally. They do not want to get married. That is why they entered into the de facto relationship. There are about 100 amendments in the bill that affect de facto status. This bill should not be called the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, but the “Labour Party Wanting to Change the Way of Life of New Zealanders, Whether They Like It or Not Bill”. People who have entered into a de facto relationship willingly, and who do not want to get married or be in a civil union, will be told by this legislation: “You’re going to have it, brother and sister, whether you like it or not.” The old socialist machine will tell people in New Zealand what to do, whether they like it or not. This bill rams civil union down the throats of de facto couples, whether they like it or not.

Every amendment brings in the de facto couple. I could not believe it! As I say, I have had the bill only since Tuesday, but if members read schedule 13 they will see that time and time again, as in the “stepchild” definition I have just read out, de facto couples in New Zealand are being told by the Labour Party that they are caught by this legislation. They are caught by it even though they intentionally went out to live in a de facto relationship and decided to have that freedom in their lifestyles by not being married or being in an unhappy homosexual or lesbian relationship, as I call them. Whether we like it or not, this bill will make sure that all those hundred-plus amendments will apply to them. Boy, do we lawyers not make a lot of money from the Family Protection Act! Those lawyers will be saying thank you to the Labour Party and the members who support this legislation, because they will make a whole lot more.

That is one example. There are other examples that will interest lawyers who, I am sure, will want to have a close look at this legislation. Personal property legislation, concerning protection of personal property and property rights when mum and dad get older and want to give enduring power of attorney to others, is just another that is affected.

I mentioned the Immigration Act in my speech on the Civil Union Bill. Naturally enough, the Labour Party wants to encourage immigrants to New Zealand who are homosexual and lesbian. That is their way of doing it. We have a declining birth rate, but they want lesbians and homosexuals to come here. Lawyers should have a close look at the bill. I doubt that it will ever come out of the Justice and Electoral Committee, it is so complicated.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the operational companion to the Civil Union Bill. It amends the existing law to ensure that the law applies equally to couples whether married or in a civil union, whether heterosexual or homosexual. The Greens are very pleased to support this bill, just as we did the Civil Union Bill. Green Party policy states that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partnerships are equally entitled to respect and support. Legal partnership arrangements and rights should therefore be extended to same-sex couples.

New Zealanders with a sexual orientation or gender identity different from that of the majority include people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, transgender, inter-sexed, takatāpui, and fa’afafine. Those New Zealanders are a significant group in our society that has been marginalised through legislative barriers, institutional discrimination, and casual prejudice. Some research suggests that those groups together constitute anything between 4 and 10 percent of the total New Zealand population. In the 2001 census, over 10,000 New Zealanders identified themselves as being part of a same-sex couple.

The provisions in this bill will eliminate unjust legislative barriers that cause unnecessary harm to members of our community. For example, the Burial and Cremation Act requires that only close members of the family—for example, a husband and a wife—may be buried together. No contractual arrangements or personal agreements between same-sex or de facto couples can override the legislation. For no good reason, this legislative anomaly causes extraordinary hardship to citizens of this country in times of crisis.

Another example is where a next of kin is needed to make serious and sometimes lifesaving decisions when significant medical issues arise. Many gay and lesbian people and couples have expressed their utter frustration and despair that their life partners are legally unable to make those serious decisions for them when they themselves are unable to. There is absolutely no justification for this legislative barrier that causes so much harm to people. The Greens are also aware that other members of the community who would want those next-of-kin decisions made by people other than their close family should also be able to identify a specific person as the next of kin. We are keen to see an additional simple next-of-kin register available to everyone in our community.

But this bill will not just confer equal rights on same-sex couples; it will also eliminate the very limited amount of preferential treatment that some same-sex couples are now entitled to. One example is welfare payments, where gays and lesbians in same-sex relationships are individually entitled to benefits. The Greens understand that this is something of a trade-off, but we also want to highlight the very serious and significant broader debate around welfare reform. In our view, the whole welfare system should be built on principles of universality, simplicity, and equity. We consider it important to look at rewriting the whole Social Security Act, and to look very closely at all the issues around benefit payments to people in a marriage, a civil union, or a relationship in the nature of marriage—a specific set of requirements just around the Social Security Act.

Because there are negative as well as positive implications for couples in this bill, it is extremely important that there is a long lead-in period to ensure that people have the opportunity to consider their living arrangements, partnership arrangements, and relationships, so that they make the best decisions about the way they want to construct their relationships in the future in light of these legislative changes.

The bill does have some flaws, which the Greens would like addressed in the select committee. One example is that it still continues legislative discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in some circumstances. For example, under the Citizenship Act, a married person’s spouse is entitled to citizenship where that spouse has been in New Zealand for 2 years or more, but the spouse in a gay or lesbian relationship—whether that person has been in New Zealand for 2 years or 20 years—is not automatically entitled to citizenship. That is a continuation of a legislative barrier and discrimination against gay and lesbian people. It is unjustified, and the Greens would like to see some work done on that issue in the select committee.

We also note that there remains a restriction on the adoption of children, and that only married couples are able to adopt children. This again is a continuation of an unjust and serious discrimination against gay and lesbian couples who, for a variety of reasons, might want to adopt children. There is, of course, a serious question here about the fact that stable, committed, and exclusive relationships are very important and form the basis of our community structures. This legislation is designed to support those stable, committed, and exclusive relationships, and apply the law equally to them.

The Greens will be supporting this bill, recognising both the trade-offs in it, and the continued legislative anomalies carried through in it. We hope those issues will be addressed in the select committee.

I rise for the ACT party to speak to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. As was explained by earlier speakers, this is a very large piece of law, which amends scores of other statutes. It is a companion to the Civil Union Bill, but it stands alone. It does an awful lot more than the Civil Union Bill, which is simply a very long form of gay marriage provision, which could have been done by removing three words from the Marriage Act.

What this bill does is stated in the explanatory note. The Government’s own statement says: “The Government’s objective is to have neutral laws on relationships that apply across the board, whether those relationships are marriages, de facto relationships, or same-sex relationships.” “Neutral laws on relationships that apply across the board”? That is very significant because those relationships are fundamentally different. Marriage relationships involve people who have specifically chosen to opt into a whole regime of law that defines their rights and responsibilities to each other. People who have de facto relationships may have equally chosen that they do not want the same rights and obligations as married couples. It is very simple and easy for them to get them; they have chosen not to. But this Government says it wants neutral laws.

Well, “neutral” is a euphemism. We see what a euphemism it is in the next section of the explanatory note: “As a result of this Bill, the same legal rights and responsibilities will apply to married, de facto … and civil union relationships. People’s choices and relationships will be protected,”—I emphasise “protected”—“and legislation will be amended so that it does not unjustifiably discriminate …”. So people’s choices will be protected by a law that says to them that even when they choose not to be married, they will be made to be in exactly the same position as people who choose to be married.

I will oppose this bill. I believe that my colleagues will oppose this bill—if not its going to a select committee, then, certainly, after it has come back—because it is simply dishonest in conception. As a liberal party that believes that adults should be free to choose their relationships, ACT objects to a Government that says to people that, irrespective of their choice, it will make them all have the same responsibilities and the same privileges in relationship to each other. This bill is all of a piece with the law that the House passed in 2001 that compulsorily shares the property of everyone who has lived together for 3 or more years. That law is as arrogant and as oppressive as this bill.

This bill is going to be a huge effort to wade through. It will be very hard for people to understand the consequences, unless they are lawyers or intimately involved, but we will have to do that, if this bill is referred to a select committee. I do not want to waste the time, and I will be voting against its referral, for that reason.

When I was earlier addressing this issue, and said that the Civil Union Bill was very simple and I did wish it to go to a select committee so that we could raise the question of what a proper marriage is, or what a marriage that satisfied those who are concerned about it should have, I ended by suggesting that I would welcome the debate over gay marriage. But this bill is not trivial. This bill might be the last in a long line of laws that have, at least, accompanied the destruction of the mum and dad family, and left literally hundreds of thousands of our children without it. Whether it is cause and effect is a matter for proper research and debate. I suspect that with some of the stream of laws starting in the 1970s with the Matrimonial Property Act and no-fault divorce, and going through to the anti-discrimination provisions in 1993, to Margaret Wilson’s compulsory marriage of de factos in terms of the economic partnership that is involved, and to the social welfare legislation that prejudices the married couple, we can see some very good reasons for thinking there is a link. This bill is not a trifle.

But I would respect the Maxim Institute and the thousands of genuinely concerned submitters more if they would focus their submissions and their debate on what they want marriage to be, rather than simply attacking those—particularly the gays—who are asking to share in it. I suggest that marriage is a legal ruin and they should be planning a rebuild. The parliamentary time and emotional energy should be applied to restoring marriage and choice, to rebuilding the legal mechanisms that can give real meaning to marriage vows. Those people should, as a start, demand back the right to commitment. The fashionable folk who have been in charge of this social policy for the last 30 years have emptied marriage promises of all enforceability. For the benefit of New Zealand First, I say they have been like the foreign owners of Tranz Rail that emptied that company of money, then moved on. Our social engineers have emptied marriage of meaning, and now they are moving on to civil union and de factos.

What should the defenders of genuine marriage be doing, instead of trying to stop others from sharing it? They should be restoring it as a contract. Through the centuries, the only contracts that the courts would not enforce were those that were unlawful or deemed to be against public policy, like gambling contracts or contracts to commit crime. Then we had the do-gooders in an unholy union with feminism and the let-it-all-hang-out generation that I am a part of, and marriage, which was once a contract with the most serious sanctions for a breach of it, and with enforcement mechanisms, both legal and social, that all cultures had, was emptied. It has been put in the same basket as a contract to procure a prostitute or to print a fraudulent book.

What do we need? We need to respect people’s choices. We do not need to impose them on everyone. There should be no requirement to impose marriage obligations, or marriage-like obligations, or property sharing on people who choose not to marry. We ought to respect them and allow them to choose to do it if they wish.

Let us look at a parallel. Ms Wilson, who presided over the debacle in 2001, thinks there is a set of relationships that requires utmost good faith, a set of relationships that she is quite happy to dive into and assign fault in hindsight, a set of relationships where the clean-break principle, she has decided, has no application, and a set of relationships from which thousands of people are now making a handsome living out of the crying over spilt milk, and that is employment contracts. We have got it all back to front. Employment contracts are surrounded by personal grievance mechanisms that explore every grizzle, while marriage—a far more important contract—has been left without any sanction against even the most cold-blooded breach. Well, I hope that if this measure does go through, we will look at some of those issues.

The coercive powers of the State should not be employed in either side of a debate over contentious morality, but they should be employed to uphold the free choices of adults. They should not be employed to suppress the normal interplay of argument and social and economic sanctions that mould and reinforce cultural rules and institutions. That is what the Human Rights Act does. In 1993 it became illegal to favour marriage or married couples. It may be quite right that the State should be precluded from picking favourites—I can see an argument that even there the State should recognise the evidence in favour of marriage—but in prohibiting private individuals from favouring marriage, or discouraging those who spurn marriage, by refusing to allow any form of discrimination, positive or negative, we are committing cultural vandalism.

Those 1993 law changes should be one of the first targets of any genuine reform of our marriage law. This bill is worse than tinkering. This bill simply takes us further down the track that we should never have started down.

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.