Civil Union Bill

What an extraordinary thing it is that this Parliament is in urgency to pass the Civil Union Bill. What on earth is urgent about it?

I will say what is urgent. The Government knows that this bill is an electoral liability and it wants to clear the deck pre-Christmas, because next year the public will get to vote. It is as simple and as cynical as that.

What is even more cynical is the way in which the Government’s spin machine has pretended that this bill is not a gay marriage bill. Like parrots, each of the Government speakers say that it is not about gay marriage. Let us read the original third clause in Part 1. It should have stated that the purpose of this bill was to introduce gay marriage, but it actually stated that the purpose was to register relationships as civil unions under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act.

Is a civil union a death? Some might think so. Is it a birth? Maybe not. It is certainly a marriage. This is the “Gay Marriage Bill” in drag. Let us not pretend anything less. I challenge the Minister in the chair, Mr David Benson-Pope, to read the Tui advertisement: “This isn’t a gay marriage bill? Yeah, right!”.

Clause 42 is where this bill does become significant. In clause 42, amendments are made to the Family Proceedings Act. I am one of those who says that that is one of the most important Acts this Parliament has, because it is the family that provides for the upbringing of children. Despite the fact that Government members say this is not a gay marriage bill, when it comes to the amendment to the Family Proceedings Act the husband is to be a party in a civil union, the wife is to be a party in a civil union, and marriage is to be synonymous with civil union.

That is what clause 42 says, so I ask Tim Barnett to say what the bill is. It is a gay marriage bill. I tell him to summon up the courage to say what it is, and to stop the fraud on the people of New Zealand by saying that it is anything less.

If it is not gay marriage, why is it being registered under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act? Is there any Government member who can explain for me why this thing that is not to be a marriage is to be registered under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act? [Interruption] Yes, it is very popular with the United Future party, but could the Minister in the chair explain to the Committee why he does not have the upfront nature to say that this bill is a gay marriage bill?

When we look at the companion bill, we see that there have been 1,034 changes to every statute, whether the statutes are about superannuation law, family law, child support law, education law, health law—members can name them. In every single one of those statutes, civil union and marriage are to be exactly the same. I say to the Committee simply this: if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, if it smells like a duck, then it is a damn duck. This is gay marriage, and no matter what the Government’s spin doctors say, there will not be a single area of law in which a civil union will be different from marriage. As we look through the detail of the bill, we see that the two will be synonymous. In every element of process, a civil union and marriage will be identical.

I just challenge members opposite to be upfront with the electorate and explain why it is necessary for this Parliament under urgency, in a mad rush before Christmas, to change one of the most fundamental tenets of our society, which is that marriage is between—

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Why should we believe this man? The High Court wouldn’t believe him.

Maybe Rick Barker can explain. Why has the Government said that civil union is not gay marriage when it is to be registered under the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act? Mr Barker, who was very keen to interject just a moment ago, has walked out of the Chamber. I say to him that I do not think that that is good enough. I think the people of New Zealand deserve an honest answer as to why he will not label this legislation what it is—it is gay marriage.

I will respond to Nick Smith with the facts of the situation, as opposed to his fantasies. First of all, in terms of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act, the Justice and Electoral Committee was quite prepared to make that change. We were advised that the agency was looking at its nomenclature and at whether it would list out all of its various registration processes, at which stage things might change. Otherwise, we would have been happy to do that now.

The member is quite mistaken, in terms of the Family Proceedings Act. In the bill before the Committee, in the amendments to the Family Proceedings Act, the words “husband”, “wife”, and “spouse”—the marriage language—are paralleled by the words “civil union partner”. That change was made by the select committee, which was quite clear that marriage had a certain vocabulary attached to it and that civil unions should not mix and mess with that vocabulary.

In terms of whether civil union is gay marriage, it seems very odd to me that the great majority of people who will benefit from this institution are heterosexuals. I do not know how they can possibly be labelled as gay, because civil unions are there for heterosexual de facto couples and for same-sex couples. Civil union is not a gay institution and it is not marriage; it is civil union. The only people who can move from civil union to marriage are a man and a woman who were originally in a civil union.

So what we have is a new, inclusive institution, open to same-sex and to different-sex couples. We then have a number of various and different legal processes around that. For example, a new category of celebrant is established—a civil union celebrant—so that marriage celebrants are not conducting both types of ceremony. More generally, I think that Mr Smith has failed to point out that the strength of what the submitters to the select committee said about marriage is that marriage is not made by the law alone. The Marriage Act is very simple legislation. Marriage is made by its history, its tradition, and its culture, and nothing in the Civil Union Bill affects those. We have a new institution, created in the 21st century, that will develop its own tradition and its own culture.

We do not know how many heterosexual couples will take it up. We do not know how many same-sex couples will take it up. That will determine the nature of the institution. A comparable law is the civil solidarity pact in France, open in the same way to different-sex and same-sex couples. Fifty percent of the couples who use it are lesbian and gay, and 50 percent are heterosexual. So civil union is a new institution, a new name, and separate to marriage. That is what it is all about.

My colleague Nick Smith is dead right: when one reads the purpose clause one cannot escape the conclusion that this bill is all about gay marriage. The previous speaker, Mr Barnett, had the opportunity to acknowledge that fact when he was on his feet. If the proponents of this bill would only acknowledge that fact, I could at least have respect for their position.

Mr Barnett knows that this bill is about gay marriage because he is its architect, and he has said publicly that that was exactly what he intended. He intended this bill to be about gay marriage but now, when he has the opportunity to bring the bill to Parliament, he will not acknowledge that fact. The public record will demonstrate that he did say that—and that the Prime Minister said it, as well.

Of all the discussion and talk from the homosexual community about tolerance, and of all the mail I have received, the only hate correspondence I have had in the last few days has come from the homosexual community—simply because I would not buy its smokescreen argument that this bill is about human rights. Because it is not; it is about gay marriage—period. As I have said to Mr Barnett and others, if they had the courage simply to acknowledge that fact, I could at least respect them. At this stage of proceedings I really cannot.

We in this Parliament have absolutely no mandate, no mandate at all, to pass this bill—let alone to pass it under urgency. If this bill were so good, and if the Government really believed it was in the best interests of New Zealanders, why did the Government not make the subject an election issue rather than take it off the agenda? The answer is simple. The Government knew, and Mr Barnett knew, that they would be thrown out of office.

That is why this cynical Government has taken the issue off the agenda. This Government is totally without morality. It is bankrupt. In fact, it is rotten to the core, and the Prime Minister is the worst apple. That is why she is voting for the bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Order!

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. On what issue are you bringing me to order?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thought you were going a little bit over the top, but I invite you to continue.

Will this Prime Minister allow a binding referendum on this issue?

💬 Richard Worth: No way.

No, and do members know why? Overnight she told the nation that she will not allow it, because parliamentarians come to Parliament to make decisions. The hypocrisy of that argument is not lost on me. This is a Prime Minister who will not even get out of bed without a poll result telling her it is a good idea, yet she has the audacity to say to the people of this country that there will not be a binding referendum on this issue. The real reason she will not support Mr Donnelly’s call for a binding referendum is that she knows it would be lost.

Survey after survey of Kiwis, whether on television or radio, or by select committee submissions, show that New Zealanders do not want a bar of this legislation. That is the only reason this Prime Minister will not put this legislation to the test and let the public of New Zealand decide.

Was the Prime Minister vocal when Mr Choudhary sat on the fence in respect of the Prostitution Reform Bill? No, she said nothing, but now she is trumpeting that politicians come to Wellington in order to make decisions. Well, she is a politician who does not do that; she uses a very cynical method called polling. Let us think about the term “civil union”. I say it is cold, clinical, and completely without warmth—just like this Prime Minister.

I want to talk a little bit about my father. He only ever won one trophy—we kids used to think it was neat—and it was for winning the Auckland boxing championships. In some ways that expressed his view of masculinity. He served in North Africa and Italy from 1940 to 1945 and fought at El Alamein, but he only ever told stories of the fisticuffs he used to get into during leave. It would be fair to say that he had a fairly macho view of masculinity.

My mother was quite the opposite. She had a different upbringing. Her mother died when she was young, and she was largely brought up in Catholic boarding schools. The nuns became her surrogate mothers. So she was very staunchly steeped in the Catholic faith and Catholic beliefs. She and dad became engaged before he went to war, and mum waited patiently for his return. When he came back they were married and produced five kids—three boys and two girls.

I was the third son so I got the hand-me-downs from two brothers, but my sister after me got flash new clothes and that is why I consider I am still a scruffy dresser. One of my brothers was in fact just different from the other two boys. He was not as physically skilled, although he joined in all the sports. He was artistic, whereas the other two were not. I do not wish to make a stereotype but just to tell members about it as it actually was, and as it is.

In general, we grew up as a typical family of the time in a typical State housing area, and differences did not matter. My brother got married, as did the other members of the family. His was a big Catholic wedding, but the marriage was not successful. Following the annulment, my brother developed a pattern of having male mates live with him. He did not actually come out of the closet as such, but just gradually the door was pulled ajar and we all became progressively enlightened.

The knowledge of my brother’s sexual preference hurt both my parents. I know it did. It challenged my father’s view of masculinity and, indeed, his own masculinity. It challenged my mother’s religious beliefs very deeply. But never once, not even in the slightest, did either of my parents convey any sense of rejection of my brother as a valued member of our family; my father conveyed silent acceptance and my mother fierce protectionism. My brother and his partners were fully accepted.

I want to pay tribute to my parents, because through their behaviour and through their example they taught me the true meaning of family values. I have heard a lot about family values, but I believe they taught us the true meaning of them. They taught me that family values mean that acceptance of family members is non-negotiable and unconditional.

I also want to take the opportunity to talk further about the family, and to inform the Committee that on Friday this week I will not care whether this bill is still being debated, because I am not going to be here. I will be with my wife, walking my eldest daughter up the aisle. I am glad there is a formal ceremony in which my daughter and her partner can make a public commitment to each other—can make a pledge of an exclusive and long-lasting relationship to each other. I do not for one minute believe that the passage of this bill will undermine the marriage into which my daughter is entering. My brother and his partner will be there amongst the rest of our family and friends, as should be the case.

I accept the consciences of those who oppose this bill—and people know that I have put forward an amendment for a referendum—but I would respect those consciences far more easily if I had witnessed an effort by just one of those members to put up a bill in their time in Parliament to re-criminalise homosexual behaviour. But not one has.

The message, therefore, must be that gays can have legal sexual relationships, but that there is no legal way they can make public commitments to long-term, exclusive relationships. That, I put to this Committee, is a position that encourages promiscuity, and that position is in no one’s best interest in terms of public health. So at this point in time I am still supportive of this bill but, as I said, later on during the Committee stage we will debate my belief that this issue needs to go to a public referendum so that we can settle it for all time.

Some of the submitters who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee and supported the bill said that they wanted civil unions for different-sex people because of the culture they saw surrounding marriage—a culture that they thought was religious and patriarchal. However, they failed to note that the Marriage Act does nothing in terms of culture or religious connotations, and neither does the Civil Union Bill. The difference is, though, that civil unions as we are proposing them are devoid at the moment—at their start—of any cultural or religious connotations.

Marriage, by contrast, has had hundreds of years in which a culture has developed around it. That culture comes not by way of the Marriage Act but by way of society’s understanding of what marriage provides. Similarly, the Civil Union Bill provides no culture around it, and it is as open as a void in order for a culture to develop around it.

But when we look at even the things that were criticised by those submitters in terms of the culture surrounding marriage, we find those things are changeable. The patriarchal nature of marriage really comes down to the relationship people have between them. Whether the husband dominates the relationship is really a matter for the husband and the wife to work out. It is not something that we as a society impose. There is no patriarchal nature to a marriage, other than what the couple themselves accept or what one partner imposes on the other—whether patriarchal or matriarchal. Similarly, in terms of religious connotations we now have several marriage ceremonies, which can occur without any religious connotation whatsoever or with as much as the couple choose. Therefore, any religious connotation to marriage again comes down to what the couple want in terms of their relationship.

In essence, therefore, the difference between marriage and civil union does not come down to the nature of the bill that is passed but simply to what the couple create for themselves. All we have done in this bill is substitute the term “civil union” for the word “marriage”, and that is at the heart of the argument that the two are no different. However, marriage over hundreds of years has come up with two very important cultural norms that surround it. One is that it is intended to be a lifelong relationship—at least, at its commencement—and secondly, to be an exclusive relationship.

We do not know whether the Civil Union, if it passes, will in fact develop those sorts of provisions, but we encourage lifelong and exclusive relationships because we believe as a society that for the nurturing of the next generation it is in the best interests of society that there are stable environments in which to raise children. The trouble with the Civil Union Bill is that we do not know whether that culture will be there. We do not know whether in fact we will have lifelong, exclusive relationships for the nurturing of children.

The select committee considered that matter, and we were going to put in the purpose clause a provision that said that part of the purpose of civil unions was to recognise and support stable, genuine relationships between two people who wish to acknowledge freely and publicly their lifelong and exclusive commitment to each other. However, the Greens strongly objected to that provision. They did not want civil unions to have any suggestion that they were to be lifelong relationships, and they did not want civil unions to have any suggestion that they were to be exclusive relationships. Clearly, what the Greens wanted was that civil unions could be seen to be transitional relationships—as far as the couples who entered into them were concerned, if that is what they chose—and that they could be open relationships, so that couples in civil unions were free to have sexual relationships with people outside those unions if they wanted to.

The Greens did not want Parliament dictating or even suggesting in this bill that there should be a lifelong or exclusive relationship—and that is the problem that we have with civil unions: they have no culture surrounding them. We are opening up to all sorts of interpretations the environment in which we are going to raise the next generation, and we have nothing there to cover for it. It was interesting that the select committee, having decided that there should be this purpose clause, moved away from it on the final day of consideration.

I want to take a call on the purpose clause of this bill. I certainly hope Brian Connell will continue to front the opposition to this bill, as he is giving plenty of fodder to those of us who agree with it. I offer my congratulations to Mr Donnelly, and I hope his daughter’s wedding is a wonderful occasion for his entire family.

I want to talk a little bit about the implications for the largest sector of society that stands to benefit from this bill, and that, of course, is heterosexuals. I have talked to a lot of my friends about this bill, and I want to bring to the attention of the Committee the fact that things are changing in New Zealand society. It has already happened to a large extent. It is the result of various changes in law, and various changes in the belief systems held by young New Zealanders today. Far from those changes being detrimental or destructive, if we accept them and if we learn what changes this Parliament needs to make to accommodate those changes in New Zealand society, then we will see that in fact they do not need to be the destructive forces that many in this House would have us believe them to be.

One of those changes is the fact that a number of young New Zealanders are waiting longer to get married, and a number are deciding not to get married, or are not making a decision not to get married but are ending up staying in de facto relationships. In fact, there are over 320,000 New Zealanders now living in de facto relationships. As one of those 320,000 living in a de facto relationship, I say that my relationship is committed, stable, and absolutely monogamous, and I will not have members of this House say that just because they are married, their relationship means more to them than my relationship does to me, because that is simply not true.

There are a number of forces in play in respect of this issue. One of them is that women now want to be financially independent before marriage, and that has delayed the age of marriage quite considerably. Another reason is that many of our generation have seen the break-up of marriages. Research out of the United States from the national institute of marriage, which is hardly a left-wing organisation, has shown that far from young people believing that marriage is irrelevant, they actually hold it in far higher regard than previous generations did. They no longer see it as just something that people have to do. They no longer believe that what a young woman should do when she finishes school is find a good husband from a good family and settle down. Now, young people want to find their soulmates and settle into marriage. That has brought an interesting issue of expectation into the marriage debate that I do not believe we have really addressed.

A number of my friends who are in de facto relationships have told me that they would like to have a civil union. Although members of this Committee might not understand or like the fact that people do not want to get married, the fact is that just because we say they should get married does not mean that they will. Their reasons for not wanting to marry are varied, but I have to say that the main reason is that they cannot separate out the institution of marriage from religion. I know that people say one can have a civil marriage, but those young people would say it is still a marriage. One young girl who came and talked to me told me she had grown up in a very strict religious household. She said that it had been awful and she had had a horrible time growing up. She said: “Do you know what my mother said to me? She said she did not mind whether I had a civil marriage, because I would still be married in the eyes of God.” She told me: “For me, that sealed it: I will never get married.” But she said she would like to be able to have a civil union, because she wants to be able to walk down the aisle, and she wants to be able to have the solemnisation. She does want all of that but she wants it to be secular.

I believe that had we been looking at amendments to the Marriage Act today to allow same-sex couples to marry, we would not see church groups and religious organisations holding marriage out at arm’s length from them and saying: “Hey, you can have a civil marriage. That has got nothing to do with us.” On the contrary, they would be telling us that marriage is the cornerstone of the Christian church. I believe that it is a very important part of the Christian church. It is an institution that upholds Christian values, and I think it is very important in that right. I understand why people who are religious do not want the Marriage Act to be changed—I understand that entirely.

I also understand the number of heterosexual and same-sex couples who came to the select committee and said that the institution of marriage does not uphold their beliefs, because it says that same-sex couples cannot enter into it. That is not something I believe in; that is something, in fact, that I find very, very abhorrent to my own personal views. For that reason, I would like a civil union, which is a secular, neutral, new institution, which shows that my values can be upheld, as well as those of my same-sex friends who are in long-term relationships and want to have them formalised.

So although we might stand here in this Chamber and say that young people should just get married, the reality is that there is a large proportion of young people out there who have grown up, as I did, with the Bible in Schools programme, and with being told that marriage is one of the cornerstones of the Christian church. I find it very ironic now that the same kinds of people are coming to me and saying: “No, it isn’t. No, no—not at all. It is a civil ceremony, and if you go to a church, well, that’s your decision.” Well, that is not the case. If one is going to say that, that is fine, but one should be consistent and not just say it when it suits.

It is very interesting that the same side—in fact, almost the same mouths—that is arguing that it is ridiculous for those from the pro-marriage side who are worried about this legislation to feel that it says something about marriage is claiming at the same time that the reason for setting up this mimicry is to get away from the religious connotations of marriage, because marriage is all in the heart and all in the mind. Our select committee found—I think to the surprise of all of us—that there is next to nothing about marriage specified in the Marriage Act. We can construct some part of the State’s attitude to marriage from other law, such as the law that governs the delay before dissolution, and we can argue that a stable, long-term commitment of loving and caring is part of marriage or of civil union, from some elements of history, but we cannot find anything to that effect in law.

We are having this debate when last year 47 percent of marriages were civil services that were not conducted in a registry office, and 18 percent were conducted in a registry office. In other words, only 35 percent of marriages last year took place in a church. I think we could assume that a few others might have been religious ceremonies that were not held in churches. I do not know how many. We were told by marriage celebrants who gave evidence to us in Christchurch that there were not many of those. But we have to take it that the community knows that marriage is a civil ceremony as far as the State requires, and that it has known that for generations. So the idea that some urgent Government priority should be establishing a new status to avoid the offence that some apparently feel at the residual religious connotation is plainly ridiculous.

This legislation is an attempt to create a direct mimic—a direct pantomime—of marriage, in order to hitch-hike on its traditions, and to hitch-hike on the residual respect that there is for marriage. It is an attempt by an elite to tell those who continue to dislike homosexuality that they ought to change. When Richard Worth comes up with proposals that will confer all the legal benefits of this status and remove every one of the legal disabilities, we are told that that is an attempt to wreck the bill. Well, it can be wrecking the bill only if the objective were something other than the removal of discrimination. It can be wrecking the bill only in that it is wrecking an attempt to use this bill to force a particular view of lifestyle, a particular morality, using the levers of the State, on those who simply say they do not agree.

I do not have a concern about homosexual relationships or homosexual couples. I would not have supported the Homosexual Law Reform Bill if I had been concerned about those. But when I hear Brian Donnelly giving a very sincere speech and saying that the valuable time of this Parliament should be spent on a bill that would allow—I cannot remember his phrase exactly—legal rights to have a relationship, or legal recognition of a relationship, I know that that comes from a world view that has forgotten where our legal tradition started. It was only a few generations ago that New Zealanders knew they could do anything that the law did not prohibit. It was without question that one could have any relationship one liked as long as the law did not prohibit it. One did not need the State to say a relationship was legal; the State told one only when a relationship was illegal. When the Homosexual Law Reform Bill went through Parliament, the State ceased to tell people when their relationships were illegal.

We had, of course, the historical institution of marriage, and the State had decided that it would use that institution and reinforce it by providing a registration structure. I see great advantage in registration.

This debate on the Civil Union Bill is an important debate. There is absolutely no doubt about that. For my money, the Government has embarked upon a programme of radical social change—of social engineering, if you like. We have seen a number of elements of that in recent months. The first was the decision to legalise prostitution, which had a whole lot of consequences. The second was the decision, in effect, to close down the Returned Services Association clubs in New Zealand, because that will be the impact of the smoke-free legislation. Now we see proposals that, for all intents and purposes, will introduce same-sex marriage.

I think it is worth reflecting that while we are doing these things other countries are doing the opposite. Just in the last month, in the Australian Federal Senate, we have seen a clear stance taken against same-sex marriage. Even more recently, in the context of the US presidential elections, we have seen a series of referenda across that country, and in the states concerned there has been unequivocal rejection of same-sex marriage. [Interruption] In a moment I will, to meet the needs of members opposite who are interjecting, explain why the Civil Union Bill is all about same-sex marriage.

But I will start, if I might, by making the point that as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee hearing submissions on this bill, and on its companion piece of legislation, which is in serious difficulty, I along with other members of the committee, some of whom are present in Parliament at the moment, spent days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills. Not only did this issue receive more submissions than any other but it was been one of the most emotionally charged that I can remember. There were approximately 6,000 submissions—maybe a few more than that—and 91 percent of those submitters were opposed to this legislation. That should give any thinking Parliament cause to reflect on the processes that the Government has initiated. Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise that their loving and committed relationships should be recognised in law, but—and I hope members opposite will acknowledge this—with equal sincerity, most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage to New Zealand, which, they believed, would undermine the unique status of marriage.

If I were asked to summarise very briefly what my concerns are in connection with the determination of the Government to push this legislation through, I would say that they are these. First of all, there is strong opposition to this bill—6,000 submissions and 91 percent of the submitters saying no. That is the first thing. The second thing is that this bill is being rushed through under urgency. That is quite significant because one would have thought that issues of this gravamen in the community—

💬 Hon Parekura Horomia: Rubbish!

The member opposite says “Rubbish!”, but he probably does not understand that we are in urgency. The gravamen of the argument, though, is that the bill is being rushed through—[Interruption]

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister alongside you is abusing his privilege by using his microphone to interject on me, which he is not permitted to do.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is quite right. I have indicated to the Minister that I would like him to quieten down.

I have been making the point that the bill is being rushed through under urgency. It is a serious matter. It does not deserve to be rushed. It deserves careful and considered reflection. It has been reported back early. It was due to be reported back on 23 December. It is quite unusual for bills to be reported back within their first stipulated time limit. That has happened here.

But there are other things going wrong. I was party to a sorry set of events in the select committee, where it seemed that the officials were being badgered to hasten events so that there would be an early commencement of the bill. That is why there is a change that would see the bill come into force on a fixed date, and possibly a departure from the Cabinet rules so that the normal time frames between the passage of regulations and the regulations coming into effect would be waived.

Some of the narrowness that abounds in this House certainly surprises me, especially in relation to this very serious bill. The member who has just spoken, Richard Worth, exuded what a lot of people are exuding about how people do take this issue seriously. What licence is given in this country to determine that emotion, love, and care exist only in a narrow framework that is written on a piece of paper, when we know through clear facts and percentages that there is a lot of divorce and adultery? It is like the king with no clothes. It seems to be the symptom that is pervading in here.

We heard some rubbish spoken earlier on about people’s choice. We talk about fairness and equity. This bill is about people’s choice. I know that, quite certainly, some of my relations and whānau are in gay relationships, and they need to be respected. Others might not like it but, as a real bloke who played a lot of rugby in the front row and did all those blokey things, I do understand it. [Interruption] I am glad that I am not as narrow-minded as that member, who tries to make believe that these people do not care for each other. Relationships should not be, as I have said, constrained within the framework of the licence that some churches and organisations write out and sign. I dare not tamper with the basic fundamentals and ethics of churches in this country, but I think that what is going down is hypocrisy at the maximum—

💬 Brian Connell: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member who is on his feet just used a word that is unparliamentary.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. I was waiting to see to whom he was referring with that word. Perhaps it is better if he does not use it. I am not sure in what context he was using it.

I am very clear. If the word does not fit—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, no. The member is now getting close to indicating where he was heading. I will ask him to desist and leave it as unknown.

One is put asunder when one hears the negative challenges around this issue. People are so definitive because of the law, but they want to corrupt that progression with their specific, narrow view on lore. Certainly, in relation to unions, we need to recognise that in contemporary times things are changing. Members heard Moana Mackey give a fine description of young people’s relationships in this country. Because they are doing it differently does not mean they do not love or care for each other. There is no difference from the relationship of kuia and mokopuna. We love them because they are our own. It is recognised in Māori lore. Certainly, there are tensions and challenges, even from our own people, but I think we need to take a couple of steps back, especially those people who are hardening off and expecting everybody to live in the same little box behind the same silk curtains, and are misbelieving and exaggerating what really goes on in this world in contemporary times.

There will be challenges as this bill goes through and they will be no different from other challenges. But let us remember that people have a choice in this country, whether they are immigrants, tangata whenua, or Pākehā Kiwis, and whether or not they are married. We can play with the percentages, but for the opponents of this bill to try to bully everyone else into a certain position, whether it may be perceived as conservative, or as the status quo, or as historically inherited through church union, or whatever else, begs a lot to be asked and answered.

I certainly do not have total support from my own whānau in relation to the stance that I have taken. But one thing that I am very clear on is that people have choices in this country, and this Government has been about that. It has recognised that and has given people choices, and the Civil Union Bill is about that. It is about a group of people, and about practices that people are involved in. That is their business. What is so untoward about recognising how people choose to live?

Tēnā tātou e whakarongo ana ki ngā kōrero e whakawhiti ana i roto i tēnei o ōtātou Whare. Greetings to all who may be listening to the civil union debate that is taking place today. Is it not ironic that the opinion of the large majority of the general public has been ignored? Members of Parliament who support the Civil Union Bill are deaf to the cries of the majority of constituents. Is this democracy? New Zealand First has strongly recommended a public referendum, but this, so far, has fallen on deaf ears as the Labour-led Government is adamant that the bill must go through. Others who have conscience votes in this House should note that if the bill passes it will undermine a stability that has been the foundation of this country. Moral fibre and virtue seem to be irrelevant, and this bill will certainly erode, disrupt, and create a decay in the family structure as we see it today, which has always been the hallmark of this nation.

Those who are for the bill may say and think: “Where has Bill Gudgeon been lately? He should get off the grass and not bring his moralistic views and virtues here, because we are entitled to whatever we want, hence the Human Rights Act.” What about the rights of the majority and those people who are against this bill? I have always believed in accountability for whatever we do. I say that that time will come. I would like the public to know that this reminds me of the story of the frog that happily boils to death. This Government has slowly increased the temperature, incrementally at regular intervals, and things that were once not normal to our society are now gaining a foothold.

To the Māori members who support this bill for whatever reason, I go back to the ancient proverb: “E kore au e ngaro, te kakano i ruia mai i Rangiātea.” The literal translation of this proverb is: “The seed that was planted in Rangiātea will never be lost.” The seeds are us, gathered here today. Rangiātea is the literal place of heaven where we originated. And the proverb goes on to say that we will never be lost. Is there any significance in the relationship between this bill and that proverb? I would say that the seed is the generations yet to come. So, again, we should think about our position as members of Parliament. Those who vote in favour of this bill will be responsible for a huge amount of negativity, just like that caused by the Prostitution Reform Bill.

This bill is iniquitous and has no future in New Zealand. I am vehemently against it. Regardless of the percentages and the statistics that people have thrown around today and in the past and will throw around in the future, this bill has no place in New Zealand. God did not create marriage for man and man, or for woman and woman. Marriage was between man and woman, and through that union came the children. For those who might think I am a Bible-pusher, for those who might think I am following God’s path—

The member who just resumed his seat will be pleased to know that the Civil Union Bill does not touch the sanctity of marriage that the member talks about. He will be pleased with that. I find it quite amazing that aspects of the attitudes of those opposing the bill smack of hypocrisy. I have to say that. I am not pointing it out to anyone in particular; I am speaking of attitudes.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am on to that. The member will withdraw and apologise.

I withdraw and apologise, Mr Chairperson. But everybody understands what I mean. This is a human rights - based piece of legislation, and it sickens me to think that those who preach the piety I have heard in this place today absolutely throw away the human rights that we are talking about, in favour of the very exclusive marriage. We are not seeking marriage, with this bill; we are seeking a civil union. This is part of the cornerstone of the foundation of our society—to build strong family relationships to help maintain the society we live in. In a country in the modern world, we should be able to enjoy equal opportunity to contribute to that, no matter what our gender or our status may be. We actually preserve and uphold the institution of marriage so that it is not touched.

The arguments that opponents to this bill are putting up are based on pious moral grounds, with a very strong religious overtone. We in New Zealand live in a secular society, and, while much of our tradition may be based on the Christian ethic, in the modern world there are a number of other beliefs. Should we all live under the tyranny of the majority of so-called “Christian” believers alone? No, we have a much more diverse basis of belief. One of them happens to be that some people choose not to get married but would like to choose some other way of having their relationships solemnised and recognised by the State and society, and to move on with their lives and be part of that cornerstone that helps build strength into this country of ours.

This bill is about building nationhood. It takes nothing away from anybody. Not one person will have anything removed from him or her by the passing of this bill, and I wish members would remember that. As for referenda, that is a cop-out by politicians who wish only to rule by referendum on issues like this. I do not think so. I do not think this country can be ruled by referendum in that way. And, by the way, I do not think this issue is serious enough to warrant a referendum, when I know darn well that the politicians who have been elected to Parliament have been imbued, upon their election, with some trust in their ability to make decisions on these very sorts of matters, particularly matters that are about human rights and not about taking anything away from anybody else.

I do not know why members keep going on about their particular points of view when it comes to people who would benefit by this bill being banished because of these members’ extraordinarily narrow beliefs. I cannot believe they can play both sides of the argument, saying on the one hand: “No, you cannot have access to marriage or a civil union.”, but on the other: “By the way, we do believe in you and value you as members of this society.” What does that smack of? It really does smack of something I apologised for previously.

With that, I end my contribution—one of many, I hope—at the Committee stage of this bill, in which we will flesh out even further some of the rather suspect contributions of members opposed to the bill that betray the real homophobia that pervades this place, and that the message from some of the extremists out there are now in here.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Before I call the next member, I remind the Chamber that once a member has withdrawn and apologised on an issue, there is no point referring back to it, because it does not exist.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I know that members opposite have gone on the offensive and have accused all sorts of people who do not support this bill for their use of language. I would like you to consider whether the member who has just spoken accusing those of us who do not support this bill of being “homophobes” is in order. I take offence at it. I do not think it is appropriate language in this debate.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I ask members, as I did earlier, to have respect, one for another, in this Chamber. I thank the member for raising that point. I do not need any help on it, and I will not do anything about it, but I thank him for raising it.

Mr Chairperson, you need to make a simple ruling. I can think of all sorts of offensive words that I could use in this Chamber about members opposite. I do not intend to use them. I will not take myself down to their level. But you need to make a clear ruling as to whether it will be acceptable—we will be debating this bill for the next couple of days, I understand—for members like Georgina Beyer to accuse members who do not support this bill of being homophobes. I take offence. I think the member should withdraw and apologise. Alternatively, Mr Chairperson, you should rule that it is quite appropriate—make a ruling.

I thank the member for furthering that point of order. I do not believe that the word was used in that context at all. I will not ask the member to withdraw and apologise for that particular comment. Members need not take that as licence to—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Well, you have—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): That is what I am ruling. I have been trying to listen to the debate very carefully. I do not think the word was used in that context. I do not think the member was accusing members of being homophobic. I have made a ruling as to what I propose to do with the member. The Chamber has heard it. I have thanked the member who raised the matter for doing so.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Notwithstanding the previous ruling that you have just handed down, could the term “dressed up in drag”—which I might find offensive, as well—fit into the ruling that you just gave?

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am quite aware of that, and that is why I asked members to have regard for other members in this Chamber. I find that if the word “homophobic” is offensive, any reference to the word “drag” and saying that this bill is “marriage in drag” is just as offensive. Members could go on today and tomorrow being pulled up for all sorts of words. Members should have regard for that, please.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I suggest that there is a big difference between accusing a person of being homophobic, or whatever, and suggesting that this bill is something other than what it purports to be. One addresses a person in the Chamber; a member of Parliament. That is clearly wrong. One that addresses this bill as being something else altogether has nothing to do with the people who are involved in it. It is a valid criticism of the bill.

My understanding of the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings is that these matters become matters that you need to rule on if an individual member takes offence. At that point, if the member takes offence, the member has a method at his or her disposal to raise the issue with you, and at that point, if the member has taken offence, you would probably require the offending party either to apologise or to withdraw and apologise. I think that if we work on the basis that if a member takes offence, the member can raise it at that point, we will get ourselves out of what has turned into a small quagmire.

I suggest that in this particular debate, the word “homophobe” is a useful term, and it would be unfortunate for us to end up interrupting the debate all the way through when it is a word that people are dying to use. I think that it says more about the poverty of intellect and argument of those who throw it as an allegation than it says about the recipient. But putting that aside, I think that when a word is ruled out that fits what they want to say so well, it ends up making the debate less rich, and with people simply searching for euphemisms. I would suggest that those of us who get accused of being homophobic know whether we are, and that we just thicken our skins and allow the debate to continue.

I thank members for raising that. I make no judgment on whether those two words that the member reminded the Committee of are equally offensive or not offensive at all. But it is all in the mind, and I know exactly what was meant by both words. I do not claim to have any more knowledge than anyone else here, but in respect of the point that Dr Nick Smith raised in particular to Ms Beyer, that should have been raised at the time she said it.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I did.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): No, she had sat down. She had finished. I had called the next speaker, and so on. Let us move on, and give Dr Wayne Mapp a chance.

The question I have to ask is: why do so many members of this Parliament, and in particular Government members, fear the voice of the people? Why are they scared of a referendum? What makes their conscience any better than that of a member of the public? The reality is that members of Parliament are representatives of the public. We are no better and no worse. For that reason, and that reason alone, I believe this issue, along with all other conscience issues, ought to be placed before the public. We should not fear the public. After a full and extensive debate, they will make their judgment and, frankly, in many cases, that might be a surprise to members. I think that members of the New Zealand public are fair and balanced and, in the privacy of the ballot box, will cast their votes for what is fair. That is why I will be supporting the amendment put forward by Brian Donnelly and the amendments put forward by Richard Worth.

I want to make it very clear. I polled the electorate in North Shore and, in a scientific poll, 56 percent of the public were opposed, 34 percent were for, and the balance were unclear.

💬 Tim Barnett: What’s the question?

I know that Mr Barnett says: “Ah, but you asked the wrong question.”, but I checked that, and that is not the case. More important, I checked the legislation in detail, and the reality is this. This legislation is, in fact, marriage by any other name. The form and substance of marriage are entirely reflected in the bill. There is a solemnisation procedure, people make undertakings, and the rules of consanguinity do apply. Those are precisely the things that we find in marriage.

When people suggest that this Civil Union Bill is not effectively a marriage, they are wrong, because when one reads the bill, that is precisely what the proposition is. That is why Mr Worth has put up, in essence, an alternative that does look more like a civil union. A number of same-sex couples have said to me that they are concerned about next of kin issues. They are concerned about property issues. I want to make it clear that I did vote in the Property (Relationships) Bill to extend those property issues to same-sex couples, because those are the real issues that gay people are mostly concerned with. Well, there is a mechanism to fix those issues, and Mr Richard Worth’s amendment will do precisely that. I believe that if the New Zealand public were given a clear and reasonable choice, they would extend the kinds of protections that Mr Worth is thinking of through a referendum.

I ask why the Government is so afraid of a referendum. Surely, as our democracy evolves, it is fundamental that we should be more willing to extend greater direct democracy to the people. There is an enormous passion for it. If one asks the public, that is what they want, and why do they want it? Because at their heart, they know that their consciences have as much validity as those of anyone in this Parliament. Surely, when we are talking about civil rights, we are talking about equality. Every person in this country who is an adult and who has thought about those things is able to make an informed decision. This Parliament has a historic opportunity to change the way that we do things in our democracy, and to extend civil rights to the people by an extension of our direct democracy.

I want to know from the next Government speaker whether it will take that opportunity, because there is a real opportunity here, which should be taken. In other countries, such as the United States, many European countries, and Australia, there is a growing trend for direct democracy. There is a growing voice in New Zealand for direct democracy. Conscience issues are the perfect vehicle for those. Civil union: it is either yes or no. The drinking age: it is either 18 or 20. Brothels: one either wants them in one’s community or one does not. The public are able to make common-sense, reasonable decisions on those issues. Those referendums would not be taking place in a vacuum; there would be a large and informed debate from both sides of the issue. They should be held at the time of general elections, to get the maximum participation, but we should ultimately trust the voice of the people.

I rise to make a contribution to this debate, which is very controversial. The House would not be in urgency at this particular time if it were not controversial, and it is the intention of the Government to try to rush this bill through before Christmas, in the hope of getting it out of the way before we enter next year’s election cycle. It is also a very passionate debate. I believe that all members stand to speak with a great deal of concern, either for or against this legislation, and the debate will not be conducted without passion. Members hope to conduct themselves in the Chamber with some respect, but we will not be able to debate this matter devoid of passion, because it is a very, very serious issue.

I oppose this legislation because I believe it does do serious damage to the institution of marriage in New Zealand, and in particular to the importance of the way our families are constituted in this country. There are some foolish things said, and even more foolish things done, though, in the midst of this debate. I think all of us would regret some of the things we have heard said, or seen written, or actions that have been taken, that do not help in being able to address this subject and this bill with the seriousness that it deserves.

But this is not all one-sided. Before we have sanctimonious claims from one side of the debate, that all the errors are on the other side, I would like to refer the Committee to the issue of Express magazine that was published immediately after the first reading of this legislation. The front page of the magazine had pictures of all the MPs who voted against this bill on its first reading, and the title of the page was: “The Ugly Face of Homophobia”. I believe that is a terrible injustice to this Parliament and an injustice to those MPs who have voted, according to their conscience, against this legislation. I remind those who are supporters of the legislation to bear that in mind and to consider the way in which we may conduct ourselves in this debate, before they begin throwing stones across the other side of the Chamber.

When we speak of upholding marriage, we are speaking about not seeing the need for the State to justify or to give formal recognition to same-sex relationships. That really is the issue. Whenever we raise this we are accused of being very narrow. Just yesterday I was in Australia, attending the National Prayer Breakfast in the House of Parliament in Canberra. Many of the members of that Parliament, and indeed the public of Australia, are very proud of the fact that they passed an amendment to their Marriage Act this year, upholding the fact that marriage will always be for a relationship between a man and a woman. Those who oppose our stance on this legislation and would call us narrow, would have to address that concern against all of our colleagues across the Tasman, in Australia, and I do not think they would appreciate that too much.

We have also seen this year in the US elections, and in particular in 11 states in the US, referenda held on whether same-sex relationships should be recognised either in civil unions or in gay marriage. The people of those states overwhelmingly rejected those proposals, which is one of the reasons why I believe the Government is afraid to allow this issue to go to a referendum here in New Zealand. We believe that if more time were allowed for the debate and more New Zealanders were brought up to speed on what this legislation really is about, there would be an overwhelming rejection of it by referendum in this country.

Too many New Zealanders fall into the trap of being tolerant, without becoming fully aware of what the issues are really about. When asked if they condone same-sex relationships, most New Zealanders will say they do not object, they want to leave people alone, and they do not want to be judgmental. But when we dig deeper into what this legislation may in fact do over time we find there are some serious issues that will be raised. There is no provision in this legislation to prevent discrimination from being placed upon those who have a different opinion from those who support civil relationships, or same-sex relationships. What really concerns me is not what this may do to marriage in my generation, or in my children’s generation, but what it will do to my grandchildren, and generations beyond that, as those who are intent on making same-sex relationships equivalent to marriage continue in their campaign over time.

I do not believe this legislation will affect my marriage at all. I am entirely confident that after 27 years my wife and I have worked out a fairly stable relationship. I do not believe it will affect my children’s relationships. My two daughters, who are 26 and 25 years of age, have married, and I believe they will be able to sustain any attack from this legislation.

I mainly want to talk about public opinion, because that has been an issue raised by a number of speakers, but I would just like to start with a couple of challenges to members to respond to. One is in response to something Dr Nick Smith said earlier. I would like to know from Nick Smith in what sense the virtue and the purity of his marriage is threatened by this proposal for civil unions. He said it is and I would like to know how. In terms of Mr Baldock, who talked about unintended consequences, I want to hear from one of the opponents to this bill what were the unintended consequences of the decriminalisation of gay sex 18 years ago, and what were the unintended consequences of the introduction of human rights protections 10 years ago.

Those are fundamental questions, but let us move on to the issue of public opinion. First of all, in terms of opinion polls, rather than just quoting who we listen to, let us look at scientific opinion polls. Four polls have been held in New Zealand over the last 14 months on this issue. In October 2003, ACNielsen (NZ) Ltd found 64 percent support and 30 percent opposition; in April 2004, the One News Colmar Brunton poll found 46 percent support and 34 percent opposition; the 3 News poll in July 2004 found 59 percent support and 39 percent opposition; and in the New Zealand Herald poll in September 2004, the figure was 56 percent for and 39 percent against. So there seems to me to be quite a comprehensive public endorsement of the proposal of civil union.

If we turn to the issue of the mandate, three political parties in this Chamber committed in their manifestos at the last election to either introduce or support this legislation, namely, the Greens, the Progressive Party, and the Labour Party. That certainly is a mandate for this House to deal with the issue.

Let us turn to the issue of media comment, and what better source than the Ashburton Guardian. Thank goodness the narrow views of Mr Connell do not represent those of the people of Ashburton. In its editorial of 30 November 2004, entitled “Gays, lesbians need their rights”, the Ashburton Guardian spoke of gay and lesbian people in New Zealand being allowed the same rights, in its view, as other couples. The editorial asked: “Do we not pride ourselves on being liberal in this country?”. While some people in New Zealand may not agree that people of the same sex should even be together, and maybe their local MP is one of those, the fact is it happens, has happened for a long time, and will never stop.

Let us turn to its editorial opinion after the Destiny New Zealand march, entitled “Bigotry might be their destiny but it’s not ours”. “The hysteria and homophobia over the Civil Union Bill show just how immature we are as a country. … Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice. It’s a condition. If two men or two women live together in love, we should respect their decision and commitment and move on. People shouldn’t be scorned because of their sexuality, just as they shouldn’t be scorned because of their race or religion or gender.” It goes on to state that this bill has forced people to nail their colours to the mast. I can tell Mr Connell that it states: “You can support homosexuals without being judged one yourself.” It ends: “God knows New Zealand has problems. But homosexuality isn’t one of them.”

Then we might like to turn to Dr Wayne Mapp’s scientific poll. I notice that he did not give us the wording of that poll. He gave me the wording during a select committee meeting after he challenged me on it. The scientific poll contained four factual inaccuracies. Any polling that does not have fair and balanced questions is not effective. Dr Mapp had the opportunity, when he spoke, to give us the wording of the poll that he used in his electorate, and he failed to do that.

I think one of the truest things said in this whole debate was a comment by Stephen Franks, again when the Justice and Electoral Committee was meeting, when he said: “Well, in reference to the Civil Union Bill, the issues actually are pretty simple. You are either for it, or you are against it.” The issue is one of fundamental human rights and fundamental human dignity. Of course Stephen Franks rather spoiled that by first of all supporting it, then going against it. I do not quite know what it says about him. I really just want to point out that at the end of the day, public opinion is behind this legislation. It is good, solid, mainstream, Kiwi, liberal legislation.

I have already spoken in this Chamber about my view of this word “homophobia”, which has been used. I said before that I think the word is actually misguided because I do not think it is about fear of homos, it is about fear of a pluralist society. It is about fear of diversity in a society in which we accept other people for who they are rather than who we think they should be.

It is quite strange to see a number of members in this Committee whose parties talk about one law for all, then vote against this bill. When they talk about one law for all, are they talking about a law that is impartial and treats all people equally? Or, are they talking about a law that is monolithic and says there is only one way of living one’s life, and, if one does not live his or her life according to their way then the law is against one? In particular, I look at some of the members of ACT and most of the members of the National Party who, I think, are weaselling out of what they know is the right thing to do—to support this bill—by using convoluted arguments that I think they know in their hearts are actually quite wrong.

When we talk about one law for all it seems that some members of the Committee have the view of equal rights espoused by Napoleon. I do not mean the Corsican emperor, I mean the one in Animal Farm who said: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” I think it is a shame that some members of this Committee want to continue a status quo that would maintain that, and it is a good thing that it appears very likely they are going to fail in that attempt.

I would like to address the question of whether there should be a referendum. I have no doubt in my own mind that a referendum would pass. Polls indicate that while gay marriage is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders, most of us do appear to support civil unions or something like that. I think in that sense the numbers in this Committee probably reflect, to quite a large degree, public opinion. We are probably a little bit more conservative in this Chamber than the New Zealand public, but I think that we are roughly representative of the position of New Zealanders. I think that it would pass because New Zealanders pride themselves on tolerance, on a sense of fairness, and on respect for human rights.

So, as I say, I do think that a referendum would be in favour of this bill, but I do not agree that this question should be put to a referendum. That is because, firstly, it is simply a stalling tactic, and it is time that we passed this bill. It has been a long time in the Justice and Electoral Committee, and it has been a long time in front of this Parliament. Those who say that this is a rushed process are simply misleading the public when they make those statements. Secondly, I do not believe that the rights of minorities should be subject to a majority veto. It is interesting that members such as Mr Wayne Mapp, who talked on this issue, say that they want conscience questions—primarily moral questions—decided by a referendum. I have never heard the member argue for a referendum on genetic engineering, or on free-trade agreements for that matter. No, no, it is only on moral issues. He thinks it is only those questions that New Zealanders should have the right to decide on directly for themselves.

I do not believe, and the Green Party does not believe, that the rights of minorities should be subject to majority veto. This is not the kind of question that should be put to a referendum. This is a basic question of: do we support human rights, or do we not? Do we support equality for all New Zealanders, or do we not? It is as simple as that. It is an abdication of our responsibility if members say they support the bill but they will vote against it because there is no referendum. That is an absolute abdication of those members’ responsibilities as legislators. I make particular reference to Dr Don Brash, who said that he supports the bill. He said that he would support the issue in a referendum, but he will vote against the bill. I find his reasoning there a little hard to understand. We were elected to this Parliament to legislate, and I think it shows a lack of comprehension of what we were elected to do, and what the role of a parliamentarian actually is.

Before I finish I would like to challenge Brian Donnelly and Ron Mark. The Hon Brian Donnelly put up the Supplementary Order Paper on a referendum. I accept that that is in line with his party’s policies, and I accept that he has a genuine reason for doing so, because that is the position that that party takes. But my challenge is, if it fails, what will those members then do? Will they oppose the bill? They voted for it according to their conscience; will they vote against their conscience in the future?

The fundamental question that Parliament should be asking itself this afternoon is: will we make society stronger by making de facto relationships, same-sex relationships, and married people’s relationships exactly the same? That is the real key. All this wash we hear about human rights, etc. comes back to what will make society stronger.

The basic view I come from is that the family unit of mum, dad, and the kids is overwhelmingly shown in all the social research to provide the best environment in which to raise children. If we look at all the risk factors we so often debate in this Parliament, whether in terms of kids’ educational achievement, health statistics, or youth crime, we see that in all of those the evidence is overwhelming that families do best when there is a mum and a dad—not a mum and a mum, not a dad and a dad, but a mum and a dad.

Why does that matter? Well, it matters because the very future of our society is our children. I hear much hand-wringing from Labour members—they are concerned about child abuse in New Zealand, they are concerned about educational outcomes, and they are concerned about child poverty—yet the very institution of marriage and family that can best deliver those things for our society is being undermined by this bill.

Mr Tim Barnett decided to get very personal and to refer to my own marriage. I would have preferred that we did not. I am proud of my marriage. It is not perfect, but I am proud of it, and I am proud of the institution of marriage. But the question is: well, if we let everybody have it, does that undermine it? Let me ask members: if we let everybody get school certificate, does that undermine it for those who currently pass? Of course it does. [Interruption] Well, I know for Judith Tizard that it is part of Labour’s education programme to drive down standards of education, and that it wants to do the same with our relationships. But if we go to the Olympic Games and say: “Everybody is going to get a gold medal.”, does that undermine the value of the medal for those who get it? Of course it does.

Then we come to the argument from Moana Mackey. She says the reason we need to get rid of marriage and provide for civil unions is that society is a secular society—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: The member’s speech is full of lies.

There is nothing in the Marriage Act, and I have it right here before me—

💬 Dail Jones: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sick and tired of Labour members making unparliamentary statements. If Ms Tizard wants to say something is a lie, she should take a call. I distinctly heard what she said regarding Dr Nick Smith’s speech, and these Labour members should be brought to order. That member should be made to withdraw and apologise for saying that Dr Nick Smith’s speech was a lie.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I thank the member. The member is absolutely correct, and I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

I furthermore remind members that Chairperson Clem Simich indicated to them that interjections should be kept to a minimum. I say because this is a conscience issue that members should try to respect other members. The member will withdraw and apologise, please.

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: I withdraw and apologise.

Labour member Moana Mackey said the reason we had to create this new institution of civil union was that society is secular. I openly respect that. We are a secular society; it should not be for the State to impose religion. But I have the Marriage Act here. Nowhere in it does it have any religious overtone. In fact, only a third of weddings today are actually held within a church. So to somehow say that we need to introduce this whole new concept of a civil union on the basis that marriage is solely Christian is wrong—it is just incorrect.

Then we come to the argument that this is not really gay marriage. Well, let me read what the bill said when it was introduced. Clause 42(2) stated that the word marriage was taken to include civil union. I will read it again. All the way through an amendment to the Family Proceedings Act, the word marriage was taken to include civil union. Well, if that is not gay marriage, I do not know what it is. That is as clear as day.

I note in a gay magazine that Tim Barnett and the Prime Minister have said how proud they are that the Labour Party has delivered gay marriage. They did not say “civil union” in the magazine; they said “gay marriage”. They know that the majority of New Zealanders are opposed to gay marriage, so they have had their spin doctors getting every Labour member who takes the call to try to pretend that this is not the gay marriage bill.

I rise to support Part 1 of the Civil Union Bill. I say “Civil Union Bill”, because that is what we are discussing. Parliament is debating whether to create a new mechanism for gay and straight couples in New Zealand to have their relationships legally recognised by the law—not approved in some kind of opinion poll or text message competition, not accepted by everyone who lives in their street thinking they are an appropriate couple to be together, and not determined by each individual member of Parliament. We are deciding whether two people who are in love with each other should be able to bowl up and have their relationship recognised by law. It is quite a simple matter.

Instead, a lot of members of Parliament are saying that somehow there has to be some great competition: that somehow in Parliament today we are trying to decide whether in the future every New Zealander should live in a gay civil union relationship or in a heterosexual marriage. But this is not a competition. This is about looking at New Zealand in the 21st century, about seeing the range of relationships that exist throughout our communities, our families, our businesses, and everywhere in our country today, and about deciding whether the law should recognise the diversity of those relationships.

We are not trying to say that one relationship is better than the other. We are not trying to say that marriage is a terrible thing that has failed and therefore should be abolished and replaced with a civil union. We are simply providing an option for New Zealanders who either do not want to marry in the case of heterosexual de facto couples, or whom we are continuing to forbid to be married, in the case of same-sex couples. But here we are in Parliament with lots of members, as the new kind of moral crusaders and pioneers of righteousness, puffing up their chests and trying to say that they are protecting marriage and all that is moralistic and right in our society, while also saying that other members are somehow trying to tear apart the fabric of New Zealand. We are not in a competition in this debate.

What members have been trying to do, with the marriage side of things and the Marriage Act, is to say that this is some sort of pale imitation of marriage. I challenge members on that. They say that the wording in the Civil Union Bill is similar to the wording in the Marriage Act. I see that Dr Smith has a copy of the Marriage Act. I suspect, and I do not know whether I am right about this, that that would be one of the first times Dr Nick Smith has read the Marriage Act. I suspect that when he became engaged to his wife and they had a wonderful romantic evening, he did not read the Marriage Act. I bet that most members of Parliament had not read the Marriage Act before they were married to their partners—it is administrative law.

So let us not get hung up on the words we are using in Parliament to give effect to people’s day-to-day lives, because ordinary people out there who are at work at the moment, be they gay or straight, will not look at legislation for its wording to see how they want to live their lives together. I think that we are taking ourselves a little too seriously with regard to the way in which we are conducting the debate. In a very competitive manner we are trying to say that one relationship is better than the other, and that somehow thousands of couples who want to get together will read administrative law before deciding what relationship will suit them better.

On the issue of the referendum referred to by Mr Tanczos, I tell members that I agree with the sentiments he raised. The referendum was kind of thrown up at the last minute by some members as a way to try to divert attention from the issue, with the exception, of course, of New Zealand First members who have a longstanding policy on referenda. But there comes a time in this Parliament where we sometimes have to stand up and do what we think is the right thing, even though we are not sure what the majority of people out there might think about it. For example, I represent 55,000 people. I will not tell members what is in the souls of 55,000 people on this bill. I will not pretend to do that. I will make a value judgment myself, and of course I will be held accountable for it.

But I put this point to members: imagine if it were said that there ought to be a referendum about giving women the right to vote, when the entire electorate was made up of male voters or when the entire Parliament was made up of men who said: “No, this is far too important. Let’s have a referendum on it.” I suspect that that referendum would have been lost. I do not think that we would have ever freed the slaves by a referendum. I do not think that we would have ever done a whole lot of things around referenda, so Parliament has to make the call on those kinds of decisions and show the leadership that is necessary for minority groups. I do not want to spend my life going around picking on minority groups and making derogatory comments about them. I am not interested in that; I am interested in our getting on with these things. [Interruption]

I hear Mr Franks interjecting. I knew that Mr Franks would end up opposing this bill, because people like him always find some kind of superfluous, at-the-margin kind of reason to oppose the extension of rights and protections to people. They always have some sort of last-minute objection. Even though on a good day with a tail wind they would support it, they say: “Oh, no, here comes the reason why I cannot have it.”

I will not do that, because I will make sure that we do provide rights for people, that we affirm people in what they are doing, and that we do not run around the place in some sort of competitive mode. In the end, I support Part 1. I do not think anyone’s marriage is undermined because Bob and Bob, living four streets away, will have the law recognise their relationship. That is totally superfluous when one thinks about everyone who lives in one’s community.

I am glad to speak in this debate, although the bill is very disturbing in many ways. The way in which the process has taken place, and the rush and haste in which this legislation is being rammed through, are a diabolical disgrace. They are an outrage to this Parliament and this nation—and those members know it. They constantly say that it has been a good process and so on, but I ask why it has been one of the quickest—or the quickest—process in our parliamentary history? It is an absolute outrage, and I believe that a lot of people in this country say that, as well.

If this Government is so sure that the people of New Zealand want this legislation, it should put it to a referendum. If Government members are so sure they are representing the people of this nation, they should put the legislation to a referendum and let the people have their say. This Government should stop being a minority Government and start to be a Government of the people. But the Government has no desire to do that, because I think it knows that it would lose a referendum. [Interruption]

If Moana Mackey is so sure, why does she not support an amendment proposing a referendum. If she is so sure that the people of New Zealand would support this liberal legislation, she would let the people of Gisborne, whom she wants to represent in the future, have their say through a referendum.

One can look at the liberal State of Oregon in the United States. I pinpoint Oregon because it is supposed to be like New Zealand in many ways. It is not like the conservative southern states of the US; it is a more liberal state on the west coast. I use Oregon as an example, because prior to a referendum in the United States on widening the definition of marriage and allowing same-sex couples to marry, there was a lot of coverage of different politicians, activists, and so on, by the media about how Oregon would vote affirmatively in that referendum. By watching the media and by hearing everybody talking about that referendum, one would have thought that that would happen. But Oregon was one of the 11 States that voted against it. Even Oregon, one of the most liberal States, which is supposed to be more like our society in New Zealand, voted the referendum down. If members in this Parliament are so confident that this legislation is for the people, they should put it to the people.

💬 Dail Jones: What’s New Zealand First’s view on that?

New Zealand First’s view has always been to put this kind of legislation to a referendum and to let the people decide. That is what we are saying. That is what I am saying to Moana Mackey, who thinks she has the people on her side. If she is so sure, she should put it to the people. That is what we say; that is what New Zealand First says: we should put it to the people. New Zealand First is a party that represents the people, not a party that represents minorities. We are proud of that. We ask members to support our amendment to allow this legislation to go to a referendum.

What is established and recognised by law becomes official, obviously. We all know that. This Government has already officially allowed and recognised practices that the average New Zealander out there, I believe, thinks are abhorrent, like the Prostitution Law Reform Bill championed by Tim Barnett, the member from Christchurch Central, and like women being fathers, fathers being mothers, and all that unbelievable rubbish the Government has been pushing through Parliament.

This Government, I believe, has effectively declared itself the godless Labour Party. When there is a party vote I think we should call Labour the “Godless Labour Party” instead of the New Zealand Labour Party. That is what I think the Labour Party should be called. It should change its name, and say it as it is.

We have only to raise our eyebrows slightly at Craig McNair and he absolutely explodes into this huge tirade of enthusiasm. I was not even referring to anything that he was particularly talking about at the time. If the member is happy, when the amendment concerning the referendum comes up later in the Committee stage I will be pleased to give him my views on a referendum. At this point I will say only that my concern with referenda is that a country like Switzerland, which uses referenda regularly, did not give women the vote until 1971.

I would like to address some of the comments that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made. I never quite understand the comparison between School Certificate and civil unions. I thought that everyone in this country was allowed to sit School Certificate. Some people passed, and some people did not. It is just like marriage. Some people do really well and some people stuff up. But they are allowed to have another go at it, just like School Certificate. I find it difficult to understand the comparison. Of course, with marriage not everyone can have the opportunity to make a really good go of it, or learn from the experience.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Everybody can get married.

I say to Dr Smith that if they are gay, they can only marry if they pretend to be in love with someone whom they are not actually in love with. Dr Smith might endorse that, but I do not.

The other point, which came up quite a lot at the select committee, is to say that somehow it is like the Olympics or the All Blacks. Would we let everyone be an All Black or be an Olympian? It would mean that not everyone who is an All Black or an Olympian would feel special. Here again, we have this misguided idea that we are choosy about the people whom we let marry, which of course we are not. If we let only the top 26 couples in New Zealand marry, that might not be a bad idea because they would probably be quite good at it. But we do not do that, of course. We do not let only the people who are good at marriage get married; we let anyone get married. As long as someone is heterosexual, or gay and pretends to be heterosexual, as long as someone is not already married, and as long as he or she is not marrying someone who is a close blood relative, then that person can get married.

I find it funny that all these people stand up and say that marriage is about all these wonderful things—which it absolutely is, it stands for the raising of children, and it stands for good parenting—and they then turn round and say that it is not about religion because that is not in the Marriage Act. Being a good parent is not in the Marriage Act either. We have many, many wonderful parents in this country who are not married. We might not like it, we might say we wish they were married, but the reality is that an increasing number of New Zealanders do not want to get married. We can give them another opportunity to formalise their relationship because, let us face it, it is easier for a Government if people are in legal relationships.

We see the problems that we have. The Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment is looking at the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We are looking at the issues around social security and superannuation, when it comes to de facto couples. It is really hard. I would much rather that they were in a legal, formalised relationship, so that there would not be any question whether this person is in a de facto relationship, or whether we will have to spend lots of money investigating the relationship, taking the advice of neighbours who say they saw this person staying at someone’s home for 3 nights a week, then that person having to go to court to say that it is not a de facto relationship, they are just friends.

It costs a lot of money, it is difficult, and it is becoming a bigger problem in New Zealand because more people are choosing not to marry. Even if it is only a small percentage of people—and bear in mind that in countries like the Netherlands and France there has been a huge uptake in this type of scheme for heterosexual couples—it is a lot easier for the Government. I think that is a pragmatic point that should be raised.

Another issue that I want to touch on is the children in these relationships. While it is true that most of these relationships do not involve children, a number of them do and they will continue to, regardless of whether this bill passes. The research—and committee members read an awful lot of research—states quite clearly that two-parent families have better outcomes for children than single-parent families, and that is just common sense. When we look at the financial constraints on families, and the parenting questions, if there are two people to share them it is a lot of easier. But the research does not say that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. This research has started to develop only in the last 20 years, but it does not say that. The research says that the commitment of the parents to each other and to the children is what is important.

I can get the research for the member, Nick Smith, who is shaking his head, if he wants to read it. We can choose to make law here, based on emotion, on myths, and on fallacies, or we can choose to make law based on facts. The select committee has looked at a large amount of research. The research does not say that de facto couples are worse parents. It does not say that gay couples are worse parents. In fact, funnily enough, a lot of the research has come up saying that because gay people cannot accidentally become pregnant, then often they are so enthusiastic when they do have a child that they are far better parents.

We have heard an awful lot in the past about human rights but this bill is really all about extending human rights. But it is really about scratching an itch and turning it into legislation. It is about legitimating a series of wants. People stick up their hands and say: “I want my relationship to be legitimated by the State. Make a law for me. Give me a civil union.” Somebody else will turn round and talk about a man and two women, or two men and one woman, and so on. They will stick up their hands and say: “This is what I want.”, and they will try to ask for that relationship to be legitimated. We have lost the plot. We have marriage, de facto relationships, single people, divorced partners, and now civil union. How many more categories of adults do we need? We will carry on, to a ridiculous point where we will have a tailor-made category for every single adult in this country, and the Government will sanction it. It is mad. It is all in the name of so-called human rights. It is absolute bollocks.

This bill is about wants. It is about saying to people that just because they want something, it will be legitimated. It is an absolute nonsense. It makes no sense whatsoever. We have here civil union, which is nothing more than gay marriage. I would prefer civil union to come out of the closet and call itself “gay marriage”. Just widen marriage, if that is really what people want to do. But no, because the Government does not think that the public of New Zealand will accept that, it can reproduce it and call it something else and legitimate that relationship anyway.

The odd thing about it is that we have countries around the world that, quite legitimately, have seen fit to have polygamous relationships. Those relationships have endured for thousands of years. But instead of looking at that, and maybe bringing it into our orbit of legitimacy through the State, we are jumping the gun and looking at a very small proportion of the population of this country, who will wake up one day and say: “Hey, turn my want into a right.”

That makes no sense to me, at all. The fact is if gay people want to have a legitimised relationship, all they have to do is call a marriage celebrant and have a ceremony. They can have around them the people who matter to them, and enjoy the party. If someone wants to have an authority over another’s estate, or body if that person is in hospital, he or she can go to a lawyer and have a document drawn up. We do not need the State’s involvement.

I am personally against de facto relationships. I do not see that the State should be involved in trying to determine the qualitative aspects of any relationship. People either want to get married, or they do not. The State should just butt out. It is nobody’s business at all. The reason why the Government ought to be involved with marriage? The simple answer is that the natural consequence of marriage happens to be children—overwhelmingly so. For that reason, and that reason alone, the State ought to be involved. Children are not a natural consequence of gay relationships. If gay people do have children in their relationships, guardianship laws provide for that. They do not need an alternative to marriage. There is no necessity for it.

So the idea of dressing up human wants as human rights, is nothing more than ideology. It is self-serving legislation to confer a measure that some people will feel grateful for, and in turn reward the Government at the ballot box. It is nothing short of that. There is no urgency for this measure. I do not see people marching up and down the streets demanding the right to have civil unions. But the Government has decided to include this on its agenda, for no specific purpose.

There are an awful lot of issues out there that we should be concerning ourselves with. Indeed, 92 percent of the population told us they want tougher sentencing, and for victims to be at the heart of our criminal justice system. The Government has done nothing about that. It did not listen to the demands of 92 percent of the population. I have not seen people marching up and down the streets demanding civil unions. The public does not want this bill. It is not necessary. This is a clear-cut agenda by a small group of individuals within the Labour caucus who decided they wanted to scratch an itch and legitimise civil unions through the State. That is all it is. It is legitimating a human want by means of legislation. It is unnecessary.

I rise in support of the bill. I am married and I have children. I am not at all threatened by civil union. I do not think it undermines marriage. The easiest way to assess it is by applying the general principle—does the conferring of rights on a minority ever undermine the majority? The answer is no. It never does. The conferring of rights on a minority does not undermine the majority. It really is that simple. We have seen it expressed that simply in just about every editorial in every major newspaper in New Zealand. Why would conferring rights on the minority undermine the majority? It does not in other instances of human rights; why would it here? If we were to find there was a cause for panic in that that would be the outcome, we would look to what has happened overseas. If we look at a map of Europe, most of Europe now has civil union—certainly most by population. It is throughout Scandinavia, France, Denmark, The Netherlands, Germany, United Kingdom, and Belgium. They are even considering it now in staunchly Catholic countries like Spain.

If we look at the countries that have had civil union the longest, there is no evidence that there has been an increase in the rate of breakdown in marriage. There is no evidence that there has been a decrease in the rate of marriage. In fact, the trends are the same as they were previously. In most Western countries, and our country is no exception, we have slightly increasing rates of marriage and slightly decreasing rates of divorce, and that will not change through the passage of this legislation.

People say we should be doing this by way of changing the Marriage Act. The previous speaker said that is the way; that if rights were to be accorded to gay people to have their union recognised, we should do that through a change to the Marriage Act. I disagree. I think this bill is the appropriate way to do it. Marriage does have religious connotations. Marriage pre-dates legal institutions. It was originally an institution of societies, regulated through churches. If we were to have a revolution in New Zealand and legal authority were to break down, we would still have the institution of marriage. It has at its heart its legitimacy in those religious institutions. Many in those religious institutions say that marriage should remain the province of a union of a man and a woman. I agree. That is why we are not doing this through the Marriage Act, because that would be to undermine the institution of marriage in the eyes of those who see it, in religious terms, as being the sole preserve of a man and a woman. So it would be inappropriate to do it by way of amendment to the Marriage Act, and it is appropriate to do it outside of that paradigm, through civil union.

Some say that we should have a referendum. Well, that is just an abrogation of responsibility. If we look overseas, what has happened in referendum-based countries? The one that is most quoted to us is Switzerland. In Switzerland, which does place great reliance on referenda, when do members think that women, through referendum, gained the vote? Does anyone know the answer?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: 1970s.

It was 1973. I thank the member. So as late as the 1970s women in parts of Switzerland did not have the vote, because they had referendum-based decision-making on issues such as that. The rights of minorities will never be protected in a referendum—

💬 Hon Judith Tizard: Women weren’t a minority.

They were a minority in terms of voting, because if one put that issue to the vote, those who had franchise to vote on it were men. So they would not extend the right of voting to women.

The Timaru Herald represents an area that—like my own electorate of Otago—some would say is conservative. I would not say it is conservative; I think most southern electorates are actually liberal. The paper reported what people were saying about the Civil Union Bill and the call for a referendum. It stated that Dr Brash and others were clutching at straws last week in trying to have the matter decided by public referendum. “Dr Brash was trying to win cheap political points. He actually supports the bill. But a referendum is a bad idea. Would it be binding? If so, the bill would likely be defeated. And that would go against Dr Brash’s stance. So to win votes he’s prepared to compromise what he believes. That’s pretty shallow. Non binding? What would be the point?”.

This is my first call on the matter, and I appreciate it. New Zealand First supports a referendum on this issue, as it would on many other issues. I take Nandor Tanczos’ point. As I said in my second reading speech, New Zealand First would support a referendum on the legislation dealing with GM, and suchlike; we have said that. As far as a free-trade agreement is concerned, in direct democracy that could be the subject of a referendum, as well. So it is a question of what the people want. New Zealand First is prepared to accept what the people want, and to set out a very clear question; hence the amendment to the legislation from Brian Donnelly to put this to the vote of the people and ask them whether they want a Civil Union Bill in the form that is before us today.

Of course, this is a gay marriage bill. It is based on the Marriage Act. The Government has taken the Marriage Act and replaced the word “marriage” with “civil union”. If we look at the Civil Union Bill, and—for all those members who are interested—at, say, clause 15 the words: “Compare: 1955 No 92” is a reference to the Marriage Act. This bill is based entirely on the Marriage Act. All the Government has done is to do what all lawyers do when they want to create something new: they find the best precedent. The best precedent for the Civil Union Bill is the Marriage Act. The words have been changed to “civil union”, but otherwise the Government has virtually used the Marriage Act.

This bill is marriage in drag, as someone said a little while ago. The Government is pretending it is not marriage, but in fact that is what it is. That is what the Government wants, of course. We have heard it said that a Labour Minister wants to be the first to go down the aisle and get married, in terms of this bill. He is waiting for it. Of course, that is the debt due to him from Helen Clark, because he was the one—was he not—who destroyed the painting for which she was getting into so much trouble, and as a result she could not be charged in court. That is the pay-off to him for this legislation. That is what this bill is all about. It is a pay-off by Helen Clark to a very few people who have done so much for her in the past. It is as simple as that. How many people would be eligible for gay marriage? It is fewer than 10,000. So here we are passing a bill whereby, if everyone who was in that type of relationship decided to take it up, we would have 5,000 civil unions. We are passing legislation for as small a number of people as that. Is that so important?

We have on the Order Paper at the moment the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill. More people are affected by that bill—probably five times as many—as are affected under the Civil Union Bill. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill has been before the House for about a year. The Civil Union Bill has been before the House for about 3 months. That is the priority this Government has. It is ramming this bill through the House, and of course before Christmas, in the hope that it will go away next year. Well, New Zealand First will make sure that it will not go away next year. I am confident this will be a matter of our election policy, that there will be a referendum on the gay marriage legislation being put forward by the Labour Party. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

New Zealand First was accused by Georgina Beyer of being pious and moral. She said there was something wrong in being pious and moral. Well, I am very happy to be pious and moral—I am very happy to be moral; I do not know about the pious bit. Does that mean, then, that Georgina Beyer and her supporters are impious and immoral? I will leave that for members and others to decide. But that is the clear implication in her speech. If she said that those who oppose this bill are moral and pious, what does that say for those who support it?

Of course, there is another reason for this bill. It is very convenient to rush back into the House for another reason when the Government is experiencing great embarrassment and difficulty over Ahmed Zaoui. It is a great way to divert attention. Sir Robert Muldoon knew that the best thing to do when the Government was in trouble was to bring in an abortion bill so all the attention would be removed from the particular problem of the day and everyone would pay attention to the abortion legislation, or whatever other legislation was brought in to divert attention. This bill is here to divert attention from the Government’s failure in its policy, announced 2 years ago, to keep national security risks in prison, and, of course, the Minister in charge in that area is the Prime Minister, Helen Clark. It is she who is trying to protect herself. She is trying to help out her old mate Chris Carter, so that he can be the first to go down the aisle, as he said he would. All this bill will do is upset all those young people who decide to take the challenge and get married, and go through all the rigmarole of the day.

I rise as the member of Parliament for Auckland Central to support the Civil Union Bill in its Committee stage. Most members will be aware that Auckland Central is a place where gay, lesbian, and transgender New Zealanders know, mostly because of the Hero Parade and festival, which has been held for many years, that they are welcome. It is a very tolerant and inclusive electorate, and a lot of people come to Auckland Central because they are creative, energetic people who perhaps are of a different colour, are from a different race, speak different languages, or are of a different sexuality from that that calls itself the mainstream. I am very proud to represent Auckland Central and all the people in it—very proud indeed.

The year 1986 saw the passing of the homosexual law reform legislation. That was 18 years ago. I worked in an electorate office in those days, and I remember calls very like the ones we are hearing in the Chamber today—that it would be the end of society as we knew it, that homosexuals would be out recruiting, and that children would not be safe. I believe that New Zealand is a much safer place than it was in 1986, as a result of that legislation and, particularly, as a result of many people coming to realise that many of us have homosexual people in our families. They are our neighbours, our workmates, our children, and, in some cases, our parents. I do not believe that any New Zealander wants any member of this country’s population to be discriminated against on the basis of something that is innate and part of him or her. With all of us, our sexuality is absolutely at the heart of who we are.

I listened in 1993 to the astonishing submissions that were made on the human rights amendment bill, about both people with disabilities and people who were gay, lesbian, or transgender. I must say that it makes me very, very sad to think that people are so fearful and so ignorant about ordinary, decent New Zealanders who are living the lives of citizens in our country. As a result of that human rights legislation, the Government began a project called Consistency 2000, and this legislation, although part of Labour’s manifesto at several elections before now, is part of that Consistency 2000 process.

New Zealanders like to think that we as a nation are progressive and fair. It is of some regret to me that because of the hysteria from a very small group of New Zealanders, many countries, including Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greenland, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and now the United Kingdom, have beaten us in recognising the right to legal recognition of the partnership that is the basis of any family. Yes, if one is heterosexual one can marry, but of most of the people I know in my street, I would say that about half the couples are married and about half are not. A significant group of New Zealanders no longer to choose to marry, for a variety of reasons, good and bad. But the fact is that I know from talking with my neighbours that a significant group of them would be very happy to enter into a civil union, and some of them are heterosexual and some of them are homosexual.

We have had a lot of arguments in this House about the need for a referendum, but it is my passionate view that human rights are absolute, and that we as members of Parliament must uphold the human rights of all New Zealanders to protect their families and to protect their relationships, and to protect society as a result of that. I remember New Zealand First’s last big referendum. I think it was on superannuation. It turned into a referendum on the National - New Zealand First coalition Government, and my memory is that 94 percent of people voted against it. They voted against it because they did not like the way that Government was behaving, and they did not like the way that Government was approaching the people of New Zealand. I am very happy every 3 years to stand before my constituents as a Labour member of Parliament and somebody who has routinely voted for the human rights of every New Zealander.

Not many members of the current Parliament were here in 1986. As I look around the Chamber, I do not see anyone who was. I was, and I voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and I have had to live with that ever since. In my heart, at the time, I knew that to vote against it was not right; that to vote to make criminals out of people who have a sexual orientation because they were born that way was not right.

But it is easy for list members to vote purely according to their conscience; those of us who represent constituencies are not absolved of our representation responsibilities by a conscience vote, as we call it. All that a conscience vote is is a vote where the party whips are not applied; we are free to vote independently and not according to party policy. Of course, for constituency members it is not purely a conscience vote. Our constituencies expect us to represent them in this Parliament, and that creates a huge dilemma for members wanting to be responsible to their constituents as well as to vote according to what they believe. We cannot absolve our individual responsibility to vote properly in this Chamber by simply arguing: “My constituents want me to do that, so that’s what I will do.”

I have had to live with the fact that as a new member of this Parliament I gave weighting to the way that my constituents felt in 1986. I was a new member, they wanted me to vote against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill, and I did. As I say, I have had to live with myself ever since because in my heart I knew it was not the right thing to do.

When the Civil Union Bill came before Parliament I wanted to support it. I did not want to kick the gay community in the guts twice—maybe even three times when we take the 1990s legislation into account, as well—because I do not believe that is right. I guess the other reason why I wanted to support the Civil Union Bill is that I believe that long-term relationships are positive for society, and that promiscuity leads to more problems in our society. I believe that legislation that would perhaps facilitate longer-term legal relationships, longer-term legal commitments, between people would have to be positive for society. But when I saw the bill that was introduced my heart sank. I knew instantly as I read it that its civil union proposal looked like marriage. As I spoke some of the words of the bill to myself, it sounded like marriage, and I knew I would have problems with my electorate.

I took the trouble of surveying my electorate—not just on this issue, because I did not want to get a response just from people who felt hugely strongly about it; it was a general survey of my constituents. I have counted 4,000 responses. The Rodney electorate is totally divided. Of those 4,000 responses, the difference between the number who voted yes and the number who voted no was 50. The question I asked was not: “Do you support the Civil Union Bill?”; it was: “Would you support legislation that facilitated same-sex couples being able to enter into long-term legal commitments with each other?”. Many of those who responded that they would support that wrote on their survey forms: “But not marriage.”

So I have this huge difficulty as I vote on this issue. My electorate is deeply divided over it. I have taken the trouble to find out what my constituents think. They clearly do not want same-sex couples to be able to enter into marriage. Yet this bill is so like the Marriage Act. I just wish that those who are promoting this bill had thought from first principles about how we can have legislation that supports same-sex couples being able to enter into long-term legal commitments to each other. We should not judge the quality of love between people. They should be able to enter into such kinds of relationships or such kinds of commitments. But why are we faced with legislation such that when people look at it they simply see the Marriage Act in front of them with just a few words changed?

During the debate on Part 2 I will go into this a little more. One could argue that if this legislation were changed, there could be greater freedom for people to celebrate their union in whatever way they liked. There is no need to be as prescriptive as the process this legislation lays out. Yet, sadly, it is prescriptive, and that causes some of us huge problems.

I am delighted to follow the member who preceded me, because I do understand the dilemma that he and other members of the Committee face. I arrived at my office last Monday to find nearly 500 emails telling me not to support this bill. Similarly, over a period of time I received a whole bunch that said I should support the bill. But one thing is extraordinarily clear to me: we are sent here to make decisions. Some of the decisions we have to make are tough, and we deserve to be judged for those decisions. I have had to make a number of them in this House.

The honourable member who preceded me was here for the 1986 debate. I remind him of what one of his colleagues, Norman Jones, said during that period of time. He said that the legalisation of homosexuality would completely change society as we knew it. Well, it did not. We all knew that it would not, and we knew that Norman Jones was wrong on that. But the public of Invercargill loved him. Why did they love him? They saw that their member of Parliament was prepared to take a stand on a prejudice of theirs that they were unable to conceptualise.

I will tell members a story about my father, who is an Anglican priest. He has been an Anglican priest since 1959. He started off in the Episcopal Church in the United States and is still preaching today. He preached a sermon at St Barnabas Church—I think it is—in Bishopdale, and my sister turned up to that church service. My father did not know my sister was there. My father talked about the liberal philosophy of theology, which came about sometime after about the 1500s, when it was defined as being rooted in scripture, tradition, and reason. He spoke about the responsibility of the Church to exercise reason on attitudes and morality when it came to people’s sexual orientation. What he did not know at that time, and what my sister had not told him at that time, was that she was gay. She has two children. She sat in that church and cried her eyes out because she knew that at least her father understood. Her father, who had been a priest for 50 years, understood what she was going through, and exercised in his sermon to her an ability to cleanse the way she felt. She has two little children. They are the loveliest little children one could hope to meet. They are learning how to play the piano, to play cricket, to go swimming, and to do all the other things that children do. I will not have members of this Committee say to me that my sister and my father are wrong.

There are two streams of theology. The first comes from St Vincent and goes back to AD 434. That is the intolerant version of theology, and it is now the master theology in the United States. That is what it is. I have had a gutful of those people who run around and say that they know best—that they know better than us how our families should live. That is just as bad as any other form of prejudice. The Puritanism that has overtaken the United States will cause people to suffer for a generation. It has seen George Bush be re-elected President of that country. It will see the conservatisation of the Supreme Court in the United States. It will see the abortion laws of the United States be overturned. Brian Tāmaki and his thugs sat in the gallery the other day to point out those of us on this side of the Chamber who dared to stand up against them, who dared to say that their prejudice needs to be put to rest.

This is a debate that will evoke strong emotions, but it is a simple matter. I have no right as a human being to tell others how to live, and neither does anybody else in this Chamber.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What about smoking?

I say to that member that taking it to a referendum will give Brian Tāmaki exactly what he wants: an ability to demonise the homosexuals of this country and to do it in a highly publicised way. His people are like the blackshirts of Nazi Germany. Members should not misunderstand it: that is exactly the agenda. That is wrong, and it is time that this Parliament grew up and faced the decisions it has to make.

If this bill was all about human rights, then I guess it would be a lot easier to debate. But it is actually not about that; it is about a stupid theory that this Government has about relationships. A number of people have debated the similarity of the civil union idea to marriage. The silly idea that the Government has about relationships is that they are all the same. This bill is part of a legislative programme—which includes the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which is still before the Justice and Electoral Committee—that would create one set of rights and obligations for all adult relationships in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Member: That’s not true.

It is true. It is evidenced through this bill in a number of ways, like the ability to swap between civil union and marriage. The Government is headed down a track where it believes that any adult relationship in New Zealand will have the same set of legal rights and obligations. I say that is stupid. It is totally impractical and it is one of the main reasons I oppose this bill.

New Zealanders will now be in a situation whereby either they join a relationship on Helen Clark’s terms, or they had better make sure they have no relationship at all. People choose their level of commitment. Traditionally, this Parliament has offered people, essentially, a menu. If one marries, there is a set of rights and obligations that go with that, and they have been clearly understood. If one is not married and is in a de facto relationship, there is a somewhat different set of rights and obligations. In fact, if one is in a de facto relationship, there are different rights and obligations depending on the circumstances—they are different for welfare entitlement as compared with property issues when a relationship breaks up. There are two different legislative definitions of the term “de facto”.

That has reflected the messy reality of how people live their lives. This Parliament is now contradicting that directly. It is going through a bizarre process of saying to every adult New Zealander that this is how it is going to be. There are a number of gay couples who think they will have a choice about whether they have a civil union. Well, they will not have a choice. When this legislation is passed, they might not have a little certificate with their registration on it, but they will have all the rights and obligations of a married heterosexual couple by virtue of their living together. They will not have a choice about civil union; they will be civil unionised because the Prime Minister says that they should be. They will have the same set of rights and obligations as I do, and I have been married for 18 years and am a father of six. There will be no legal distinction.

That is why that other bill sits in the select committee—because Lianne Dalziel and Tim Barnett have finally figured out that every couple in New Zealand will be treated as if they are in a long-term, committed relationship. I am one of the more conservative people in Parliament on these issues, and I think that is stupid. It will wreck lives. It does not reflect how our society is. We do not have a monolithic view of what a relationship should be. Relationships change and they break up, and two people in a relationship can have completely different views about the extent to which they are committed to that relationship. But the Prime Minister says they are not allowed to any more. When this legislation passes there will be one set of legal rights and obligations, regardless of the individual choices that people make, or the individual commitment that people make to a relationship.

The wrong people are worried about this bill. If I were 25 and exploring relationships, I would be very worried. The traditional freedom of the gay community is about to go. If I were a young, gay male, I would be very concerned about this legislation.

I will start with a quote from a book written by Alan Brash. I went to the launch of this book, and he was a tremendous person who made an enormous contribution to churches to enable them to deal with really tough issues. The book is called Facing our Differences: The Churches and their Gay and Lesbian Members. I would like members to think about the following words as they contemplate the bill. He said: “As we look back over long periods of cruelty towards homosexual people, we may qualify our condemnations of such treatments in view of the degree of their ignorance. But those who continue to call for such harsh attitudes today, given the greater understanding we have available, are in urgent need of repentance and of the changes of attitude and behaviour which repentance involves.”

I would like to dedicate that part of the book to Brian Tāmaki and the Destiny Church, because I think they need to think about what they are doing in terms of the misrepresentation of this legislation that they are promoting amongst their members, and their fear and loathing around a group of people who Alan Brash reminds us are people. It is important that we hold on to that as we enter into this debate.

I was talking about this whole issue of legality recently with a gay friend of mine. He had been in the early years of a 20-year relationship with his partner at the time that homosexual law reform came in. He asked me how I would feel if police could walk into my bedroom—into the privacy of my home—and arrest me for a sexual relationship that was monogamous, longstanding, and absolutely private. He said I could not understand for a minute the relief that law reform brought to gay men, until I imagined what that could be like.

When the law passed, people said that it was the State promoting homosexuality and that people would be doing it in the streets. It did not happen. The same thing was said when the Human Rights Act was extended to include sexual orientation. I sat on that select committee. I listened to hundreds of submissions. I was quite saddened by the fact that so little had changed since the 1990s in terms of those who came to the select committee to argue exactly the same points on the Civil Union Bill. But it did not happen then, and it will not happen now.

I went to a lunch yesterday and engaged in a conversation with a couple of older men about the civil union legislation. They declared their lack of comfort with it. They were quite uncomfortable with it. We talked about it and at the end of our conversation, although they were not quite comfortable with things, they were certainly much clearer about why the legislation was necessary. As I was on my way out, another man came up to me and said that I would not be getting his vote for “siding with the queers”. He said he had been in the Navy—he had retired, obviously—and that there had been a “queer” on board his ship, but that a quick seeing-to by two other sailors with a broom made him “real nice”, and he stayed away from everyone after that. I was absolutely shocked. It takes a lot to take my breath away but that statement made to me yesterday in a hotel bar in Christchurch just blew me away. How on earth could anyone say that that is a decent way to treat a human being?

Then we have had the emails that tell us we will have polygamy, paedophilia, and inter-family unions, and that all the people in these activities will be asking for the same rights as same-sex couples. I remind people that criminal behaviour is different from legal behaviour, and that all of those are criminal behaviours. Removing the criminality of anal intercourse, which is what homosexual law reform did back in the 1980s, did not remove the criminality of anal sexual violation or under-age anal sex. Allowing two people who cannot marry to enter into a civil union does not logically lead to opening the law up to people having more than one partner, or under-age sex, or paedophilia. In fact, it is as illogical and as offensive as taking a broom to a human being. If people do not think that that is still happening today, they should open their eyes.

I will address a couple of comments that were made by Ms Dalziel and Mr Peck. I totally agree with the previous member. Issues pertaining to the sexual preferences and sexuality of individuals have nothing to do with the State or anybody else. It should be in the bedroom in a private situation.

I am not easily stunned. I have been around for a few years. I was stunned when, just a few hours ago, my secretary showed me—how can I put this nicely—the situations wanted column in a gay and lesbian magazine, which I think we all get sent. I do not subscribe to it, members will understand, but I was sent this thing. I was glancing through it and my eyes were literally out 3 inches in front of me. I could not believe what I was reading in a newspaper. So this issue is not just in the bedroom, it is out there and “in your face”. Whether that is a good or a bad thing I am not sure. I do not think it would be a particularly good thing if that newspaper got into the hands of children, for example. Nevertheless, that was the reality that I saw just a few moments ago.

With regard to Mr Peck, I was delighted to hear his speech. He was hugely passionate, and rightly so, about his family member’s situation. I think it is appropriate and proper that members of this Parliament display passion instead of looking at things in a non-human way. This issue is, very literally, about passion. It is about the human condition and how we approach these sorts of issues.

I can tell members that a council candidate in Dunedin, a young fellow by the name of Grant Benson, is a cross-dresser. He is a relative of mine, on my wife’s side, members will understand. Nevertheless, he is a relative of mine and one whom I would gladly cross the street to shake hands with and greet, and I would have him at my dinner table.

I believe that in the next week or two a couple of gay guys from down the road a bit from us—they are restaurateurs, members will understand—are coming to have dinner with me and my wife. Marg said to these people: “You mightn’t want to come. I think my husband’s going to vote against the bill.” They said: “Who cares?”. That was their response. It is quite wrong, I suspect, to say that every gay couple is clamouring for this bill. Every couple who live together, perhaps an older couple, for comfort, surely to goodness, and a little bit of security, will be unionised by this bill. They do not want that. They do not want the belief amongst people in the street that because they have a civil union—not by choice—they are in fact having some sort of sexual relationship. That is not the way many people want their relationship to be viewed. They want a choice, and so they should.

What concerns me—and I am speaking in this debate not as an expert or someone who has profound knowledge, but only because I think it is important that I relate at least once my view on this bill—is that, as I have said in the past and will continue to say in the future, we are passing legislation of the sort that I call “the laws of the unintended consequence”. We do not know what the consequences of this bill will be in the long term. We may think we know. I think back to how cruel children can be to other children at school who are a bit different—those who are a different colour, shape, size, or whatever. Children are hugely cruel. What if a child says he or she has two dads or two mums? I do not care about the 25-year-olds, the older ones who can manage themselves in the wider world. I think about the little children who will be impacted on by this bill, through design—not by default but by design. Those are my concerns.

I am pleased to take a call on this bill. There has been much debate this afternoon about how the bill will undermine the state of marriage. I have to say that, in my opinion, it is the partners in a marriage who undermine the marriage, not the Government. Lack of respect for each other undermines the marriage, and when respect flies out of the window, love usually follows. People have said to me over recent weeks, and particularly over recent days: “Please don’t vote for the bill.” When I question them patiently, they cannot actually say why they are opposed to the bill. Some very strange reasons come out as to why they believe I should not vote for it. Some of these reasons are quite bizarre. Just recently a gentleman said that people were homosexual because a curse had been put on their family. He did not like the Masons, either, because they did things in secret too. I thought that was a bit of a slur against the Masons, who do a very good job in society.

People say that homosexuality is an abomination. They love the word “abomination”. A lot of things in life are an abomination. One thing that I find an absolute abomination is child sex tours to Thailand. These are mostly perpetrated by heterosexual men. Nobody has ever written to me about that issue, in the whole time I have been a member of Parliament, but I find it one of the most disgusting practices on earth, whereby terribly poor children are exploited in the most awful way. Those children are truly victims. In the Civil Union Bill, there are no victims. That is why this bill will assist so many people in our society, both heterosexual and homosexual.

In our boring old family, we get married. My husband and I have been married for more than 30 years, and in October this year we were proud parents at the celebration of our son’s wedding. As I said earlier, marriages have to be worked at. I did not ask the Government to raise my children, and it is not the Government’s responsibility to mind my marriage. It is the partners in the marriage whose responsibility it is to do that. With this legislation, when it is passed—and I am confident it will be, and I will vote for it—people have to be mindful of the fact that their relationships are their responsibility.

A member from the other side of the Chamber said earlier that members of Parliament do not have the freedom to vote how they want to if they are constituency MPs—that is, if they represent an electorate. I consult my electorate on a whole range of issues. We have had conscience votes recently about the drinking age and about euthanasia—I did not vote to lower the drinking age, and I did not vote in favour of euthanasia—but we vote on all manner of important issues every day of the week. People vote for us and they expect us to get on with it. I have not had one constituent write to tell me how to vote on the Railways Bill, the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill, or the Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill, which is on the Order Paper before Parliament at the moment. They just expect me to get on with it, and to vote wisely and in an informed way.

I suggest that most members of Parliament are well informed about this bill. We are well equipped to vote, and most of us will vote according to our conscience and the knowledge that we have gained through reading the bill and sitting on select committees. Anybody who says this bill has been rushed is saying so because he or she has just picked up the paper in the last 2 weeks. This bill has been around for a very, very long time. I also want to say that I do not support a referendum. A referendum is, in my opinion, a cop-out. If members are not brave enough to vote on something, they should change their job.

In speaking briefly on this bill, I just pick up on two terms that have come through a lot in correspondence to me and in what I have heard in the Chamber tonight. The first is the word “love”, and the second is the phrase “human right”. Let us deal with the issue of love. It is a basic human need. Everybody needs to be loved by somebody. Sadly, I believe, of late we in this nation have done many things but we have failed to appreciate love and to teach people how to love. I assure members that love is not a sexual act. Love is a commitment of one to the other.

With this, I want to work on the “kiss” principle—“keep it simple, stupid”—which I have always worked on. Dealing with human rights, only two types of humans are born—that is, male and female. I have yet to read in the paper that somebody announces the birth of a little homosexual boy or lesbian girl. I have yet to read a scientific report that the remains of a person have been found that are anything other than those of either a male or a female. In my opinion, those are the only two types there are.

From there, we go to choices of lifestyle. I know many people in the gay and lesbian community, many who have been gay or lesbian, and many who have come out of being gay or lesbian. To me, if they can choose to go into it and choose to come out of it, it has to be a choice. I believe, as has been touched on—

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the time has come for the dinner break.

Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

Much has also been said in this debate about the failure of marriage and, sadly, to a certain extent, a lot of what has been said is correct. But marriages have to be built, and I believe that a Government has the responsibility to help the nation build great marriages. We had a problem earlier this year with leaking buildings. Houses also need to be built, and we discovered that there were challenges in the way the houses were being built. The question I ask this evening is, did we loosen the regulations concerning the building of houses, or did we tighten the regulations with regard to building houses to rectify the problem? The answer is that we tightened the regulations. Much concern has been stated about this bill further eroding marriage, and it does that, because if we begin to promote a multitude of relationships, then we are not concentrating on a preferred model that is best for the nation as a whole.

I think that a lot of the discussion is around the right of an individual, but, as important as individuals are, we also need to see what our responsibility is for bringing the generations through as a nation. When we have young children, children like my grandchildren, I have great concerns that they will be taught that alternative lifestyles are the norm. At the beginning of this speech prior to the dinner break, I said that as far as I am concerned, there are only two types of people—male and female. I believe that every child coming up in this nation deserves to have input from both sexes. I believe that it makes a powerful difference in the lives of children if they see the firm hand of discipline of a father—and, sadly, that has not been built to the extent that it should have been—and, likewise, they should also have the loving arms of a mother. I believe that total balance is needed as young children are brought up, to build really effective families in this country.

I agree that a marriage licence in itself will never build a strong marriage. A strong marriage is built only if there is a commitment, one to the other, and if one learns to have patience, kindness, and tolerance towards the other partner. So I am certainly convinced that this bill is nothing else but gay marriage under a disguise. I also believe that the ability to take it to a public referendum should be passed in this Parliament. I have not seen such a concern come through so strongly in New Zealand for a long time, and I believe that in many ways the nation is divided over this issue. I do not like that, because I do not want to divide a nation; I want a united nation.

I would just like to respond to the point that the last member, Mr Adams, raised about legislating for morality, but before doing that I will encapsulate again my view of this legislation. Conferring rights on a minority never undermines the majority. Creating civil union will not undermine marriage. Overseas experience proves that that is true.

I shall deal with Mr Adams’ point. If Parliament could cure the ills of society by improving its morality through the passage of laws, we would have a rash of legislation in the next month and New Zealand’s ills would be cured by the following month. The reality is that that is not how society operates. Parliament does not create society’s morality. Most of us think that adultery is damaging to relationships. We do not legislate against adultery or other sexual immorality, except where we think it will damage young people. Where there is no damage, we do not legislate. That is why we have laws against assault, but we do not have laws against adultery or premarital sex. That has been the case in Western democracies for centuries, and long may it continue to be so.

I would also like to comment briefly on the call for a referendum. The Timaru Herald said this about it, with regard to Richard Worth’s proposed amendments: “He is clutching at straws, just as his leader Don Brash and others were doing last week in trying to have the matter decided by public referendum. Dr Brash was trying to win cheap political points. He actually supports the bill. But a referendum is a bad idea. Would it be binding? If so, the bill would likely be defeated.”—I disagree with that, but in any event—“And that would go against Dr Brash’s stance. So to win votes, he’s prepared to compromise what he believes. That’s pretty shallow. Non-binding?”—by that, it means a non-binding referendum—“What would be the point? We would be back at square one. We elect politicians to make decisions.” To quote the Timaru Herald further: “Why should they abdicate on the hard ones? Why not a referendum on the foreshore and seabed issue, smoking, prostitution? And if we did all that, why have politicians at all? The danger in such a course is you have majority rule, and that does not necessarily produce the best law. The Civil Union Bill is essentially about human rights, more so even than the morality aspect, but no matter how good the education campaign, the emotive aspects in any public vote would win the day. And again, that’s why we have politicians; to sift through the arguments on both sides and make the best decision, regardless of whether it is popular or not.” That is right.

I would just like to say something about the Catholic Church view. Turning this into single-issue politics is, in my view, wrong. I have to ask where the Catholic Church in the United States was when the United States went to war against Iraq, killing women and children, innocents, in an illegal war.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s that got to do with it?

It shows a double standard, I say to Dr Smith.

💬 Stephen Franks: You hide behind the American shield.

Mr Franks believes that its actions were justified; I do not. I am proud of our Government, which did not just follow that particular course. Where is the Catholic Church when there are other issues of international injustice? Do its bishops say: “Vote against that particular candidate, on this basis.”?

💬 Stephen Franks: Yes, they do

They do not take the steps that they have taken this week. I find their attitude irreconcilable with their more moderate stance in 2000, when all the Catholic bishops in New Zealand, in a submission on a National Party consultation document about proposed civil unions or the right of gay people to have some civil recognition of their relationships, said that they were not opposed to it. They were concerned as to the way in which it was done. They said we should not confuse it with marriage. They did not like the idea of vows. But the idea of civil recognition of gay relationships was something that, as their submission on 24 March 2000 shows, they agreed with. At the time, the National Catholic Reporter said: “New Zealand’s Catholic bishops support legal registration of same-sex unions, though not as a steppingstone to legal marriage.” That is what they said they supported, and this bill effectively does just that.

Let me remind the Committee that we are under urgency, and I want to know, because no Government member has yet said, why the Civil Union Bill is being rammed through the House under urgency. Sometimes a tax bill has to go through by a particular date, and sometimes the expiry of some other legislation requires Parliament to take urgency. But the only reason Parliament is in urgency this evening on this bill is that Labour members know that it is unpopular. They know that this is not what the people of New Zealand want, but they want to clear the decks before election year. It is as simple as that. I say to Mr Parker, the member for Otago, that if he genuinely believes—

💬 Gerrard Eckhoff: Current member

His days are numbered. His speech sounded like a suicide note. If the member for Otago really believes that he can carry the argument with the people of Otago, why does the Government not just let this bill take its normal process through the House? Why are we in urgency? Can any Labour member tell me why? I have seen lots of controversial bills in my day, but this is the first time that I have seen Parliament in urgency on a conscience motion.

I note that Labour members, almost like parrots, have been keen to dump on Don Brash, who made a very thoughtful contribution to this debate.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Ha!

I ask that Mr Benson-Pope compare it with this: why have we not heard from the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: “Flip-flop Brash”.

Well, let us hear about Helen Clark. Her record on this issue is that she said the only reason she married was because she was entering politics. What sort of cynical human being would go into something as important as marriage simply because she was entering politics? I will say something more about the Prime Minister. Helen Clark said then that she would prefer a civil union. It is interesting that now she is Prime Minister she is imposing her view on Parliament. [Interruption] Is it not sensitive? It is all very well for Labour members to get stuck into Don Brash in speech after speech, but the moment we bring the Prime Minister into the debate they all get sensitive. Jill Pettis starts sounding like a cat. We see them all get jumpy. But let us get the record straight. Helen Clark’s book says it all. She says—[Interruption] What is Jill Pettis threatening me with?

💬 Jill Pettis: Be very careful.

What is the member threatening me with?

💬 Jill Pettis: I am not talking to you.

Oh, I see. Well, let us be very clear. Helen Clark said back in the 1980s that she did not want to get married, that she wanted to have a civil union, and now she is imposing her view on the people of New Zealand. The Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has not participated once in this debate, yet every one of us knows that she is pulling the strings from behind the scenes. We all know that on the opposite side of the House there is a list to be ranked in the next few weeks. I have no doubt that the Prime Minister has been on the phone saying what might happen to members’ list ranking if they do not vote for her little pet project of imposing civil unions on the people of New Zealand.

I say again to the Minister in the chair, the Hon David Benson-Pope, that he should be upfront with New Zealanders and tell us that he is imposing gay marriage, because that is what he is doing. I have not heard from any Government member a single legal difference between civil union and marriage. I have heard things like: “Oh well, culturally they might be different.” Well, hang on for a second, we are lawmakers. What is important here is what we are putting into law. In every single statute, Labour is stating that civil unions, marriage, and de facto relationships are identical in law. To pretend somehow that that does not undermine marriage is simply dishonest.

I want to make just one more contribution to this debate. I will spend a little bit of time on Dr Don Brash and make a few comments about his position, but I want to put a couple of things on the table first up.

Most important, in this sort of debate those in glass houses should not throw stones. Can I say to people that we should not get sanctimonious in this debate. I could stand up here and tell the Committee line, chapter, and verse about my life—the good, the bad, and the ugly. In the little while that I have been dealing with some of the bad and the ugly, one of the things that I have realised is that there is nothing that any member of this House has the right to judge any other human being by. I ask any member who has never transgressed against the moral codes to put up his or her hand; then I will not use the word we cannot use. It is clear to me that as human beings we all have our failings, and we should all recognise that for what it is.

I want to say about Don Brash’s position that it is morally bankrupt. I know that he actually knows that. I think Don Brash’s father would be turning in his grave over this particular matter. The Leader of the Opposition was brought up well in the traditions of a caring and Christian family. He knows only too well that allowing a referendum to go ahead will mean exactly what I said in my first speech, and that is that we will have a hate campaign wheeled out against the gay community of this country—nothing more and nothing less. This is from a man who would lead this country. That is a failure of leadership. That is allowing division to be heaped upon people of this nation, due to something that is not of their making. I have never heard that member in the past say we should put things to conscience votes. I have seen him in this Parliament, on all sorts of legislation, exercising his conscience vote.

I had a person come to me on Friday to talk to me about my decision as to whether I would vote in favour of this bill. She is totally opposed to this bill and she told me all the reasons why she is opposed to it. She has good, strong, legitimate reasons. She believes that the Bible is the absolute truth. She believes that the story of Adam and Eve is the absolute truth. She believes all of that, and I will never convince her that my position on the bill is right, and nor am I going to try. I said to her at the end of my meeting with her that I wanted her to change seats with me. She asked what I meant. I said that she was to imagine that she was the member of Parliament for Invercargill, and I asked her to tell me what she would do if I were to organise 150 people to send her emails telling her to vote in favour of the Civil Union Bill. Would she do it? She said no way, not on her nelly—that it was totally opposed to everything she believed in. I know that for Dr Brash to oppose this bill is to totally oppose everything he believes in and everything he was taught. He still has time to salvage that for himself. He has to look at himself in the mirror in the same way that I do and the same way that every other member in this Parliament has to do.

I want to say a couple of things. I referred to a letter that my father wrote to his congregation. I got it wrong. I said that it was St Barnabas Church, but it was St Michael’s. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table it. I think that it is instructive and that members will get some very interesting stuff out of it. He made a comment about Anglicanism and the three planks of scripture, tradition, and reason. But as I have been going through my life and taking stock of the good, the bad, and the ugly, I have started to think again about some of my core beliefs, some of which are very deeply rooted in Christianity. This is the Christianity I believe in: it is one concerned with love not punishment, one concerned with service not selfishness, one concerned with inclusiveness not exclusiveness, and one concerned with wholeness not division. That is the religion I ascribe to. They are the things that my father taught me and taught the rest of my—

💬 Stephen Franks: What a lot of wussy new-age arguments.

I say to that member up there, who used to be a Labour Party member, that he was wrong then and he is wrong now. One day he should start to learn the lessons. He can preach all the right-wing ideology that he wants, but I will tell him one thing quite clearly. There is a very good saying—I cannot remember the theologian who said it—and it goes this way: “The Christian right is neither.” It is time we had some tolerance in this debate, and I am sick of the division.

I seek leave to table a letter written by my father concerning the issues within this debate.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

I rise to speak in the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill. I find this opportunity quite a sobering one, because like most people in this Parliament I have very close friends on both sides of this argument. I know that when we make a decision as to how we will vote on something like this, we do it at the risk of being misunderstood and at the risk—worse still than that of being misunderstood—of hurting people whom we would rather not hurt.

I will not be supporting this bill, and the reason is that I have a very clear understanding in my mind of what marriage is about. My understanding is not religious, because it pre-dates any Christian response to the institution of marriage. I guess, in the crudest way of putting it, marriage is about breeding. It is actually about society’s way of making sure that the children who are born are born in a safe and nurturing environment. Even people who are unable to have children, or choose not to have children, are constrained, by current marriage law, by those issues of breeding.

The legal constraints are these. Firstly, marriage is heterosexual. Secondly, it is between two people. Thirdly, it cannot be incestuous. As soon as we start to play around with that and claim, based on human rights, that one of those three legs of the stool is no longer essential—that is, the requirement that it be heterosexual—we start to pull apart the fabric of that institution. In my reading of the Civil Union Bill I found it distinctly dishonest in that it is promoting—although we call it by a different name—gay marriage.

I think that what has gone wrong here is that we have become confused in our thinking about what human rights are. I have heard the term “human rights” bandied about a lot in this debate. We have started to design human rights and hand them out like Christmas presents. But my understanding of human rights is that they apply very much to the individual, and here we are applying human rights to a relational context. I, for instance, do not believe that marriage is a human right. I believe that human rights are about those things that add to one’s survival and to what it means to be human—anything that contributes to one’s humanness. As soon as we start adding to that definition, we get ourselves into all sorts of trouble. I guess the best way, if we are going to see it as a right at all, is to talk about it as being a civil right.

I plan to support the amendment from Richard Worth, because I certainly would have no problem with the legal possibility of registering a relationship for the sake of that relationship. I think this issue does not have to be, for instance, a bedroom issue. I think there are lots of relationships that would benefit from establishing clearly the next-of-kin status that the relationship deserves, providing for protection of jointly owned properties, and reflecting the investment over a period of years that has been given to the relationship by providing some legal framework and legal protection around that. I think that is a good idea, and it disappoints me in many ways that that was not the path we chose to tread with this particular bill. So I will be supporting that amendment.

I think this bill does undermine marriage as we know it, because we are now applying to non-breeding units provisions that were originally designed for breeding units. That is exactly what we are doing. I know that that is putting it in extremely crude terms, but that is exactly what we are doing. Not only that but we are making an institution out of this new arrangement. We have always understood that social parenting arrangements would kick in whenever biological parenting arrangements fell over in some way, and we have had some fine examples of that, but we have never sought to make an institution out of it.

At this stage, in nominally, at least, debating Part 1 of the bill, I am trying to review the arguments that I have heard on the other side. One of the arguments I want to go back to is the international precedents, and in particular that in France, which has been mentioned. But before I do, I want to think a little bit about what the Labour Party Government said when this bill came before the House.

In its opening propaganda, before anyone was allowed to see the bill, we had the sentence: “Establishing civil unions in legislation means that Parliament, rather than the judiciary, determines the basis of relationship law for New Zealand, by maintaining the initiative … rather than letting the Courts take control.” Well, this afternoon in the House the Prime Minister repeated what I think was a rueful observation that we might have to start making our law clear, that we might have to start putting into the law exactly what we mean, because of what the Supreme Court has been doing in seizing opportunities to make the law itself. We had that from the Prime Minister as she was advising us that she was not going to do anything on a matter of national security—Mr Zaoui’s case. But we have not heard from the Prime Minister at all in this debate as to why she has allowed a bill to go before this House that has an utterly hollow core—a bill that sets up a registration relationship. Ostensibly, to use the Government’s own terms, a new legal relationship will be established recognising the diversity of relationships, and enabling loving and committed couples to formalise their relationship without getting married. Well, this bill does absolutely nothing to define any kind of loving and committed relationship. This bill says nothing about long-term commitment. This bill says nothing about stability. This bill does not prescribe a single thing about this so vital contract.

We have been told that we have to catch up with the rest of the world; and that perhaps we should follow the example of France, which successfully introduced the Pacte Civil de Solidarité in 1999. Well, I decided, as I usually do, to go and find a little bit behind the rhetoric. Well, the Pacte Civil de Solidarité does require a contract. It is actually much like Richard Worth’s proposal. It requires the individuals to sign a contract that covers things such as their intentions on inheritance and their intention that the relationship be long term. It has to be a voluntary contract. The couples set out what they will do about superannuation and benefit entitlements, and inheritance—it is a proper contract—then register it.

But that is not what this Government wants; this Government wants to leave it to the courts, and I will tell members why it wants to leave it to the courts. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the relationship between loving and committed couples. This is a vehicle with which to beat people who refuse to respect same-sex relationships. Well, let me say that I do not respect marriage. I respect some married people. There are people who have honoured their commitments, and there are people who have broken them, reconvened, and got through. There are people who genuinely mean to stay together forever, and there are people who do not. We can go through an infinite variety of relationships, and we respect those who, despite all the vicissitudes of life, end up making a reasonable bash of living together and rearing their children. So I respect some marriages. I do not respect the institution of marriage.

The plea of all those couples who came before the select committee and said: “I want the State to bless my union so that you’ll respect me.” is absolutely vain. I respect my neighbours—a wonderful gay couple who have been together for many years. They are absolute pillars of the community. I respect them because of who they are, what they are, what they offer to each other, and the way they live as neighbours. I do not respect their relationship, and no one, and no law, should demand that I do. I respect them, and I respect what they achieve. The most that the law should do is provide a framework that makes it easier for them to commit, and makes it—and this is the nub—easier for the breach.

In rising to take a call on the Civil Union Bill I want to acknowledge the high level of public interest in this debate, and the fact that good and reasonable people find themselves bound by their consciences to opposing sides of the argument. Tonight, however, I want to acknowledge that something else is going on. Some are using this issue as a political football to divide this nation in what we call wedge politics. It has been observed that George W Bush won the US election on a campaign organised—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): As members know, there was general agreement that interjections would be minimal. That was over the top. I ask members to respect that this is a conscience vote, and to respect the agreement that we had previously.

💬 Stephen Franks: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. The Chair asked that there not be interjections. I do not believe that it was an agreement of the Committee. I did not understand it. When a member accuses people, who have sincerely argued on what they think are principled grounds, of indulging in wedge politics, he should expect some response from members.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order. The point is that interjections should be rare and reasonable and I will enforce that if necessary.

💬 Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. Nobody will dispute your ruling, but I would ask that you apply the same standards to the Minister sitting in the chair beside you, Mr David Benson-Pope. Since the Committee resumed at 7.30, on at least three occasions the member has interjected on members speaking. I would ask that you apply the same standards to him as you apply to everybody in the Chamber.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): There had been a comment from the Minister, as the member said, but certainly not in excess of what we heard just then.

In response to Mr Franks who has just resumed his seat, I appreciate the fact that he does respect his neighbours who are a gay couple. What I cannot quite understand is the logic he uses to get from there, to opposing the bill.

Let us analyse briefly, without regard to any particular member, what wedge politics consists of. It is defined as hostility towards a minority group—in this case, gays—being used to win favour with a minority; the conservative middle classes. In the US case, of course, it was helped by a small foreign war and the claim that God was on Mr Bush’s side. If I were God I would be a bit miffed at that suggestion. Back home we had a wee dose of it, after Ōrewa—

💬 Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): Before I call the member I tell members that there will be silence during points of order.

💬 Hon Bill English: By general agreement there has been a pretty wide-ranging debate, wider than the usual Committee stage proceedings. However, I do not think that the tacit agreement of the Committee extends to lectures on political campaign theory. It does seem to me that the Committee would expect any member, whatever his or her point of view, at least to debate the bill, rather than range as widely as the Hon David Cunliffe is.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): I take the member’s point. The debate has been wide ranging. However, I ask the member to come back to the bill.

This week it is the Civil Union Bill that is attracting the same debate. Sadly, recognising that the tactics of wedge politics is not in itself enough to prevent it from appealing to our baser instincts. The power of the attack is that it ostensibly uses high principle as its shield. Principle must be countered by principle. Supporters of a proud and inclusive New Zealand must clearly articulate their own ethical base. To quote Bobby Kennedy: “We must recognise the full human equality of all people, before God, before the law, and in the councils of Government.”

This principle is rooted deeply in the Christian tradition. Christ healed the sick, accepted lepers, pardoned sinners, hung out with prostitutes, and set tough standards. Tolerance does not mean nihilism. In a sermon on the Mount—Mount Galilee, not Mount Maunganui—he based his standards on love and care for all, meeting them where they were at, and helping each to live a better life.

Divine recognition of human free will and its consequences is as old as the Garden of Eden. People make choices about their lives. They have the right to make choices that others might disagree with. But Christ himself said: “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar; render unto God that which belongs to God”. In Christ’s teaching there is recognition that the role of the church, therefore, is separate from the role of the State. While I fully appreciate the sincerity of the views of many of our Christian brothers and sisters, what I cannot accept is the use of the institution of the State to impose that sincerely held view on all others.

The essence of a liberal, secular State is that it makes it all right for old white men, like the fellows on the Opposition side, slowly rusting their way to oblivion, to be heard equally with the full diversity of New Zealand. What we cannot tolerate is the idea that any one group’s interpretation confers a God-given right to rectitude. I say it as a follower of the Christian ideals myself. I say it out of good conscience. I do not say it out of anything that is politically trendy, because, frankly, the balance of input to my electorate office has been against this bill.

I stand for this bill because in my conscience I believe it is the right thing to do, as I support the right of members opposite to hold the view that the bill is wrong. Equally, I support the right of all New Zealanders to live their lives as they see fit with the full rights and protection of the law, up to the point that they are harming others. That is the appropriate distinction between church and State, and that is why this bill must pass into law.

I am delighted to take a call in this debate, because out of most of the members in this House I am probably the only one who has normally always been on the very liberal side of any of the moral issues. However, on this one there will be those who think that I am on the wrong side, and I feel it is worth having a little bit of a canvass of why I am where I am.

My view is that the State has very few roles in the lives of individuals, and that people should be able to make their own decisions about what they wish for in a relationship. If they are very strongly Christian, they will have their Christian faith—and I was brought up as a very strict Catholic to believe this—and they should believe that their faith, whatever it is, teaches how they will recognise their relationships.

But I also understand that a huge number of people in this country are of other faiths, a huge number do not have any faith, and a huge number are either atheist, agnostic, or whatever. My view is simply that it is better to leave individuals to make their own choices about how they negotiate a relationship.

I come from a background of having lived in a de facto relationship with the same lady for many, many years. We were then married—I have to say in a very ordinary service at a registry office one day—and we went back to work for the afternoon, working for Air New Zealand. But marriage made no difference to that relationship.

Therefore, I say to people that if they are interested in making a commitment, they can actually do that through a whole lot of the institutions that exist now. They can negotiate property settlement—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Unless you are gay.

No, it has nothing to do with one’s sexuality. If one wants to, one can go to a lawyer to get a property agreement. [Interruption] Yes, one can. I can tell members that with the family trust my family is involved in now, not one of the questions we filled out when we did it all had anything to do with my sexuality. The questions asked what I wanted to do with my property, how I wanted to share it, who I wanted to recognise and to whom I would give power of attorney in case of my death, who I wanted to recognise my body, and so on—and those questions could be for anybody.

I fear that somehow this legislation is a way of coming back and saying that we want to give politicians in Parliament some enormous power over how people live their everyday lives. I want to make it clear that I fully respect a very strongly held Christian set of values whereby people believe intensely in God and in what they believe, and whereby they want to marry in a church and have the church recognise their relationship. But I also respect those who say that they do not believe in that, that they do not regard that, and that they want to do their own thing.

But none of that requires this bill. Because a person loves someone and wants to stay with that someone for the rest of his or her life, and because that person wants to share his or her property with that someone, none of that requires Parliament. It simply does not. One of the most bizarre situations I have ever dealt with in my life is that most of the married couples my wife and I have known over the years have fought like Kilkenny cats. They have ended up separating, hating each other’s guts, taking law suits out against each other, and fighting like stink over the property. If that is how marriage is supposed to be a great institution it has me worried—because it is not.

Of course, it comes down to personalities, and it comes down to individuals. I would like to leave it to people to make their own choices. I feel grossly uncomfortable, actually, on either side of this debate. I do not like Parliament debating this, at all. I would rather say to people that if they want to go along to their church and speak to their priest, their rabbi, their mullah, or whoever, and say that they have decided they want to do this, and in the eyes of Allah, God, or Baha’u’llah if they are Baha’i, that they want some recognition for what they do, then I say good on them. I will support them. I do not believe what they believe, but I say good on them.

But what really worries me is that there is a distinct impression in this Parliament that every individual is trying to enforce his or her view: “I believe in this, so now the rest of you should follow.” One of the worries about this legislation is that there is a group of people out there who are somehow supposed to be homophobic. Let me declare right now, absolutely upfront, that I do not have a homophobic bone in my body. I fully support the right of gay couples to have a full and loving relationship. I cannot understand why that is the subject of the debate.

Thank you very much indeed for choosing me to speak, Madam Chairperson; I almost regret your doing that, as I was looking forward to hearing from Bill English. I was pleased to read only 2 years ago, when he was interviewed as the then National Party leader at the last election, that he was in support of the concept of civil unions. I do not quite know what has happened in the last 2 years.

A number of people have asked about the difference between marriage and civil union. I am not someone who has ever expressed an intention to civil unionise, although I am one of the members of the House who might choose that option when the legislation goes through. But I was just thinking through how different this would be. First of all, of course, just to respond to Maurice Williamson, who wants the law to leave people to make their own choices, I have never had the choice of marriage open to me, unless I were to choose to marry a woman, which would probably not be the most successful of relationships. Therefore, there is an option that has been denied to me.

Civil union opens up an option. Having done that, and the State has forced me to live in sin for the 3½ years of my relationship, I can go through a process leading up to civil union, which in a legal sense is quite similar to a marriage, except that I do not have to find a marriage celebrant; I have to find a civil union celebrant. The fee for a civil union will be about twice as much as the fee for a marriage, therefore I will have to pay a bit more for the privilege.

Then I think about the culture. For someone going into a marriage there are traditions about the bride’s parents funding the food at the marriage, and the bridegroom’s parents funding the alcohol, and the location of the wedding tends to be where the bride’s family live, so there is a whole new culture that would develop around a same-sex couple going through a civil union. The culture and the traditions are different. This is a new institution, a 21st century institution, and a whole new approach.

The ceremony also means something very different. Think of the couples who have been together for much longer than myself and my partner, for 20 or 30 years in a same-sex relationship, who have been denied the ability to marry and denied the ability to go through a single legal recognition process. There is a whole history there that will be reflected in that ceremony. Nowadays, most people going into marriage have lived together for a time, but probably not for 10, 20, or 30 years. That is quite a different ceremony, quite a different culture, and quite a different tradition.

That is what a civil union is all about. It is an institution that is open to heterosexual and same-sex couples. This institution has the language of a civil relationship and of a union, rather than the language of marriage attached to it. I would be very clear, were I to go through a civil union, that I would not be entering a gay marriage. I would be entering into a civil union—a legal recognition process that was for me, and also for my heterosexual friends, a united process absolutely separate from marriage.

What is extraordinary about this debate is that suddenly members of this Parliament are coming out as opposed in principle to marriage, and Stephen Franks and Maurice Williamson in the last few minutes have indicated that they do not think we should have marriage at all. Then we heard Judith Collins and Tariana Turia say that unless we have full, same-sex marriage, they would not support it. So we have an extraordinary action, of people dancing on the head of a pin in order to avoid dealing with the obvious issue.

Some people argue, as Maurice Williamson just did, that we can deal with it all by a whole series of legal documents. A couple can draw up an enduring power of attorney, a property relationships agreement in a will, and suddenly out of that, a couple has celebrated a relationship. Clearly, those are not actions of celebration; they are purely actions of protection. But also, as all members know, having received a letter not too long ago from a gay couple living in Wellington, even if a couple goes through all that, they do not have the same level of legal protection as they do on entering into marriage or a civil union. So the civil union concept is a very simple, straightforward, and cost-effective way for a couple to protect their relationship.

At the end of the day, this is all about whether someone like myself and my partner, whom I am in love with, should be treated in broadly the same way in law as Dail Jones and his wife should be treated. People in the lesbian and gay communities are not asking for marriage, they are asking for just some of those elements, and I think that is very well delivered in the civil union legislation.

I say to the last speaker that whatever gay couples are asking for, what they are getting is the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. I do not think that what they are getting in those bills is what many of them think they are getting. As I said to the Committee earlier, what they are getting is the rights and obligations of married people. Because of the definitions of “de facto”, all relationships will have one legal framework if the second bill is passed. And that is a big question.

This is a question for the Minister in the chair, Mr David Benson-Pope, who is playing solitaire on his computer. I want him to tell me that if the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill does not pass, what is a civil union? I think the ACT member, Stephen Franks, rightly drew attention to this. This bill does not tell us what a civil union is. What it tells us is how to get into a civil union—

💬 Dail Jones: How to be unionised.

How to be civil unionised. But the Civil Union Bill does not tell us the rights and obligations that flow from it. It was meant to have a partner piece of legislation, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, that amends a hundred other statutes. We do not have that legislation. Apparently it will turn up in March. I do not think it will turn up by the end of next year. The issues in that bill are so complex that the select committee will be unable to resolve them.

So I feel like I have been invited by a real estate agent to buy a house, only to be told: “Well, I’ve got the front door, but the rest of it has been taken away.” Because I have no idea now what this actually means. I know what the Government intends it to mean. As I said before, it intends one set of rights and obligations for every adult relationship in New Zealand, regardless of the level of commitment chosen. That is what the Government intends. I am absolutely opposed to that intention, and I hope the Committee will be, too, eventually. When it debates the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, it will be able to express its opposition.

But as for voting for the Civil Union Bill, I ask the Minister what it is that we are voting for. What rights and obligations does any individual take on when he or she becomes a partner in a civil union, under this legislation? How can this Parliament vote on this bill if it does not know the answer to that question?

I saw the item on TV3 tonight, I have read through some of the material, and I have done some of my own research into the international comparisons. This one is pretty much unique, because it does not say. In France, they do. In Sweden, it is marriage. In other countries there are different sets of rights and obligations. For instance, in some countries, couples can adopt children and in some they cannot. But we have no idea. We are being sold the front door, without the house. The reason is that they have found that the structure of the house is fundamentally flawed. So in the debate tonight we are getting these emotional outpourings about homophobia.

I want the Minister to answer some legal questions, which any legislator has the right to ask on behalf of his or her constituents. I say to the Minister that I have constituents who want to join in civil union but I cannot tell them what it means, by reading this bill. The Minister has failed to deliver the rest of the package. It is politically convenient, because the rest of the package is much worse than this. This bill is the more acceptable piece, in my view, than the rest of it, but he cannot tell us. So why are we going to be voting on this in the next couple of days, when we do not know what it is? The reason is simply, political symbolism. This bill is a political push, not an attempt to create a set of rights and obligations.

My colleague Richard Worth, on his own, has done a much better job of that than the Government. If people want to have civil union, then his proposition is clear, it is tidy, it is well defined, the parameters are known, one can either vote for it or against it. It does not pretend to be anything other than what it is, whereas this bill pretended to be marriage and then lost the “marriage” bit, so it remains undefined. I ask the Minister to answer those questions.

I move, That the question be now put.

I rise to speak against this bill, and I will tell members why. Following on from comments made by the previous speaker, I say we have been sold a picture with nothing in it. I picture a ship at sea that has a big plank extended out from the side, and I see the ship being hijacked by a few pirates, and the whole crew being asked to walk the plank. I do not believe that that is a situation that 60 to 80 percent of New Zealanders want to be part of. None of us wants to walk that plank just because a minority wishes us to do so, while they hijack the ship—in other words, New Zealand.

I see a plank that is based on a set of assumptions. As I understand it from everybody I have heard, and from reading the bill, and listening to the first reading, those assumptions are based on what they call human rights—or civil rights, as some would say. I understand that this is already in existence. We do not need these things. I have asked some lawyers about it, and they point out that the Human Rights Act, or the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, supports the view that the State has not been discriminating against homosexuals and lesbians up to this point. So what is the issue?

Here we have this plank that is built on a myth, on pretence. I am not convinced that this plank is very, very stable for all of us to walk on. In fact, it takes a lot of faith to believe in this myth, and more faith than some of the Christians, who have been quoted or misquoted, to have faith in it. But the big issue, as I see it, is that this plank leads to nowhere. Even if the civil rights issues, or human rights issues, were issues, where does the plank go? The previous speaker has rightly pointed out that the companion bill is really where it should lead to. Because we do not see what that is, cannot see what it is, and in fact it has been withheld from us, we are going to walk the plank to nowhere. That plank leads us into Davy Jones’ Locker, and we will drown in all sorts of things that as yet we know not of. In fact, there are a few things that one or two people have been saying to me—such as that the good ship New Zealand is losing its way. They ask whether this bill will lead to polygamy; whether a person could marry more than one person. We do not know, because we do not have this companion bill before us. “Is it possible to marry one’s son and daughter?”, they ask.

We do not know, so what are we going to agree to or not agree to tonight? I think we should be of a mind to disagree on what we cannot see, because these are promises that are leading to nowhere.

Someone asked earlier why the House is under urgency. I think the answer is simple: it is to allow only a little time to get this thing through, because the pirates would lose their cause if we had more time to debate, consider, and put this solidly before ourselves in this Chamber and before the people of New Zealand.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State): I move, That the question be now put.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on this very important—

💬 Larry Baldock: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but I point out that many members have had only one call on this part, and it was to be a wide-ranging and exhaustive debate. I do hope we are not going to see too many more calls for closure before we have all had a chance to have at least two calls on such an important bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley): That is not a point of order.

Thank you, Madam Chairperson, for the opportunity to speak on this very important and somewhat controversial Civil Union Bill, Part 1. Like most of my colleagues on either side of the Chamber, I have been lobbied very heavily from both sides of the argument. It has been of huge interest to me that an overwhelming majority of constituents in my electorate have asked me to oppose the bill. Nevertheless, I have had some very sincere and somewhat compellingly thought-out arguments from those who support it. But I must say that at the end of the day, for me this is all about what one should hope for in the ideal world, and I would have thought that liberal philosophy would suggest as much freedom as possible, provided it does no harm.

Surely, one of the things that we should treasure greatly in this democratic country of ours is the freedoms we do enjoy. I think it was a couple of days ago that Nandor Tanczos said that the principle is utterly simple: it is about whether people should have equal civil rights. I do not think there are many who disagree with that, but, on balance, to me, why should the State be involved with the framework of designing and being involved in the celebration of a personal relationship? Surely, we have in this country a strong tradition of supporting and recognising common law, and surely it is a wonderful freedom for individuals and couples throughout this country, whether heterosexual, same sex, or transgender, to be able to design the framework of the relationship that suits them best, and to be able to celebrate it in the way they would like.

It was interesting to me to hear Tim Barnett talking about how important it is to him to be able to celebrate the fact that the State confer a framework that is available to him, that is available to everybody else. But surely the greater freedom is for him to be able to design the sort of framework that actually suits him. We do have a common law tradition in New Zealand. So why should one in the ultimately ideal world have the State involved? That is one of the things I find personally very, very hard to understand.

When we talk about this question of celebrating a same-sex relationship under a civil union, surely we also should be talking about celebrating the fact that there is basic biological difference between men and women. Surely none us should deny the very fact that there are basic biological different functions—

💬 Hon Maurice Williamson: How do you know that?

—and I as a gynaecologist know that more than anyone else, I am sure! However, these very biological facts hopefully will be celebrated by us all. Similarly, I would join Tim Barnett in welcoming the fact that he should be able to celebrate in whichever way he deems best and appropriate for him in the relationship that he has designed. I think that is a wonderful freedom that we have in this country. Why do we need this extra State framework around it when we have a strong tradition of common law in New Zealand?

Bill English made the point a little while ago that Richard Worth, my colleague, in the last few weeks, or maybe the last few days, has designed an amendment in terms of a civil relationship bill that I think is far superior to and far more inclusive than the Civil Union Bill that has taken so long for this Government to bring up to the Parliament.

I move, That the question be now put.

As is well known, this bill is aimed at creating a new institution, called a civil union, for heterosexual couples. We can see that in clause 4A(1), for example. When I first realised that civil unions were to include heterosexual couples—that is, the coming together of a woman and a man—I thought it was merely a sophistry to make the bill halfway decent. I thought that the real goal was same-sex marriage, and that the sole aim of the inclusion of heterosexuals was to make that agenda politically palatable. That was until I read the following statement from Prime Minister Helen Clark. I will read it to ensure that I quote it correctly: “Marriage has a lot of inappropriate connotations. It carries associations with religion, belief, etc. My personal interest is in a secular society, and I think a civil union bill is very important for heterosexual couples, as well. I think it will be surprising how many people opt for that. Personally, if civil union had been in place when I was much younger, I certainly would have chosen that option.”

When I read those words I was simply dumbfounded. They must surely be the most hostile words to the institution of marriage ever spoken by any leader of any country at any time in history. They stand in stark contrast to the recent action taken by the Australian Government to make it clear that a marriage comprises a union between only one woman and one man, in confirmation of what the word “marriage” has meant from the beginning of human history.

Today happens to be the 41st anniversary of my marriage to Anne. I believe in marriage, whether secular or religious, whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Seik, or Buddhist, or whether it be the first, second, or third marriage. There is nothing like it. It is unique. It is irreplaceable. With the Greeks, I believe it is the foundation of a society and of a nation. It represents God’s highest and best and His beautiful, loving plan for both the joy of the spouses and for the multiplication of the human race. As an institution it cannot be bettered, although through education it can be prepared for, enriched, nurtured, and improved, with great benefit to the spouses and to their children, and to the whole of society. In fact, society is no more than the sum total of its relationships. Marriage is a vocation founded on the love and commitment of one woman and one man. It can be built up or dumbed down by the State. It is my conviction that the Government can do so much more for marriage and the family, and that was my primary motivation for coming into Parliament in the first place. Of course, not all are called to marriage, and not all marriages are successful. But like anything else in life, the ingredients for resilience can be taught and learnt.

So what does this bill do for marriage? Does it build it up or does it endeavour to pull it down? Is there any basis or evidence to suggest that a name change to civil union and secularisation will in any way be helpful to our country? I think not; nor do New Zealanders. We are told that there are about 150,000 de facto couples in this country. Yet I was able to issue a press release on Monday of this week to say that in spite of the more than probably 1,200 communications I have received about this bill, I had not one single heterosexual couple tell me to vote for this bill because they intend to enter into a civil union—not a single one.

In response to my press release I have now had one heterosexual couple contact me to say that they intend to enter into a civil union if this bill is passed, and as far as I am concerned and as far as I know, there is only one such couple in the whole country. So why on earth is the Government taking up the time of Parliament with this ridiculous idea to try to change the name of a rose—the name of something beautiful that has stood the test of time from the beginning of human history—and give it a new name, on the basis that the existing institution is somehow inappropriate? That was the word I seem to remember Bill Clinton used, in terms of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Are we saying that that is the image of marriage that exists? Let us dump this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.

In speaking to Part 1, I ask members to suppose I am speaking to the title. I am not—but I ask members to suppose that I am. I would call this bill the “We Don’t Care About What You Think Because We Will Do What We Want and Push Through Our Liberal Lefty Agenda Bill”, because this Government really does not care what the people of New Zealand think. The reason I say that is that, as we have been speaking to Part 1, the referendum question has been put to the Government and to members supporting this bill many, many times. The only answers that come back are basically that members opposite are saying they should make this decision because the decision should be in the hands of members of Parliament, not the people. They are saying that they know best. They are throwing a lot of fancy arguments at us, but at the end of the day they cannot get away with it. If they really believe that the people of New Zealand want this, they would have no problem in putting this issue to a referendum—putting it to the people and asking them what they think.

💬 Nanaia Mahuta: Can’t make up your minds.

That member over there says we cannot make up our minds, and that is why we want to put it to a referendum. Well, what a load of hogwash! Wanting the people of New Zealand to have their say is a cop-out? I hardly think so. It is a ridiculous argument even to say that we know best and the people of New Zealand do not. That is why I will be supporting the amendment to have a referendum, and I hope the members opposite do, too.

Another issue I want to allude to is that of referenda in the United States. In my last speech, during the first reading debate, I referred to the state of Oregon. That state has actually been one of the more liberal states in the US in terms of its make up, its legislature, and so on, in the past few years. Compared with the conservative Bible-belt states it is a lot more liberal. It is closer to California, and so on. The United States is more like us, and that is why I use it as a comparison. If one wants to be realistic, I would say that Oregon is probably more like New Zealand. But even that state said no to redefining marriage and to allowing a more loose, liberal definition, such as the definition in the Families Commission legislation. Oregon voted no to that definition.

I believe that the people know better than the Labour Government and the Green Party that are just ramming this legislation through. I support the people having their say. Do members know what? I feel very strongly that if the Civil Union Bill were put to a referendum, it would get voted down by the people of New Zealand. I have no doubt. Members should look at such polls as the TV3 poll that was held the other day. As the bill gets nearer to crunch point, people are really asking themselves what it will mean for our society in the future—not for them and their children, but for their children’s children. How will the bill benefit society? At the end of the day, were people to get to that polling booth they would say no, it is not good for society. If members disagree with me, let us put it to a referendum and we will see. Let us give it a spin. Let us give the people of New Zealand a go. That is what New Zealand First says. Instead of being a party of minority, we would be a party of the people. That is what I and New Zealand First members say very strongly.

I want to raise another issue. I have heard Tim Barnett say that we discriminate if we vote against this bill.

I move, That the question be now put.