Civil Union Bill

In this debate, I will be doing two things. First, as this is an important conscience debate I will not allow interjections. I think the speeches must be heard in silence. We must allow people who have differing points of view to put their case, and to put their case as they wish to put it. Secondly, I will be calling members from parties in the usual order for Government bills. I know there are more members who wish to participate in the debate than there are speaking slots available. I therefore remind members that a 10-minute call can be shared with another member of the same party—see Standing Order 117(2). Members may wish to share their call and have two 5-minute calls instead of one 10-minute call. I would appreciate knowing at the start of the particular speech if they wish to do that.

I move, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a second time. New Zealand is justifiably proud of its record on issues of human rights. It was over 11 years ago that New Zealand passed the Human Rights Act, which outlawed discrimination on the grounds of family status, marital status, and sexual orientation. This bill is one of the most important pieces of human rights legislation to be considered by the House since. Today we have an opportunity to stop talking the talk, and to walk into the reality of that shared vision for this country.

The Civil Union Bill is not about being politically correct. It is about doing the correct thing—period. It is about human rights, and recognising and valuing the choices of people within our society. Saying no to civil unions is to say that it is OK to discriminate against people who choose for whatever reason not to marry, or who, in fact, cannot marry. Saying no to civil unions is to say some relationships are “first-class”, but other loving, committed, stable relationships are, for some inexplicable reason, of lesser value. Saying no to civil unions is saying some people deserve only the seats in the back of the bus. And I find that an intolerable proposition.

The Civil Union Bill enables couples, both opposite-sex and same-sex, to formalise their relationships in a way legally equivalent to marriage. Couples have said there are many reasons for deciding that marriage is not appropriate for them. What we know for certain, however, is that over 330,000 New Zealanders—one in five of all New Zealanders living in a relationship—have not married. For these couples the availability of a civil union will offer choice. It will also offer certainty about their relationship status.

We should not be surprised, however, that much more emphasis has been placed not on what the Civil Union Bill offers opposite-sex couples but, rather, on what it offers same-sex couples. Same-sex couples do not have the option of marriage. So it is no surprise that for them the availability of civil union takes on an even greater importance. These are New Zealanders in loving relationships, often relationships that they have been in for decades, but who throughout that time have been denied the opportunity to make a legally recognised public declaration of their commitment.

Human beings describe themselves by, and their identity is very closely bound to, the relationships they have. Discrimination against people by denying recognition of their most important relationship is a heavy burden indeed. Love, trust, intimacy, and commitment are to be found at the heart of all good relationships. There is no good argument for allowing only opposite-sex couples to formalise their relationships, and to deny that right to same-sex couples.

Denise Irvine, in a recent Waikato Times article, encapsulated this principle with feeling and sensitivity. On learning that a distant family member was gay but, tragically, had never been able to live openly as a gay man, she wrote: “I also learnt that gay men and women are not ‘others’, not people with no faces and no names who should live on the margins, spoken of as some amorphous flock who will destroy our very existence. Those who oppose the Civil Union Bill have frequently talked about its dire effect on families. And yet, gay men and women are family. They’re much loved sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, cousins, aunts and uncles, part of the inner circle, not the outer.” This House must seize this opportunity to support family and say plainly that no one deserves to be excluded simply because of his or her sexual orientation.

I am aware that there are those, often motivated by religious convictions, who believe that same-sex intimate relationships are immoral, and that those relationships should be discouraged at every turn. They are, of course, entitled to hold such views, and to express them. As we tolerate the right of this minority to disagree—and let us be clear that they are quite a small minority of New Zealanders—I would welcome, as would this community, a reciprocal tolerance. Not all people of religious belief, I hasten to add, feel this way. The Superintendent of the Dunedin Methodist Parish, the Rev. Ken Russell, recently wrote: “The Civil Union Bill is not about morals, but about justice before the law. I for one heartily support a measure that encourages, empowers and protects couples who want to make their relationships loving, long term, stable and committed. We embrace such relationships among our Parish. They threaten none of us but embrace and enrich us all.” As one of the submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee said: “People who speak against the bill don’t know lesbians and gays in relationships. Their comments are based on fear.” It is time for that small section of society with strong feelings against the lifestyles of same-sex couples to stop being afraid.

Regardless of the sincerity of such beliefs, or those people’s strength of conviction, it is the duty of the State to reflect the much wider interests of our society and the common values of fairness and tolerance that bind us together. These points have not escaped many of New Zealand’s opinion writers. The Press wrote: “The emotive accusations about the erosion of marriage will be shown to have been so much scaremongering. Most fair-minded New Zealanders will instead see the measure as either no big deal or as a positive affirmation of both choice and tolerance.” The Nelson Mail wrote: “Homophobic reaction aside, the Civil Union Bill is about acceptance. It is about recognising differences and letting people be themselves. For that reason it should be backed.” The Otago Daily Times wrote: “The Civil Union Bill acknowledges long-standing societal realities: that couples do live together; that children are sometimes born outside of formal marriage; and that discrimination is unlawful and morally repugnant.” The Marlborough Express wrote: “Parliament, like society, is made up of all sorts of people—gay, heterosexual and transsexual. They are single, married, separated and divorced. They have to be tolerant of one another’s differing views in the House. Supporting the bill would show they are also tolerant of others as they go about their lives.” Finally, the New Zealand Herald wrote: “Parliament should pass this bill, conscious of all the social implications. It will be a landmark for human rights and its time has arrived.”

Nor have these points escaped New Zealanders themselves. The most recent poll, the Herald-DigiPoll of 2 October, showed that only 39 percent of New Zealanders opposed the introduction of civil unions. In fact, that figure shows little change from other polls earlier in the year, which showed only a third of New Zealanders were uneasy with civil unions.

As one commentator put it, this is a bill appropriate to its times. That is because what is being proposed here is neither particularly radical, nor particularly unusual, in a local or international context. Only recently, same-sex couples across England, Wales, and Northern Ireland gained the right to publicly register their relationship in a similar manner to what is being proposed here, when a vote in the House of Lords was passed by a majority of 251 votes to 136. Scotland is expected to adopt such a law in the near future. Indeed, over the past 15 years we have seen a growing number of liberal democratic societies introducing statutory registration arrangements. The trend has also started to become apparent in English-speaking countries with which New Zealand commonly compares its legal and political institutions: Canada, Australia, and the United States.

President George Bush, while strongly of the view that marriage is only for a man and a woman—which is, and will remain, the law in New Zealand—said on 25 October this year that he felt same-sex couples should have the right to civil unions, if states where they live make that possible. I quote: “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do.” As the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill, discovered, New Zealand’s approach is moderate and entirely in keeping with international trends.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the select committee, its chair—Tim Barnett—and my predecessor, the Hon Lianne Dalziel, for all the work they have put in, not only in regard to this bill but also in regard to its companion legislation, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The bills were considered together because they are a package tightly connected. Together, they provide statutory and non-statutory recognition of, and protection to, this new relationship status. The committee has recommended relatively few amendments to the bill. But those it has recommended have, I think, significantly improved it.

The passage of this bill, together with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, will mark the culmination of a long march, marked by the passage of the Human Rights Act in 1993 and, even before that, the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1984. This journey has taken us beyond a situation in which homosexual activity was criminalised, through what has at times been only a grudging tolerance of same-sex couples, through to the point where same-sex couples will finally be accorded genuinely equal respect and recognition.

I am aware that there are those who contend that this bill is simply catering to the demands of a small minority. On the contrary, what this bill does is extend to that minority rights that most of us take for granted. The passage of this bill will remove a form of discrimination that is keenly felt by Kiwis who have been living quietly in long-term, loving, same-sex relationships in our communities. The passage of this bill will help to foster a positive human rights culture in which human beings, regardless of their sexual orientation, are shown the dignity and respect to which they are entitled. The passage of this bill will remove a form of discrimination that has no place in the inclusive, tolerant, and open-minded society that New Zealand is. I strongly commend the bill to the House.

When the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill were introduced into the House some months ago, I voted for both of them to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I voted for the Civil Union Bill because I saw merit in same-sex couples having a legal framework within which they could manage their lives and commit to each other. I voted for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill also, because it was clearly a companion to the Civil Union Bill. But I did so with my fingers crossed, because I was, and am, very uneasy about the State deeming de facto couples to be married.

Today I will vote against the Civil Union Bill at its second reading. It is very clear, from the thousands of submissions to the select committee, the large number of people who have spoken to me directly, and the many hundreds of emails and letters I have received, that many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—indeed, probably millions of New Zealanders—see this bill as a major attack on the institution of marriage. Despite the fact that many of us have failed from time to time to honour the institution of marriage in our own behaviour, most people continue to recognise that that institution is fundamental to our society and, in particular, to the nurturing of children. This bill is seen by many New Zealanders as a serious attack on that institution.

More generally, this bill is seen as part of a broader Government agenda to change the moral and social institutions of our society. That makes a great number of New Zealanders very uneasy, indeed. I do not believe that this Parliament should lend its support to that agenda. How is the Government seeking to advance that agenda? Firstly, it seems intent on pushing the bill through Parliament in considerable haste—potentially under urgency next week. Why? It is hard to avoid the impression that the Government is doing so because it is concerned that if this bill drags on in public debate, and, in particular, if it drags on into the election year, it may cost it votes.

Secondly, we should not be changing one of the fundamental institutions of our society on the slimmest of parliamentary majorities. The Government scrapped our links with the Privy Council with a tiny majority. The Government changed the law regarding prostitution on the abstention of a single member. Now it looks likely that if the Civil Union Bill passes at all, it will pass with the slimmest of majorities. For such a major change in our social infrastructure, that simply is not good enough.

Thirdly, we are being asked to vote on this bill without even having the bill’s companion legislation, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, before us in order that we can understand the full implications of what could be involved in passing the Civil Union Bill. The Government rightly introduced the two bills together, but now the second of those pieces of legislation is nowhere to be seen, with talk of it not coming back to the House until well into next year, and possibly not until after the next election. How can any member be expected to vote on the Civil Union Bill without knowing the shape of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill?

Neither members of Parliament nor journalists or commentators have any special knowledge or superior judgment, as compared with our fellow citizens, on such crucial institutions as the family and marriage. Accordingly, I believe that there should be a referendum on this issue, so that all adult New Zealanders have an opportunity to express their view on it. Let me be clear that if a referendum were held, I would vote in favour of allowing same-sex couples to form some kind of legally binding relationship. I am heterosexual, but I am not homophobic. I do not regard homosexuality as a terrible sin, but rather as a predisposition that some people are born with. As far as we are aware, Jesus Christ never spoke of homosexuality, let alone condemned it. But a decision to provide in law what is essentially a form of marriage to same-sex couples is a decision that all adult New Zealanders should have the right to express a view on. For that reason, I will not vote for this bill today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I advise members that it has been indicated to me that the next speech will be a split one. I seek the leave of the House that the 11th call be 5 minutes for National and 5 minutes for New Zealand First. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.

I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered this bill, and I want to acknowledge the hundreds of people who appeared in person and the thousands who made written submissions. I particularly thank those who shared their own thoughts and feelings, rather than copied words off a website designed to present fiction as fact and to invoke fear and loathing in the minds of decent New Zealanders.

I call them decent New Zealanders because I heard each one of them express love for their country, love for their husband or wife, and love for their children, but at the same time they expressed sadness for something intangible, something they felt this bill would take from them. They told us at the Justice and Electoral Committee that their own marriages would not be affected by civil union, but maybe it would change something about the way our country was, in the future. They expressed concern that the Christian teachings, by which they were raising their children, would be undermined by civil union. But I know that the Christian values they teach their children are undermined when they turn on the television set, every day of the week.

I have been saddened by the extent of intolerance extended against one minority by another, and they are a minority. Not one submitter who was opposing the bill told the select committee how he or she had personally been harmed by the existence of gay and lesbian couples in our communities. Therefore, not one submitter was able to warn of any harm that would arise if the State gave recognition to relationships that will continue to exist de facto, rather than de jure, if the law does not pass.

Civil union, like marriage, is not compulsory. It is simply providing an option that does not exist now. Many submitters who came with the Maxim Institute website list of 10 reasons to oppose the Civil Union Bill said the institution of marriage would be undermined by civil union, but none said how. I mention the Maxim Institute because at least it had the integrity to make a submission to the select committee, unlike others who got their children to march against so-called bad people.

I want to comment about people using their children. Here is a fax I received yesterday from someone in my electorate: “Dear Ms Dalziel, re: the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. I need my mum and my dad because they help me a lot with the things I have to do. My mum helps me with my school work. My dad helps out the family by earning money. Please vote against these bills.”—he signed his name—“Age 7”. A 7-year-old was made by his parents to write a letter to his member of Parliament about something he knows nothing of.

It seems as if the strategy was to say that because the majority of New Zealanders support civil union, but oppose gay marriage, let us call it “gay marriage” so that we can build a body of opposition to it. But it is not gay marriage. It provides an alternative to marriage for those who cannot marry because they are the same sex, or choose not to marry for whatever reason.

We heard from the “Maximites” that gay men were more promiscuous than other people, yet they would deny them recognition of the relationship that, surely, like marriage, would support people in committed and long-term relationships. We also heard from the “Maximites” that children needed a mum and a dad, and that this would lead to gay and lesbian couples parenting children. The response is that they already do. Gay and lesbian couples came to the select committee with their children—both young and adult children—who asked us why some people did not want them to call themselves a family. How do we respond to a question like that? They asked for recognition of their relationships for the sake of their children.

The “Maximites” told us that children needed a mother and a father. But as the Justice and Electoral Committee reported, the research either was not relevant to the question or, in fact, they misquoted the outcomes. Children do suffer in same-sex relationship families, but only from the vicarious stigma they inherit from the way their parents are treated by other people.

Then we had the submissions and emails that repeated all the nonsense we heard during the debate on the Human Rights Act in 1993. I said I would read one out if I had time: “Dear member of Parliament, Homophobia, homophobia, if not why not? The Catholic investigation report in the USA reveals that over 80 percent of the paedophiles are homosexuals. Is it an emotional disorder to fear paedophiles? If the homosexual agenda is fully implemented, heaven forbid, then the crime of paedophilia would disappear because one of their stated goals is to legalise paederasty, man-child relationships.” That is the sort of absurd nonsense that has been driving the other side of the debate. I ask members to support the bill.

I am pleased to take a call on the second reading of the Civil Union Bill as another member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. We heard a large number of submissions, and I thank all the submitters for the way they engaged with the members of the select committee; I know that Labour members of the select committee have received a number of emails from submitters, mostly opposed to the bill, thanking us for our engagement with them at the select committee.

This bill is not about marriage. Submitters and members of the committee opposed to this bill were quite clear about what they believed the role and properties of marriage to be. None of them are found in the Marriage Act. The Marriage Act says nothing about the nurturing and raising of children, nothing about being a cornerstone of society, nothing about exclusivity and monogamy—just as well—nothing about love, and nothing about religion. All these are parts of the culture of marriage developed over centuries. Marriage is so much more than the sterile Marriage Act, which does not reflect the modern reality of marriage. So the Civil Union Bill, basing its administrative procedures on the Marriage Act, hardly makes it marriage.

Marriage does not have the monopoly on exclusivity and stability. Many de facto relationships are more exclusive and stable than some marriages. We should be supporting strong, stable relationships, not deciding which strong, stable relationships we like, and which ones we do not like. All relationships are not equal, but it is simplistic and misleading to say “marriage good, de facto bad”. It depends entirely on the individuals in that relationship.

This bill will not have a detrimental effect on marriage. It will be used by those who cannot, and those who will not, marry now. We heard from many in the latter category through oral and written submissions. Denmark has had such legislation since 1989, and far from seeing a disintegration of marriage, its rates have continued to rise unabated, and are now the highest they have been since the early 1970s. In fact, all across Scandinavia, where such laws are common, trends in marriage, cohabitation, single parents, and divorce have been unaffected by the introduction of alternative relationship recognition laws.

Those opposed to this bill claim allowing gay people access to a parallel structure will bring marriage into disrepute. Yet in reality we are not at all choosy about whom we allow to marry. They do not even have to know each other. Let us talk about that for a while. I did a search on some websites: the Maxim Institute, the Destiny New Zealand political party, the Society for Promotion of Community Standards, and the United Future websites.

How many press releases did I find criticising a radio station competition wedding of two people who did not even know each other? None! How many press releases did I find that criticised the marriage of Scott Watson, a convicted murderer, whilst in prison? None! Apparently, it is only when gay people want to do it that all of a sudden there is that grave concern for the reputation of marriage, even where the relationships are as loving and as committed as the best heterosexual unions out there. How would members of this House feel if they were told a murderer was more deserving of relationship rights than they were?

In numerical terms, heterosexual couples stand to benefit the most from this bill, but the focus of the committee was squarely on gay people. Throughout history, gay people have been blamed for everything, from child abuse, to an email I got today blaming them for global warming. It is surreal that in this day and age this Parliament still feels the need to have its proverbial witch to burn at the stake, although it is a lot easier than having to face up to some of the real issues facing New Zealand families in New Zealand society.

I spent months researching many of the issues. Opponents of the bill claim that gay people are not capable of long-term relationships, because somehow they are just different to us monogamous, pure, chaste heterosexuals. Putting aside the obvious conflict that to assume they are wired differently when it comes to monogamy, seems a concession that homosexuality is biological, that is so ridiculous, it is almost funny. I do not know how many long-term committed couples had to appear before our committee before opponents, who claim that they are the exception to the rule, realised that their rule is wrong. They rely on studies from the 1970s, with samples collected in gay pick-up bars, as proof that gays will only bring disrepute to a monogamous institution. Those of us who have gay friends and family, many of whom are in long-term relationships, know that this is not only completely untrue but completely offensive.

Some members of this House say that they do not want to promote gay parenting. Let us put this in perspective. Most gay couples do not have children. American census statistics put the rate at about two per 1,000. Those who do have kids, or want kids, will not stop if this bill does not pass. Research is clear that children do do better in two-parent families, but whether that two-parent family is heterosexual, or homosexual, does not matter. Members should look at the research.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is a 10-minute call.

As a New Zealand First member of Parliament I have the right to vote according to my conscience on this bill. In doing so it would seem that I need not represent any other New Zealander. I believe that marriage is a relationship of a man and a woman with a view to having children. It is very simple. I do not need any research to prove, or disprove, that simple statement. I will vote against this bill.

I suppose I should feel rather flattered that certain types of people who cannot live in a male-female relationship wish to copy that relationship. I am not flattered. The relationship of a man and a woman is a natural relationship of two opposites. The attempt in this legislation to pretend that two people of the same sex can ever form a relationship equal to that of two people from opposite sexes is doomed to failure. But Parliament can do anything. Parliament can make black white, create systems of apartheid, and prevent women from being educated, and this Parliament has made mothers fathers of children in the Care of Children Bill. The laws of nature continue regardless of anything Parliament might make believe to be otherwise. A marriage can only be that of a man and a woman. It is unique. If it was capable of being copyrighted, it would be. But there is no need to copyright something that is so natural.

I made my views on homosexuality known to the public before I stood for Parliament in 1975. I repeated them in my maiden speech in this House in 1976. I see no reason to change my views. What one sees and hears from me is what one gets. But am I fit to represent the people of New Zealand on this subject? As the dictionary states, “fit” means “well adapted, or suited, in a suitable condition, ready, good enough”. Perhaps I am not. I do not have an open mind on this issue. That is why I am delighted, as a member of New Zealand First, to be able to say that this matter should be put to a referendum for open discussion and debate. Why should the people of New Zealand be forced to accept my possibly right-wing, biased, rednecked, conservative, out-of-this-world, and off-this-planet view on this issue? My views are not necessarily just Christian views; they are also based on the fact that I was born and brought up in a Muslim country, Pakistan, and some of the standards required of Muslims—namely, respect for the elderly, respect for the family, and respect for male and female relationships, and high standards of decency—might have rubbed off on me. So why should my views bind those of the rest of New Zealand?

I look across to the other side of the House when Tim Barnett is here and I ask myself why the views of Tim Barnett, a homosexual, should bind the rest of New Zealand. Mr Barnett does an excellent job on the Justice and Electoral Committee, of which I am a member, and I have no difficulty at all in working with him on that committee. But why should the views of either of us bind the views of the rest of New Zealand? We live in a democracy, but our form of democratic process really consists of placing ticks in boxes every 3 years. We have the right of free speech, but we know, sadly, that most of the time no one is listening. The politicians peddle their own agenda, or that of the bureaucrats, and most people are left muttering to themselves, or complaining to talk-back radio. The democratic process that we take part in actually leads to a tyranny of a handful, and New Zealand First believes that this is happening in New Zealand. In fact, that handful here in the Labour Party includes a non-elected few.

What say do New Zealanders have on the following issues, and who is listening to them: legalising prostitution; gender-bending legislation in which women can become fathers; the release of genetically modified organisms into the ecosystem; killers, drug dealers, and rapists on home detention; the Treaty of Waitangi industry; mass immigration; the sale of State assets; and speculation in large tracts of farmland, lakeside, coastline, and the high country? The list is endless, and the fact that New Zealanders have not generally been consulted on those matters makes a very clear point: democracy is too important to always be left to the politicians.

When Peter Brown presented the voluntary euthanasia bill, it was the bill previously presented by Michael Laws, which had a referendum provision in it. The views expressed by Peter Brown on that bill, and the views expressed by Brian Donnelly on the first reading of this bill when he said that there should be a referendum on this issue—and that is now a fait accompli in Supplementary Order Paper 311, which I hope members will support by way of a majority—fully express New Zealand First’s view on this issue. We ask Parliament to support a referendum on this issue. New Zealand First is committed to the introduction of binding citizens initiated referenda, or direct democracy as it is known overseas. That was made very clear by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in a speech at the Loaves and Fishes some years ago.

Under that system, voters take ultimate responsibility for the health and well-being of society. A healthy democratic society is not produced by casting two ticks for 3 years of political tyranny. Only the people can create a democracy that is of the people and for the people. Under direct democracy, the Government is constitutionally bound to accept the will of the people—no ifs, no buts, no maybes. New Zealand First, for example, will honour the result of the 1999 citizens initiated referendum to reduce the number of MPs to 99. The loss of 21 MPs could only benefit the country and would actually result in considerable savings.

💬 Shane Ardern: Most of them from New Zealand First.

That was a typical interjection from the National Party. New Zealand First is leading the country on this issue. Dr Brash, of course, is again trying to copy our policy.

We have a situation in this House today where United Future, elected on so-called Christian values, allowed itself to enter into an alliance with the Labour Party knowing full well that the Labour Party had an election policy of supporting a civil union bill. It would have been common sense—I repeat, common sense—surely, for United Future immediately after the election to insist in any agreement with the Labour Party that a Labour Party Government should not introduce any civil union legislation. United Future did that on the issue of marijuana. Why not on civil unions? We have only to look at the way in which United Future’s leader, Peter Dunne, supports civil unions in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill to understand why that must have happened. That bill confirms and enhances civil unions, and the leader of United Future, Peter Dunne, supports civil unions in that bill. I regard the views of United Future on this issue as—well, I will not say. In the old days the Christians were eaten by the lions. If United Future is a Christian party, then one has to say that the Christians are now sitting alongside the lions and destroying those people who believe that marriage can be only a relationship of a man and a woman with a view to having children.

The only party committed to hearing the voice of the people is New Zealand First, in the referendum solution. We will be going to the people on this issue. We should not be wasting the time of Parliament on a civil union bill. We should not be rushing it through in this manner. New Zealand desperately needs checks and balances and a system that makes politicians accountable. We simply have to trust the people and rely on their goodwill and common sense. All that this social-engineering Labour Government is trying to do is to get this matter rushed through the House before Christmas. Is there some irony here—that Labour wants this bill rushed through before Christmas, a time when we celebrate the relationship of Joseph and Mary and the child Jesus?

This should have been an easy decision for me to make. I believe in equality before the law. I believe that the law should uphold personal responsibility. I believe that the State has no place in the bedrooms of the nation. Yet I am not voting for the Civil Union Bill at this reading. I voted for it to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee when Parliament first debated it. So what has changed? Sadly, very little. When one gets behind the slogans to work out what the words actually mean—what they actually do—there is virtually nothing there. This bill sets out a process for registering the fact that two people have exchanged agreements to join in civil union. So what does it mean to join in civil union? Nobody can tell. The whole thing is built around an important contract, without the slightest indication as to what that contract is about. All the consequences of that contract are set out in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, but we do not know what will be in that bill. No one in this House can assume what will remain of that bill. The select committee is doing a major reconstruction of it, because it was so shambolically misconceived when it came into the House. Yet the two bills were designed to be read together. The Civil Union Bill does not have any practical effect without the other bill.

How can any self-respecting legislator vote a blank cheque to Ms Clark and Ms Wilson on a family law matter? Why should they be trusted to come back to the House to do what even the proponents of this bill expect—that is, provide that same-sex couples should be able to choose to have their relationships governed by the same rules that govern other childless, voluntarily committed couples? I believe that should be the law. But we all ought to insist on knowing exactly what the companion bill will be, even if it is only knowing that it does not discriminate further than it already proposes to do by providing, for example, that civilly united couples will still get the higher single benefit rate until 2007, for reasons I cannot fathom.

We do know that the Civil Union Bill has no core. It was heavily marketed as State endorsement of or support for long-term, stable, committed relationships, but there is nothing whatsoever in the bill about that. None of those words appear in it, nor anything like them. The companion bill changes over 100 Acts to eliminate all differences for legal purposes between marriage, civil union, and shacking up for a couple of nights with no particular plan to end the relationship. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill therefore makes civil union legally redundant, except as a fashion statement. It even subjects unwilling de factos to a near-identical legal status to that of marriage, whether or not they want it. So instead of underscoring the moral neutrality of the State, the Civil Union Bill highlights that the State is using Parliament to bless a politically sponsored lifestyle choice.

The submissions on the bills reinforced the view that very few people—and I think very few parliamentarians—had read them. I am sure that people were sincere, but the tearful accounts of prejudice and insensitivity we heard had nothing to do with the law. For example, much was made of hospital visiting rights. They were never a matter of law, and they still are not. Neither of the bills even tries to deal with that issue. The people who submitted on that matter were victims of political theatre.

Since I came to Parliament I have tried to vote only for law that means what it says and says what it means. I have tried to oppose the misuse of law for slogan purposes. Still, I could vote for a bill that I thought was hollow if that meaninglessness was harmless. But this bill is not harmless. There are unprincipled provisions in the Human Rights Act that mean that people who think same-sex marriage is deeply wrong could be forced to become involved in those ceremonies. A church could be forced to make its church hall available, for example. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill could easily prevent that by limiting the human rights anti-discrimination provisions, but Government members have scoffed at the thought.

I supported the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. I believed that criminal law should not be involved in such matters, and I drafted one of the speeches of support for a member who voted for that bill. I believed the claims of the gay lobby—that all gays wanted was to be treated equally. Then they turned round and agitated for privilege. They gave the human rights commissars the powers to suppress peaceful opponents of homosexuality. Now, many of them are advocating for anti-vilification laws—or the criminalisation of criticism as hate speech. Well, I am not willing to give a blank cheque to the normalisers of same-sex relationships, while they withhold freedom of association and freedom of speech in relation to sexual orientation. They want a parliamentary blessing. I want them to promise to restore that lost freedom. If this is the only chance we get to oblige them to reciprocate, then we should not pass it up.

Neither side of a contentious moral debate should be able to get its hands on the levers of the State in order to enforce its views against the other. The State should not be allowed to discriminate on such matters; it should be secular and it should ensure freedom for the tolerant coexistence of diverse religious, ethical, and cultural preferences. But the State should also protect—not prevent—private individuals and organisations from trying to influence each other. Tolerance means nothing if it does not include substantial freedom even to be offensive, without the intervention of the police. So informal, private discouragement of what people think is undesirable conduct, whether it is just poor manners or whether it is what is thought to be a self-destructive lifestyle, is an essential part of the peaceful self-regulation of a healthy community.

Communities can also rely on favours to encourage desirable behaviour, and the right word for those mechanisms is “discrimination”. Ordinary people can therefore exercise influence on the evolution of culture in their daily choices. They can discourage what they consider to be undesirable—encourage the way we do things around here—by means of whom they choose to associate with, whom they employ, and whom they do business with. That right to discriminate must be protected, before we retrench behind yet another endorsement of law that can be used to attack those who do not agree with the prevailing orthodoxy.

I urge this House to reject this bill today. It should be brought back when it is not an insult to members who want to know what they are voting on before they vote. But it should not be brought back until it cannot be turned into a legal club to beat people who dislike homosexuality and want the freedom to peacefully express that. I do believe in equality before the law. The law should uphold personal responsibility. It should enable same-sex couples to opt into the pre-formed contracts of the law. It should protect freedom of choice for all adult New Zealanders. The State should have no place in the bedrooms of the nation, nor should it force anyone to pretend that he or she likes or does not care what happens in the bedrooms of the nation.

The fight over the Civil Union Bill is about more than who can hitch up with whom. It is about who we are as a nation. Are we a Christian nation or are we a pluralist State? Should law be based on morality or on rationality? Should the legislature respect equality and human rights, or should it advantage some and disadvantage others? Submitters to the Justice and Electoral Committee were civil and respectful. However, some of the opposition to the bill outside the parliamentary process has been venomous and nasty. Civil union supporters have been criticised for calling those opponents homophobic. I think that misses the point, because this issue is not about fear of homos as much as it is about fear of losing control. On the face of it, why would it upset anyone that two men or two women who love each other can make a public commitment and have that commitment recognised in law? Whom does that diminish? If being privileged above others is what makes a relationship valuable, then it will suffer from the presence of anything closely resembling it. But if its value is derived from its spiritual authority, the love it embodies, and the virtue of its form, then its value remains unaffected by the proximity of others. It is that genuine belief in the virtues of marriage that distinguishes the Christians who advocate for civil unions from the predominantly Christian opposition to them.

The Civil Union Bill does not devalue marriage. It is not gay people who love each other who devalue marriage, but such things as radio shows and reality television—which Moana Mackey talked about—that offer a bride as a prize. Do opponents of the bill not secretly believe that heterosexual marriage is intrinsically advantageous and that the presence of alternatives will make it less desirable? Do they think that good straight kids will start entering gay unions because the law states that they can? Do they think that being gay is somehow more interesting? Or is it that the opponents see their dominance of our social and political forms slipping away from them? The increasing plurality of our society is scary for those who have always paddled in the mainstream. They have not yet understood that there no longer is a mainstream. We have become a braided river. I do not mean that unkindly. I am a man who has lived outside the mainstream for most of my life. A number of United Future MPs think that I should be disqualified from being an MP because of that, and they typify the view that I am talking about.

I have an unshakeable faith that is different from that of the United Future MPs, which I am forbidden by law to fully practise. It would be wrong for me to demand that everyone else be bound by Rastafarian law, but I am justified in demanding my own right to be a Rasta, and that is the proper relationship between faith and the State. The State should be a protector, not a persecutor, of religion, but it is not the State’s role to advantage one faith over another or religion over any other philosophy. The job of legislators is not to privilege any particular cultural practice but to protect human rights and cultural and ecological integrity. That does not include entrenching discrimination in the law. The law should support committed long-term relationships, because they promote health, strong communities, and greater happiness. There is no rational basis for excluding people from that because they are gay. Even if it is true, as some assert, that gay and de facto relationships are less stable than other relationships, why would we not want to provide an opportunity for those people to formally and publicly commit to each other and have that commitment taken seriously by the law?

As it stands, the law states that same-sex people can have casual sex but that they may not have a long-term relationship recognised. I simply do not understand why some people see a moral imperative in maintaining that status quo. But, then, I have never really understood why oppressing other people is seen as a Christian value by some people. The Bible does talk about homosexuality. It is a little unclear in places whether the problem is with regard to homosexuality per se or promiscuity, but it is condemned in some places, a few times. I have not counted how many times exactly, but I think it is about as many times as usury is condemned—the practice of lending money at interest. Usury is a genuinely iniquitous practice, and the avoidance of usury is one of the unique features of the Muslim banking system. I ask members to consider the percentage of the average person’s income spent on servicing the interest on debt. There is the interest on one’s mortgage—or on one’s landlord’s mortgage if one pays rent—the interest on bank loans to the businesses where people shop, and the interest on credit and on student loans, but I have yet to see a member of Parliament fast to end the practice of usury. As far as I can see, homosexuality is of insignificant concern to the biblical prophets and to the Christ, when compared with the overwhelming condemnation of economic injustice and oppression of the poor. Yet although it would be a little unfair to say that among Christians opposition to the Civil Union Bill is inversely proportional to a concern for social justice, there does seem to be a rough fit.

Christianity was debased when it became the State religion of Rome, and it continues to debase itself when it tries to align its interests with those of the State. This is a pluralist society with a democratic and secular Parliament, and it is vital that we uphold that. In that context, it was a dangerous and an unwise decision by the Catholic bishops to attempt to direct Catholics on how to vote as a consequence of this bill. If the Catholic Church wants to return to its past of wielding direct political power, it will find modern society considerably less malleable. If the Catholic Church wants to intervene in the political process, it may tempt politicians to interfere in the affairs of the Church.

I would like to finish by thanking the advisers to the select committee for their very good work, and by thanking Tim Barnett for his excellent chairing. Although his view on the bill has always been clear, he has made sure that all sides had a genuinely fair go and that all submitters were treated with respect. I apologise to Mr Franks for contrasting that with the chairing of the committee by the deputy chair, but I make that point only because of Mr Franks’ public and unjustified criticism of Mr Barnett and the select committee. Let us ensure that Aotearoa is a land that respects and values all its people. Let us make sure we pass this bill.

As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I want to begin by thanking the thousands and thousands of New Zealanders who took the time and made the effort to make submissions on this bill. For many, it was the first time they had ever made submissions to a select committee. As we know, 91 percent of them opposed this bill. One of those who opposed this bill was a highly respected priest of the New Zealand Catholic Church, an older man, clearly with wisdom and experience, and definitely not extreme. He said that the decision on this bill was the most important decision we have made in his lifetime and more important than New Zealand’s decision as to whether to go to war against Hitler. He was right. In this bill we are tampering with a fundamental institution of our society, indeed a fundamental institution of all societies worldwide—East or West; rich or poor; Christian, Muslim, or other religion; capitalist or socialist—and an institution that is as old as time itself and predates the State. I am talking about the institution of family and in particular the institution of marriage.

Given that, this bill deserves extreme caution. Having said that, I have to say there are genuine issues relating to gay and lesbian couples that Parliament needs to address. These revolve especially around the easy recognition of their relationships by third parties, Government agencies in particular. Many of the submitters who opposed the bill recognised that there was a need for something such as a next-of-kin register in order to cater for those genuine concerns.

Other countries have indeed addressed these issues, and those countries are listed in the select committee’s report. However, what is significant about those countries but is not stated by the supporters of this bill is that, except for Belgium, the Netherlands, and some Canadian provinces, all have adopted a registration scheme that is not ceremonial and is clearly not a replica of marriage. Further, the purpose of those schemes has largely been to protect property rights, something that has occurred in New Zealand since the 2001 amendments to the Property (Relationships) Act. In fact, a large number of those countries—Australia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, France, and Hungary—do not allow same-sex marriage, and only France and Hungary have registration schemes that apply to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

New Zealanders accept that some sort of partnership registration scheme may be appropriate—something akin to filing a declaration of partnership, and something that does not have ceremonial aspects and other similarities to marriage.

Today I received a letter written—unprecedentedly—by the joint efforts of the president of the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference, Vision Network of New Zealand, and the Muslim Association of Canterbury, which showed clearly their support for human and civil rights to be upheld, and for some support for legislation that gave rights but that did not interfere with the institution of marriage.

In the committee’s report, there is a list of five differences between civil union and marriage: that a civil union applies to both men and women and same-sex partners, where marriage concerns men and women solely; that civil unions will not use the term “husband and wife”; that there will be only one process for celebrants, not three; that the age of consent for 16 and 17-year-olds by their guardians have variations to the age of consent for marriage; and that there is a provision for the solemnisation of overseas relationships.

Those cosmetic differences pale into insignificance compared with the overwhelming number of similarities that there are in this bill between civil unions and marriage. These provisions include: that both require the same form of licence; that both require a celebrant or registrar; that they provide for similar notices of objection; that the form of words used must state the identity and intention of the parties; that they have similar prohibited degrees of consanguinity and relationship; that they have the same ability to apply to the courts to sanction close relationships for civil unions as marriages; that there are the same provisions for an injunction against simultaneous relationships—that is, bigamy; that the age restrictions are the same—that is, they are restricted to under the age of 18; that they both have the ability for the court to waive that age restriction; and that they both have the ability for parents and guardians to consent to 16 and 17-year-olds entering into such relationships.

The offence provisions and penalties are the same. The ability to declare the relationship void is the same in each case, and on a similar basis. There are similar provisions for there being no defect where formalities or procedures have been wrong. The Family Court is given jurisdiction over both. The Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages is given jurisdiction in respect of both relationships to maintain a register of civil unions as well as the current register of marriages, and they have identical registration processes.

Finally, the process for dissolution of the relationships is the same, and the criteria for dissolution are the same. Given that lengthy list, I ask how anyone can possibly say that civil unions are not same-sex marriages.

There were two interesting points made by submitters who supported the bill that I took some note of—two interesting comments that came through. One was from those involved in the drafting of this bill. They told us that the decision to go for civil union rather than same-sex marriage was because it was felt that same-sex marriage was not at this point politically sustainable and, therefore, the “lower” option of a civil union should be pursued. I cover in my minority report my belief that this legislation is only a stage in the process of having same-sex marriage.

The second very interesting point made by a number of submitters who supported the bill was that they did not really want a legal form of recognition. In fact, that is reflected in overseas statistics, where the take-up of relationship recognition and relationship registration has been small compared with the number of people living in those sorts of relationships. What they really want is for Parliament to sanction same-sex relationships so that the public will change their attitude towards same-sex couples. What they want is approval from the community at large. They want Parliament to force that change by forcing the legislation.

However, legislation alone will not bring about that change, and other countries that have legislated have found that other steps are then necessary in order to try to do that. Two of those are particularly looming before us, which we can see from overseas examples. The first is the education process. Once we have legislation that equates same-sex and opposite-sex relationships, school curricula will have to reflect that. Children as young as primary-aged children will be taught that same-sex relationships are just as valid as opposite-sex relationships, and that having a mum and a dad is optional. Two dads and two mums are exactly the same, and traditional family life as we have known it is no longer of relevance.

Of more importance, though, is the repression of talk against homosexuality, which is a repression of freedom of speech. In Canada on 28 April 2004, the Parliament passed a bill that effectively criminalised speech or writings that criticised homosexuality. Anything deemed to be homophobic can be punished by 6 months in prison or by other severe penalties. A man who owned a printing press in Canada was fined $3,400 for refusing to print stationery for a homosexual activist organisation. And so the list goes on. A Saskatchewan newspaper and a private citizen were fined in 2001 for publishing an advertisement listing Bible verses about homosexuality. In Sweden, a sweeping hates-crime law was passed that forbade any criticism of homosexuality, and last year a pastor was arrested at a church in Sweden and charged with hate speech against homosexuals in a sermon about homosexuality. The prosecutor said that collecting Bible quotes on that topic, as the pastor did, made that hate speech.

That is the door we are opening, and there are signals already in New Zealand society that we are heading in the same direction: the current push for hate-speech legislation, the astonishingly intolerant and bigoted attack directed at a Christian group lobbying for the bill by a recent appointee to the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the Advertising Standards Complaints Board’s decision last October against the Tui’s advertisement: “There’s nothing wrong with Miriam—yeah, right.” This is the door we are opening with this legislation, by providing a civil union that is a marriage in all but name. We need to rethink this. Let us meet the need for next of kin and other rights without attacking traditional marriage. This bill goes too far.

It is a privilege to rise to speak to the second reading of the Civil Union Bill. I will begin by congratulating Tim Barnett and the select committee, and indeed all the submitters. I also acknowledge respectfully those arguments from both sides of the fence on this matter. It is never easy in Parliament when we have to deal with these serious and thought provoking, conscience provoking, issues.

I support this bill unequivocally. I support this bill because I believe that many thousands of New Zealanders, not just those in same-sex relationships, but over 300,000 other New Zealanders, will benefit from the choice of having a civil union. Unfortunately, in this day and age, marriage itself is exclusive to a man and a woman and that is the way it will remain under this legislation—untouched. The only perception of danger to the institution of marriage in my opinion arises in the minds and morals of those who do not have the same respect for those of us who may live differently, in de facto relationships, and also those of us who happen to be in same-sex relationships.

I believe that I live in a society where law-abiding, taxpaying, contributing citizens of this country can and should demand equality in the eyes of the law in all aspects of that society. This is no more or less than we are asking for with the Civil Union Bill—for the sake of enhancing the lives of New Zealanders, not for destroying the institution of marriage, which we stand here in this House today to acknowledge and respect for what it is.

But I cannot live in a country that has treated me personally, and many others like me, with great civil liberties, but that says: “No, you remain a second-class citizen in this country if you wish to solemnise your relationship. You cannot marry.” With the Civil Union Bill and its partnership bill the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill we can remedy this situation for many thousands of New Zealanders.

I think the moral right fundamentalists have betrayed their argument in purporting to uphold family values and the rights of New Zealanders to live as men and women as, apparently, God created. Life is not like that in modern New Zealand. We pride ourselves on being an inclusive society; a society that happily shows to the world that we are diverse and that we take the benefit of that diversity and accept the wonderful accolades we receive for it. I am very fortunate to be one of those rarities in the world, in a parliamentary sense, who enjoys that respect from people.

We are asking of New Zealanders and the members of this Parliament today to make the right decision as they believe it to be. I believe that the right decision is to support this bill through its second reading, so that it may proceed through its Committee stage and, hopefully, a third reading.

I will also remind parties in this House that the junior branches of some of these parties, including the Labour Party, the National Party, the ACT party, and the Progressive Party, support this. They went public yesterday jointly—almost without precedent. They are showing far more maturity about dealing with this matter than some of us in here are doing between the parties. I urge the National Party and I urge the ACT party—I do not need to urge the Progressives and the Labour Party—to listen to their young people. They are the future and they have spoken strongly and loudly on this matter. They believe the Civil Union Bill should pass through. They want to get on with their lives, just as the New Zealanders whom we are discussing in this matter today want to get on with theirs.

I cannot accept the devaluing of the families of same-sex couples that has been done throughout the debate nationally and within this House during the course of discussion of the Civil Union Bill. We hold the same values as any other family in this country that has heterosexual parents. I will not accept that the children of same-sex couples go to school today and get questioned about the value of the family from which they come. It is as vital and as valuable as any heterosexual family in this country. We, as a Parliament, must support those families, those children—the products of those strong relationships—and give them confidence that they do live in a country that is fair, reasonable, and that treats people with respect and equality in the eyes of the law.

I believe it is very little to ask, with regard to the Civil Union Bill in its second reading, for people to look to the compassionate side of themselves, to think from a humanitarian base, to join other countries in the world, and to respect the opinions of some of our young who say that we should support the Civil Union Bill. With that, I implore members of the House who may still be deciding which way they wish to vote to please vote in favour for the sake of a positive future for all New Zealanders, not just some of us.

I oppose this bill because it undermines the most important institution in our lives, and that is our families. This bill is part of a radical experiment in social engineering by the Labour Government that involves the legalisation of prostitution, enabling women to be fathers, saying that de facto relationships are equal to the long-term commitment of marriage, and eroding the rights and responsibilities of parents. I say respectfully that this is the most anti-family Government in the history of our country.

Our marriage laws are based on a very simple quid pro quo. Marriage is given special status in law because the union of a man and woman who are committed to each other for the long haul is socially the best way for us to raise children. Children are the most important thing to this country’s future.

I have heard people say that this is not a gay marriage bill. There is a saying: “If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, and if it smells like a duck, it probably is a duck.” This bill makes a thousand amendments to over a hundred laws, and in every single one of them marriage and civil union are to be identical. The only difference is the name. This is a gay marriage bill.

There are those who say that this bill does not erode marriage—that it is all just about everybody having the same set of rights. I say it is like giving everybody at school School Certificate. Does that erode it for those who achieve? In education, this Government has established the culture of “Let’s just make everybody the same.” That same erosion of standards is being applied in respect of relationships. Relationships are not all the same. The lifelong commitment of marriage is different from de facto relationships. Marriage has the ambition, the goal, of being a special, lifelong commitment between a man and a woman who will have children together and raise the next generation of our society.

For all the liberal rhetoric I hear from the Government benches about marriage being a dated institution, I remind the House that 79.4 percent of people in a relationship—nearly four out of five—choose marriage, and that the number of people who are marrying in our society has been on the increase in recent years.

Proponents of this bill argue that men and women are the same. They are not. I say as a father—a privileged father of a lovely daughter and son—that, right from the early years, it is plain that we are wired differently. Men and women are not the same, have never been the same, and will never ever be the same. Men and women are equal but different, and no amount of politically correct law will override that natural law. A gay couple cannot have children; they can care for the children of others. This, at its most basic, is the reason why the relationship between a man and a woman is different from the relationship between two men or two women.

My view on this matter is strongly underpinned by the view that children do best when raised in the home of a mum and dad who are committed to being with each other for the long haul. People cite cases, quite properly, where a solo parent, a gay couple, or a de facto couple do a good job of raising their children—and they do. But this House has to judge what is best for society as a whole. There are all sorts of areas of social science where there is equivocality. But, in respect of children’s best welfare, the evidence is overwhelming that, on average, their having a stable mum and dad is the best way to minimise all the social problems we see in our society today.

I say to this House that the family is the future of our country, and we should back it. We should respect gay couples, but they should not have legal recognition by this Parliament.

I have railed against this legislation because it is fundamentally dishonest. It is predicated on a litany of “mistruths”. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, this bill is about homosexual marriage. I could respect the proponents of this legislation if they at least accepted that fundamental fact and came clean. But how they rail against the conservative element in our society when we dare to say that that is the true agenda! The dishonesty of this legislation is that it is only because of the conservative vote that the Government has not gone the whole hog and asked for gay marriage.

Let us look at the evidence. Tim Barnett, when he was interviewed by the gay magazine Express, said that we will not have a queer-friendly Government forever, so we need to capitalise on it before it is too late, and that we have unfinished business. Asked what that unfinished business was, he said gay marriage. In the same article, the Prime Minister is reported as saying, when asked about gay marriage, that she had encouraged Tim Barnett to take up the cudgels.

The argument that homosexuals are denied access to their partners who are in hospital, etc., is just another of the “mistruths” that have been fanned by the homosexual community. I asked hospital officials whether that was the case, and they said it absolutely was not.

Mr Barnett tried to ply his trade in the UK political system, and he was soundly rejected. I do not want New Zealand to be his guinea pig. For all the talk about gay relationships and their sustainability, the fact is they are notoriously volatile—and they want us to accept those relationships as mainstream! Despite all the talk, I have no antipathy towards homosexuals of either sex. [Interruption] Members might laugh, but what homosexuals are looking for is not understanding. This is the hard sell of the homosexual community. This is a recruitment drive. They are not looking for understanding at all.

We should not even be debating this bill, because we do not have a mandate. Despite what has been said, the people who went to the select committee in their thousands said they did not want this measure. The people who have responded to television surveys and talkback radio in their thousands have said: “We don’t want this.” That this bill has been rushed through, rammed through, this Parliament is itself an enormous travesty. It is nothing more than a handful of influential people being engaged in an unabated attempt to re-engineer society in their own likeness. I repeat that we have no mandate to pass this legislation. On that basis alone, we should reject it.

I also have to ask where the mainstream churches have been on this issue. They have been spectacularly quiet. Where is the leadership that people like John Kennedy, the editor of the Tablet in the 1970s and 1980s, showed? He would have galvanised the conservative vote in this country. He would have turned this into an election issue and, what is more, he would have won. The fact that he could have done that, and that all the PC-led churches of modern society, of today, cannot do that, is an absolute indictment on them.

As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, I take the opportunity to declare that I am in support of this bill. Over the past 24 hours there has been a huge campaign in relation to lobbying members of Parliament as to which way we will vote. In the matter of a conscience vote, I often call my niece, as, at the end of the day, she has some influence over which way I vote. She explained: “Uncle, if you are hesitant, vote for the second reading. Come back at the weekend, and we’ll have another talk before we get to the third reading.”

I want to make it very clear that I not only support the second reading but also intend to support the passage of the legislation all the way through the House. One of the reasons I support it is simply that I believe this bill is not about gay marriage. Marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. This bill is in no way undermining marriage or altering the Marriage Act. It simply enables couples who choose not to marry or, for that matter, who cannot marry, to have their relationship legally recognised as a civil union.

The other issue is the claim about gay rights. The law currently differentiates between people depending on their marital status, with a number of legal rights and responsibilities accessible only to married couples. Those potentially discriminatory laws expose the Government to risks of complaint and to litigation. A number of submitters were also concerned about the terms “husband” and “wife” being removed from the law. I know from the bill that those terms will not be removed; they will be retained.

I would like to quote this passage from the commentary: “The existence of good de facto parents and bad married parents shows that the structure is not the key to a happy or functional family. The key is the parenting skills of the individuals involved and their commitment to each other and their children.” That, in my mind, is paramount. The key is the manner in which we treat our children, and the brand or the type of relationship that we are in does not determine that. The research is clear on the fact that, generally speaking, children do better in two-parent families than in a single-parent family. That is common sense, when we consider that the financial, emotional, and parental pressures are exacerbated when there is not another parent with whom to share the load. But what opponents of gay and de facto parents then do is try to attribute the outcomes for children from single-parent families to every family outside of marriage. That is not the case. Quality, peer-reviewed, methodically sound research shows that there are no significant differences between outcomes for children raised in same-sex families and for those raised in marriage. The main difference is the stigma that the children from those relationships face as a result of prejudice against their families. Marriage on its own does not make good parents. The existence of good de facto and gay parents and bad married parents indicates that the family structure is not the key to happy, functioning families.

This House should not tolerate a position in law that says that gay couples can have a casual relationship, but not a committed one. For those who say that gay couples do not need this measure, and that we can just pass some other laws to protect their interests, I ask them whether they would be happy for us to remove the State recognition of their relationship, as well.

The Relationship (Statutory References) Bill covers areas around burial, cremation, etc., but not next of kin for hospital visitation or decision-making rights. Those are cases of gay partners and disapproving families conflicting over hospital care, and I cannot imagine anything more difficult. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill cannot help this. However, if the couple is in a civil union, there is no argument. In that respect, the Civil Union Bill is the “Next of Kin Bill”.

Given that I raised the question of the future of our children, I want to move on to the issue of the journey that we are on as a nation, and to look at the vision of how we might see the future of our society evolve. It is my feeling that we are on the brink of moving from grievance mode to inclusion and development mode, but do we possess the courage, commitment, and responsibility to live in good grace and harmony with each other? To oppose this bill is to oppose that, too.

I usually sit down and keep quiet during conscience votes. Having strong opinions has forced me today to get up and say that the reason I joined the Labour Party was it is against discrimination. It is against making divides in our community. I remember back in 1981 the Springbok tour, when people were against people—New Zealander against New Zealander—and I felt that was wrong. I also think that having different categories of people in New Zealand is wrong. I was privileged to be New Zealand’s first Minister for Ethnic Affairs, and I saw how people were discriminated against when trying to get jobs. They are welcomed to our country, but, by golly, if their accent or skin colour is different, it is hard. I think those barriers need to be taken down. I believe that the Labour Party is a party in which we can have debate and argue these things.

That does not mean that I think any less of marriage. I have been married for 37 years, which probably says that I have a very tolerant wife. But I also believe that people can make their own arrangements. People can live in de facto relationships. Not many years ago, if one was in a de facto relationship, could one get a bank loan for a mortgage? Not many years ago, the bank manager would have said no. Things are changing. This legislation is an important part of that change. This is about a country growing up and recognising that there are differences. The fact that there are differences is something we should rejoice in. It makes people feel better.

I also respect those people who have a different view. I respect the four young people who came to my electorate office last week and said that I should not vote for the bill. I respect the pastors who told me the same thing. Their views are important, but so are the views of others in this country who want to make a commitment to one another. When we consider commitment, let us look at people in marriages who punch and beat their wives and beat up their kids; if marriage is the answer, it must have been a hell of a silly question. Marriage works for most people. I think most people should allow other people to make decisions for themselves. I think that we as a country must allow other people to have the same freedom and commitment that I have and enjoy. Marriage is something that I hope my son gets involved in shortly. However, that will be his choice. I also feel that for people to want to make a commitment to each other, in whatever form, that commitment must be really strong. They want to commit to one another—to commit as couples—and to have that commitment recognised by a country that is maturing slowly.

I hope that this bill goes through this stage today and is passed next week. It will make a lot of difference to some people, but it will not affect those whose marriages are strong and full of commitment and love. I just think that other people should be able to enjoy that.

Who should decide? I believe that that is the fundamental question raised by this conscience issue. Should it be the 120 members of Parliament, or should it be the people of New Zealand? I believe that, when put like that, the answer is clear: it should be the people of New Zealand.

Our democracy is evolving. In the early 1990s there was the initiative for citizens initiated referenda. I was one of those who advocated that reform, when I was the chair of the policy committee of the National Party in Auckland. It is now time to move this issue forward. The people of New Zealand ought to have the right to decide whether there should be civil unions, whether brothels should be legalised, whether the drinking age should be 18 or 20, and whether they want casinos in their communities. Those are things about which people can use their common-sense and life experience to make the decisions. They are questions that are readily capable of being put forward as referenda.

As a matter of practice, before I cast my vote, I always conduct a scientific poll, based on the electoral roll, of the views of the North Shore electorate. On this issue, the results were clear: 56 percent were opposed to creating the institution of civil union, 34 percent were in support, and the balance had yet to make up their minds. Many MPs will argue that we are here to exercise our judgment, not merely to act as delegates. On most issues, that is correct. But there are particular issues—and conscience issues more than any others—that generate huge interest in the community. All of us in the House have received literally thousands of letters and emails on this issue, and that is testament to the depth of concern that the public has on this matter. The public is quite capable of making an informed decision, and it is time that this Parliament gave the public that right. Ultimately, only we as lawmakers can extend our democracy in that way.

I envisage that these questions would be decided by referenda at the time of each general election, to ensure maximum participation. We might expect one or two at each election. That is now commonplace in many states in the United States, and it is a developing trend in Western democracies. It is time that we caught up. Clearly, procedures would have to be worked out, but they are, ultimately, matters of detail.

Ultimately, the question is simple: are we prepared to advance our democracy and let the people decide these issues directly? It seems to me that the answer is obvious. If we believe in the democratic principle, we will allow the people to make their decisions on these issues at the time of each election. That is how we develop our democracy, not by our assuming some superior approach as members of Parliament when in fact it is time to trust the common-sense judgment of our fellow citizens, New Zealanders.

Firstly, I just want to address Georgina Beyer, my colleague who shares the Wairarapa electorate. I say to her that I am the youth member for New Zealand First—she was trying to find out who it was.

This is a serious issue, and I remind all those listeners listening to this debate today on the Civil Union Bill of the New Zealand First minority report on the bill. It reads: “New Zealand First believes that issues such as civil unions and other similar social and moral issues should be dealt with through a referendum. This is New Zealand First policy.”—adopted in November 2003—“The Civil Union Bill is controversial legislation which has evoked wide ranging views and emotions and clearly cannot be trusted to the ‘consciences’ of Members of Parliament.”—as mentioned by Mr Mapp.

The minority report continues: “New Zealand First has received a large amount of communication on this issue, with almost 90 percent opposing it. We believe that this would be the result were a referendum to be held and therefore reject the notion that Parliament should supersede the will of the people without first testing it.

“The most common concern of those opposing the bill is that it undermines the institution of marriage and we believe that it is not for Parliament to tamper with its meaning or place in society.

“New Zealand First believes this bill is part of a disturbing trend by this current Government to interfere in social and moral issues. Therefore, the majority of New Zealand First strongly oppose the Civil Union Bill,”—and I am one of them—“and all support the proposition that such issues must be tested by way of referendum.”

I want to inform the people of New Zealand of the real facts, and the truth about the United Future party. It could have stopped this bill and the Prostitution Reform Bill. This situation is no different from what United Future did with the cannabis bill, and no different from when the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not agree to the sale of Wellington Airport, which caused the coalition to collapse.

I want to refer to my press release, dated 8 September, entitled NZ First Calls for Referendum on Civil Union Bill, which reads: “New Zealand First MP Edwin Perry has called for a public referendum to be held on the Civil Union and the Relationship (Statutory References) bills.

“The Justice and Electoral committee has been hearing submissions on both bills, which would allow same-sex and de-facto couples to legally register their relationships and have rights equal to those of married couples.

“ ‘Many of the submissions received by the committee argue that the issue of civil union is too important to be decided on by 120 MPs,’ said Mr Perry.

“ ‘It is an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about. Many are divided over what the legislation could mean for the nation as a whole.

“ ‘As part of New Zealand First policy, we believe that issues major affecting New Zealanders as a whole should go to a referendum.

“ ‘The Civil Union Bill should not be a Government decision, but rather one that is left to the people to decide,’ concluded Mr Perry.”

I want to pay my respects to Tim Barnett for the way he chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee, even though I was not there a lot of the time because I was seconded on that committee by my colleague Mr Dail Jones. I want to thank Tim Barnett for the way he equally chaired the responses from all the committee members.

I also want to say “Hello!” to Lianne Dalziel, and to thank her for her experience and cooperative attitude towards myself and certain aspects of the submissions. I think she deserves a place back on the front bench.

I want to refer to all the letters that I received from people in the Wairarapa. Here is one of them, from Mr Selwyn Hill and Maureen Hill: “We write to you to express our total disagreement with the proposed Civil Union Bill before Parliament currently. This bill is against the marriage bond, which is a Christian commitment clearly set by Our Lord Jesus when he was on earth as a God-given union. This bill is against the family and against the bonds that hold society and our nation together.”

Submitters against the Civil Union Bill have described me as a practising homosexual—30 years and still practising, some might scoff—as a leading pro-homosexual lobbyist, and as someone with a very personal sexual lifestyle commitment. It was not in any of those colourful roles that I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee. I am devoted to making the voice of the wider community heard in this place, and have for 5 years chaired what I think is a very functional select committee. I am proud to be speaking in this debate as its chair.

When the Civil Union Bill was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee my role as chair was questioned. Of course, my sexuality was the issue. For two reasons I was happy to carry on as chair. The role of leading a select committee is primarily about process. It was a personal challenge not to generate complaints from submitters that they had been unfairly treated by me as chair, and we received none. Secondly, most people who stand to benefit from this bill are heterosexual, so if I declared an interest, so should have all the other committee members, and the committee would have collapsed. That made no sense.

Of course, as today, sexuality dominated the debate. As an aside, we realised as the select committee progressed that marriage has a history of being used as an expression of the dominant prejudices of the society and the time—bans on interfaith marriage, bans on people with some sort of disability being able to marry, and bans on interracial marriage in the USA only two generations ago. Civil unions are not marriages, but the distaste expressed by biblical literalists towards the idea of two people of the same gender being able to have legal recognition of their relationship had all the flavour of the use of relationship law as a weapon to advance their latest prejudice.

The select committee received very few specific proposals to amend the bill, and we responded to each. We inserted a commencement date, for certainty. We abandoned prescribed words for the solemnisation of the relationship, to allow freedom of choice. We inserted recognition of overseas same-sex marriages and civil union type of arrangements as civil unions in New Zealand. We ensured that the language of marriage remained as such, and that with civil unions comes new legal language applying only to people in civil unions.

The select committee process was complex to manage, and I thank Angela Van Dam, Will Murray, and Helena Strange for their outstanding work in keeping the floods at bay and making sure that submitters were treated well. I also thank my fellow committee members for putting up with a vigorous schedule, and thank those of them deeply opposed to this bill—notably, Murray Smith of United Future—for remaining quite calm and constructive.

I shall devote the remainder of my speech to working through a series of comments made about the work of the committee on the bill, and on the wider issues raised in the debate. Some say that the select committee rushed the process. Groups and individuals had 7 weeks to produce submissions, after an open debate on civil unions lasting for the past year. It is ironic that the debate on the issue actually started back in 1999, when the then National Government issued a discussion paper on same-sex couples and the law. So this bill was a shock to no one. The committee gave every one of the 400 or so submitters who wanted to be heard the chance to be heard, and 352 responded and ended up appearing. The 75 percent of those submitters who were opposed to the bill were highly repetitive. We then spent 7 weeks processing the information and the views collected. All of that totalled 82 hours of committee sittings. That is not the description of a rush.

Some say that the committee ignored the majority of submissions. In fact, a section in the committee’s report signed by seven of its 11 members makes clear that we heard what they said very clearly indeed, and responded in detail. The numerical breakdown of submissions received by a select committee is not a referendum. The role of the committee is to separate emotion from fact. Some submissions were of standard wording, with individual copies signed by many different people. Some were from groups. One had a petition attached, signed by 2,965 people, in favour of the bill. In the last 36 hours my parliamentary office has received 1,000 emails—800 in favour of the bill, and 200 against. We can all play the numbers game. Members of Parliament are not statisticians. We are politicians seeking ideas and views for analysis.

The school of gender and women’s studies at Victoria University analysed all the submissions. Of the 3,383 substantial submissions received, 74 percent—not 95 percent—were against the bill, and 26 percent in support. Of those submissions from agencies rather than individuals, 45 percent were in favour, and 55 percent against. Was it divine intervention that caused the submission from the Destiny Church to fail to arrive? We shall never know. Of the submissions against the bill, fewer than 1 percent were from people with direct experience in the matters dealt with by the bill. Of the submissions in support of the bill, 33 percent were from people with direct experience of those matters. What I described above is a classic example of a group that did not represent either mainstream New Zealand or even mainstream Christian thought, that was well organised, and that flooded a select committee with submissions. That Victoria University study found by analysing the 2001 census that a maximum of 9 percent of New Zealanders held fundamentalist Christian views. So the moral majority may, in fact, be neither.

Many of the oral submitters against the bill stated that they had opposed at the time, and still regretted, homosexual law reform 18 years ago. I utterly respect their right to hold their views, but they do not—and I am sure Parliament agrees—hold a veto on such matters. None of the 300 or so opponents of the bill heard by the committee presented any evidence on how homosexual law reform and the expansion of human rights grounds to include sexual orientation had personally affected them or had provided anything but good to society. There were no unintended consequences of those laws, so what is different now?

Some call for a referendum on this matter. This bill flows from the decision of this House in 1993 to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That was a moment of constitutional importance. That moment has passed. It is now the job of this House to implement the consequences.

Some say that same-sex couples could obtain the protections of civil union through personal legal contracts. To quote a Wellington gay submitter: “My partner and I have had to spend considerable sums on legal fees for the drafting of a relationship property agreement, wills, and enduring powers of attorney to property, personal care, and welfare, yet still our relationship lacks any legal protection even approaching that automatically conferred by marriage. That is not equality and it is not acceptable.”

Some say that the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill should have been dealt with first. That is nonsense. It is the Civil Union Bill that confers what many refer to as next-of-kin status. It gives certainty, which can then be used to access the rights in the relationships bill, and, obviously, both pieces of legislation should come into force on the same day.

In conclusion, homosexuality certainly inspires fantasy. Submitters spoke of a man in the United States wanting to marry his horse—male, I assume. They described this bill as being the spark for the mass explosion of New Zealand’s volcanoes. They claimed that homosexual Arab terrorists were roaming Christchurch promoting the bill. They claimed that most gay men die by their early 40s, giving me, at 46 years of age, kaumātua status in this House. Then I read chilling submission CU 748, in which a 12-year-old describes homosexuals as worthy of death. Those in this House who reject this bill need to realise what that rejection is validating, be it blackshirts marching outside or twisted prejudice in the minds of our young. I commend this bill to the House.

I advise members who are in the Chamber or who may be listening that there are two questions to be put, and although the bells will ring for an extended period of time on the first, they will ring for only 1 minute on the second.