Civil Union Bill

Parliament is in urgency to debate the Civil Union Bill, which should be called the “Gay Marriage Bill”. The first point I wish to make is why on earth it is necessary to pass such radical social legislation in a mad rush before Christmas. Why is it that Parliament is in urgency to deal with something that has no urgency about it at all, except that the Government wants to get controversial legislation off the agenda before the election next year?

The second point I wish to make is that this bill is all about gay marriage. No amount of sophistry, and no amount of spin doctoring will change the fact that this bill is about gay marriage. We know that because that is what Tim Barnett said in a gay magazine. We know it is what the Prime Minister said when she said how proud she was that her Government was passing gay marriage legislation. But when it comes to the mainstream media, the Government immediately changes its tune. There will be 1,043 law changes affecting every one of the major statutes, whether it be on education, health, superannuation, or whatever else it is on, and in every single one of those statutes civil union and marriage are to be identical. Civil union is only an exercise in spin that has a different name from marriage, and the Government is being quite dishonest with the public of New Zealand in that regard.

The third point I take objection to is that we are not debating the companion bill simultaneously with this legislation. Why is it that that bill has been put on hold while this one is being rushed through? The reality is that we have the building frame without any of the cladding. We do not know the substance of what is behind this bill, and I simply cannot believe that members are voting for something without knowing the detail of it.

I particularly want to focus on why on earth this Parliament wants to create a new institution called civil union that is absolutely identical to marriage in every single statutory reference. That is what the Government proposes, and I ask why that is. It is proposed in this bill that civil union will be available to men and women, just like a marriage. I have yet to hear in these hours of debate why it is that we need to create a new name. Some members have said that marriage has religious connotations. Well, it probably still will after this. We are lawmakers. There is no reference to religion at all in the Marriage Act. What is there about the institution of marriage and its heritage that makes Government members want to dump on it? Why do we have to create a new name? We do not do that in other areas. Do we create a new name and a whole lot of other statutes for other things that are identical? It is a ridiculous—

💬 Darren Hughes: But we are protecting marriage.

Who does the member for Otaki think he is fooling?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: His colleagues.

He may be fooling his colleagues, but he certainly is not fooling the people of New Zealand. He is not fooling the thousands and thousands of people who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which have been completely ignored. What is really going on here is an exercise whereby the Government wants to change culture by statute, and that is not done. Yes, marriage is an evolving institution. It has been changing for hundreds of years, and it will continue to change. But it is not for this Parliament to pretend that it can completely change it, create a new beastie called a civil union, and then give that exactly the same legal elements as there are for a marriage.

This Government is undermining marriage. This bill should be defeated.

On 16 May this year the people of Switzerland were confronted with a referendum on a proposal to reduce income taxes. The people voted the proposal down. I kid members not; they voted against a proposal to reduce taxes. The Swiss are used to referenda. Indeed, their system is built upon binding referenda, a system that formally goes back to 1848 when the Swiss federation was being established. So fiercely independent were the cantons that they would not agree to federation unless all powers rested with the cantons unless specifically stated in the constitution, and more important, the constitution could not be changed unless changes were agreed to by the people. Indeed, a double majority is required: a referendum has to be won by a majority of the people and a majority of the cantons. But the Swiss also have what is known as legislative or facultative referenda. Any law that is passed by the Swiss Parliament has to go to a referendum if 50,000 people sign a petition within 90 days of the law being passed. Karl Buerkli, the father of the legislative referenda that started in 1874, said: “The people will find the right way to social freedom because they feel themselves its daily sorrows and the need for change.”

Earlier this year I did a week’s study tour, examining the way the Swiss use the referenda. One of the people I met was Yves Christen, a Mayor of the city of Vevey for 16 years, and an ex-Speaker of the Swiss Parliament. When talking of referenda, he said time and time again: “The people are very clever.” What he meant was that if we trust them, the people will get it right.

That brings me to my amendment, the effect of which will be that this law will not come into effect, presuming the bill is passed, unless it passes a referendum at the next election. It is my contention that this bill to create civil unions changes the nature of our society. Therefore it should go to a national referendum. The people should have the opportunity to have their consciences recorded on this issue. I can understand why some people do not want to have a referendum. I can understand that it would enable another round of blatant bigotry from some quarters. However, I am convinced that a referendum would uncover the true face of New Zealand, and that it is a face of tolerance and acceptance of difference. The sad feature of the passage of this bill is that the true face of our people is not being exposed. I have faith in the people of New Zealand and in their sense of fairness. The reason that no MP who opposes this bill has put up a bill to recriminalise homosexuality is that MPs know that there is no such call from the community.

I respect the consciences of those who oppose this bill. In most cases it is not hostility towards homosexuality that drives their actions. However, it would seem to me that all those who oppose the bill would logically vote for the referendum clause, because if they genuinely believe the bill should not become law then that is the only way to prevent such an outcome. So I call upon Taito Phillip Field, John Tamihere, Clayton Cosgrove, and Damien O’Connor to vote for my amendment. If they are to be true to their consciences they will vote for the referendum clause, and if they do so it will be won. The ultimate power lies in their hands, and it is their voting on the referendum clause that will determine the result. The question is: are they being whipped over this vote? If they are being whipped, then it makes a mockery of the conscience vote.

I come back to the statement by Buerkli: “The people will find the right way to social freedom because they feel themselves its daily sorrows and the need for change.” I have been overwhelmed by the response to my speech yesterday from a number of people who have recounted similar family experiences to mine. I say to them, and to this Committee: have faith in the people. If we put our faith in the people, they will get it right. I believe that they will support this legislation, and that that will put the matter to rest forever more.

I look forward to finding out what some of the Labour Government members who were referred to by the Hon Brian Donnelly will be doing on this bill and what their attitude will be to a referendum provision. A referendum is an important part of New Zealand First policy. It is a policy that one can say is direct democracy with a conscience vote attached to it. A referendum allows the people of New Zealand to express their own consciences on an issue. That conscience vote is not limited solely to members of Parliament. It is a conscience vote that allows all the people of New Zealand to say whether they support a particular issue. I was surprised, I suppose—but knowing the Swiss I should not have been—that the Swiss voted against a reduction in taxes. I understand that they took the view that things like roading and suchlike must come first before taxes are reduced, and that is the sort of thing one would expect from a responsible society. Just as the people of Switzerland are responsible, I am sure that the people of New Zealand would be responsible, too, in a referendum.

I ask the Labour Government why it does not allow this issue to go to a referendum. There has been a lot of criticism of the Republicans from the trendy lefty liberals of New Zealand and of the world—all those people who would have liked to see the Democrat candidate become the President of the United States. But who gave the people of the United States the opportunity to vote on issues in a referendum at the last United States general election? It was the Republicans. The Republicans had issues such as this on the voting paper at the last election. The Republicans, the so-called right-wing, conservative, off-this-planet, rednecked type of people gave the people of the United States the opportunity to vote on whether gay marriages should be legal. After the Republicans did that the people of the United States spoke, and their answer was given. Whatever the answer was is irrelevant; the fact is that the United States had a referendum. If all the trendy lefties who have their fun from abusing the Republicans want to continue to do so, they should at least give credit to the Republicans for having a referendum, and follow the Republicans in having one.

But no, it seems that this Labour Government does not want to support a referendum, although I have yet to hear from the members of the Labour Government who have been valiant and brave, and who have exercised their consciences—I should not use the words “crossed the floor”—and voted from time to time against this bill. Full credit goes to them all—to the likes of John Tamihere and Clayton Cosgrove for example, not to mention another member or two who may be in the Chamber at this present time.

It is extremely important that the people of New Zealand be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum. We can rant and rave about whether this bill is a gay marriage bill, a close-to-gay marriage bill, or is not a gay marriage bill—whatever it may be. However, I am sure that if a properly run referendum was held—and New Zealand First has a policy of direct democracy—by the time we had that referendum, the people of New Zealand would be fully informed as to what they were voting for. Of course, the best time to have it and the most economic time to have it would be at a general election. It is not unusual to have a referendum at a general election. The one that most of us who were having their first drink illegally in the 1960s will remember was at the 1967 general election, when the drinking hours were extended from 6 o’clock. It was like when President Kennedy was killed—where one was in 1967 when the referendum took place for the extension of the drinking hours from 6 p.m. to 10 o’clock, and to 11 o’clock on Saturdays. What a bold move that was. Yet that was put to a referendum, and New Zealanders made a decision.

💬 Pansy Wong: 9 October 1967.

I am surprised Pansy Wong can remember that, because I am sure that she was not even born then.

I start off by registering my respect for the very consistent position of New Zealand First in support of the concept of holding referenda on issues such as this. That does contrast somewhat with the position of some other parties and individuals in this Parliament, who suddenly have leapt on the bandwagon of referenda because they think that is another way to try to defeat this legislation. I thank New Zealand First and its speakers to date on this issue for that.

As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which dealt with the Civil Union Bill, I can report that we looked at the issue of holding a referendum very seriously. In doing that we looked at a number of criteria, because we are a nation with some history—a bit of a ragged history—of having referenda. The first issue is the legal responsibility of the Government. Back in 1993 this Parliament made a series of crucial decisions to add a number of grounds to our Human Rights Act. I think, on looking back, that those decisions were of constitutional importance. Our Human Rights Act sits absolutely crucially side by side with our electoral legislation, our Bill of Rights legislation, and other key laws as being New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. That decision was made, and although the enforcement of that law on the Government was delayed for a few years—and the previous National Government tried to delay it a bit longer—it is now actually taking effect. So that law applies to the whole nation—to the voluntary sector, the private sector, and also the Government. Once that decision was made, the duty of the Government was to implement it. It does not mean to say that we will have same-sex marriage. What it does mean to say is that since the State provides marriage as, effectively, a service to the people of the country, it should provide a form of legal recognition to people who are unable to marry. So I think that the first key point, in terms of referenda, is that the State has the legal responsibility to address the issues that this bill addresses. Any referendum should have taken place at the time that the grounds of the Human Rights Act were extended.

Second, the point of minority rights and majority votes is very real, since this legislation has an effect only on those people who are likely to access it. The question is, then, who should be voting in a referendum? If there is any legislation that will benefit a certain group of people in heterosexual, de facto, or same-sex relationships, who is to decide who should vote in a referendum on it? The third point is that when we look around the world, where about 20 or 25 countries have agreed on similar legislation—and many of those are countries with a much more significant tradition of referenda than we have—we see not one of those countries has held a referendum on the issue of introducing civil unions. Fourth, on the issue of the mandate for this legislation, three parties in this Parliament—namely, Labour, the Progressives, and the Greens—indicated at the last election that they would support the introduction of such legislation to the House and allow a free vote for their MPs. They considered it was a mandate for the debate that is happening this evening and over these days. Fifth, there was the issue of public opinion. A series of public opinion polls have shown quite significant majority support for the legislation.

Lastly, and maybe this is the most fundamental point, I think that if we are to move to a situation of holding regular referenda, there is a debate to be had about what kind of model of democracy we operate in this country. I looked through the lobbying I have received on controversial issues over the last 2 years, and saw that people have called for referenda on about 20 issues as varied as tolls on roads and the docking of dogs’ tails. Where do we draw the line between what is a significant issue and what is a small issue? I tell Mr Connell that some people do want referenda on those issues, because to them they are big issues. So the last point I want to make is that if we go to a situation of having regular referenda on a whole range of issues that some regard as controversial but as a new model of democracy, we need to redesign our current parliamentary system in order to fit that.

That was the weakest defence I have ever heard for denying the people of this country a say in their own affairs on a very major and substantial institution in our society. This referendum clause that my colleague is putting up is to ensure there is a check on this bill by the people of this country who are most affected by it. It is democratic, it will establish a consensus, and if the bill is right, the people of New Zealand will say so. If the bill is correct, the people of this country will say so. If the bill is needed, they will say so. If the bill is desired, the people of this country will say so—not a few temporarily empowered politicians who are shortly to go from this place.

The Labour Party has the whip out on this issue, and that is very clear. Labour will oppose the use of a referendum vote on this bill. That is very clear. My question, and the question New Zealand First members are asking—all 13 of us—is: why is that? Is it because Labour members were sent here to make decisions and to govern, as has been claimed by a number of members in the Chamber today? They said: “I was sent here to make decisions and to govern.” I want those members to cast their minds back to the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990. That Government sold off billions and billions of dollars worth of this country’s assets. All those members on the back benches then, some of whom are now on the front benches, sat there and did nothing. They would not even raise a finger to the catastrophe that was happening to the Labour Party and to our nation. Labour went out in 1990, with the biggest defeat ever.

What do those members now say about the shambles of the State asset sales process that happened in those years, 1984 to 1990? Do they still argue: “I’m sent here to govern. I am still here to make decisions.”? Well, they thought that back then, in 1984, too. They sold billions of dollars worth of assets—the people’s assets. They flogged off the taxpayers’ legacy to the highest bidder, and particularly to the bidder that was foreign. If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept the people’s will, then why cannot they? If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept what the people say in a vote, then why cannot Labour? If we in New Zealand First can believe in the people’s voice, then why cannot the Labour Party also believe in the people’s voice, as it will be expressed in a referendum? If we in New Zealand First respect the people’s wish then why cannot Labour, on this matter?

I will tell members why the Labour Party has the whip out on this issue. It is because it knows that it would not win, unless it brought in the jackboot of a whip’s decision in the party. That is what is going on here. The reason why Mr Barnett and his cohorts do not want a referendum across this nation, amongst every adult voter, is that he knows he would not win. So, in short, he believes in hijacking democracy. He claimed that we cannot have this referendum process until we get used to it. It reminds me of when I was at primary school and a lady sent a note saying: “Henry can’t go into the water until he learns to swim.” It is ridiculous; it is pathetic. We should expect that this Parliament would be able to produce members who are smarter than that. But the member puts up this lousy excuse and says: “But who would vote?”. He literally argues that only homosexuals should have the vote. In short, he says that no other New Zealander can see the issue the way they do. Is that right? There are many members of this House who do see the issue in a much more sympathetic way than he does, and they do not believe they should not be entitled to have a vote.

There is no free vote for Labour in respect of this referendum, and that is dramatically wrong. To say that this issue is too big for the people is to portray a myth, to portray a sham, to engage in an exercise in deceit, and to engage in an exercise in duplicity. It is that simple. I say to Mr Barnett that if you believe you are right, why not trust the New Zealand people? What makes you smarter than them? What makes your perception more correct than theirs?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is bringing me into the debate.

Oh no, this is about a referendum. If you do not understand that, then I am sorry but you should read what my colleague has written by way of an amendment. He says to consult the people of this country.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The member is referring to the Chair.

Well, I am addressing the Chair, but I will look where I feel like it, with the greatest respect. I will have a lot less interruption from you, with the greatest respect. I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Why did you interrupt me?

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): The reality is that the member referred to the Chair on three occasions. I let the first two go, without interruption. But I had to pull the member up on the third occasion.

You said that I had to address the Chair.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): There is a longstanding convention that members cannot use the word “you” because it brings the Chair into the debate. I thank the member for raising that.

I meant that enemy of democracy on the Government benches, not you.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.

I have been waiting to get a call for some time—in fact, ever since Mr Peck took a call and challenged members of the Committee to identify those who are homosexual. I said that Mr Barnett is homosexual. Mr Barnett has acknowledged that fact—it is a matter of public record. But Mr Peck said that that is the only way we can know—because someone tells us. That is not so. I went to Express magazine and on the first page I opened there are a couple of men engaged in a homosexual act. So I would say that they are probably homosexual, and that is how we can tell. I say to Mr Peck that there is one answer to his question.

The second question that I want to refer to concerns something Mr Barnett said. He came to the Chamber and read letters to the Committee from all the nasty people who have said nasty things about the people who want this law. I say to Mr Barnett that he has the advantage over me, because the letters, the hate mail, I have received are so vile that I cannot read them to the Committee. They have come from people whom the member says do not engage in hate or hate language. I think that Mr Barnett should have a hard think about that. I think there are people on both sides of this debate who engage in hate mail. I do not think he should single out one side of the debate unfairly.

Let us turn to the referendum issue. Mr Peters took a call. I can say to him that there are at least 13, plus one at least, members in this Chamber whom I now know support the call for a binding referendum. I feel that there is deep hypocrisy amongst those who argue against a binding referendum, particularly members of the Green Party. Those members have said that they absolutely will not touch this, yet they are in this House by virtue of a binding referendum. They might want to reflect on that; so might Mr Barnett.

Let me address some of the other issues that were raised. Mr Barnett’s defence as to why there should not be a binding referendum is weak because he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that when all the smoke is cleared away the reason this Government will not put this issue to the vote and let the general public have a say on it is that it would be lost, and lost resoundingly. That is why he is objecting to it. He knows that when the question is put as to whether the New Zealand public want gay marriage, they will say no. He knows that if this issue goes out into the public domain, the spin doctors of the Labour Government will not be able to disguise the ultimate truth of what this legislation is all about, and that is gay marriage. That is why he will not allow this question to be put into the public domain. He and his Government would lose the ability to manipulate the argument. They know that in this Chamber they can get the result they want.

The idea of a conscience vote to the Labour Party is laughable. That member knows it, I know it, and members of this Chamber know it. What is even worse is that he knows that the general public of this country know it, as well. So it is a bit of a sham that he is putting forward. Part of the reason that people are arguing for civil unions is that people should have the opportunity to protect their long-term loving relationships. What Government members do is roll out Chris Carter as the example of a long, stable relationship. Mr Carter is in a long, stable relationship, but he is the exception to the rule.

I have listened very closely to the arguments put forward by the opposition. I have the Catholic bishops’ statement. I have it here. I have read it very closely. The arguments of the opposition and the bishops seem to boil down to three basic viewpoints: firstly, that the passage of this legislation—the recognition of civil unions—will erode the special and unique position of marriage and the family in our society; secondly, that it will create a slippery slope that will undermine our social and moral values and lead to social decay in our society; and, thirdly, that it will undermine the well-being and stability of society.

I believe that as legislators we have an obligation to test these claims to see whether they have a rational basis or are just irrational fears. New Zealand is in the fortunate position of being able to look at other societies that have introduced registered same-sex partnerships. That has been the law in Sweden for 20 years, in Denmark for 15 years, and in Norway since 1993. If the arguments of the opponents are correct, then it is inevitable that we would see in those societies evidence of the undermining of the stability of society, evidence of the erosion of the special and unique position of marriage and the family, and evidence of social decay. The statistics show that marriage, far from being eroded and undermined, has actually remained stable in those societies. Indeed, in places like Denmark the number of marriages has gone up by a small amount. In 1990 it was 6.1 marriages per 1,000 residents. Now it is 6.8 marriages per 1,000 residents. So the statistics are very clear: there has been no erosion of the institution of marriage in those societies and no evidence of social and moral decay. Keith Locke has just visited Sweden. He reported to us that, very thankfully, he was not able to see any evidence of social or moral decay. [Interruption] He said Sweden is a robust—[Interruption]

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind members on the cross benches of the convention that they do not interject from there, because it affects the microphone.

Thank you for your protection, Mr Chair. Sweden is a robust, healthy, stable, tolerant, and inclusive democracy. It is the sort of society that New Zealand should be seeking to emulate. The same can be said of Denmark, a society of approximately 4 million people. It is a role model for us in terms of social justice, tolerance, and inclusiveness.

I have spoken not only to Keith Locke but to other people who have relatives in, or have visited, Denmark and Norway, and Sweden, in particular, over recent years. They all say that there is not one shred of evidence in those societies that any of the claims made by the opponents of this bill are a reality. So I challenge the opponents of this bill to produce some shred of evidence tonight for their claims that there has been an undermining of the special and unique position of marriage and the family in any one of those three societies, or a decline and undermining of social and moral standards, or an erosion of well-being and stability. I challenge other speakers tonight to produce one shred of evidence. The truth is that there is no evidence, and that leads us to believe that our community has irrational fears about this bill, but those fears have no rational basis. If any member can produce some evidence, I for one will listen with great interest and respect.

If Ms Kedgley thinks that locking pastors up in Sweden, simply because they quote passages from the Bible against homosexuality, is not something that shows a decay in that society, then obviously we have quite a different point of view. As my colleague says, tolerance goes out the window in societies that are opening up the whole issue of so-called human rights.

I also want to respond to Tim Barnett’s comments, because they cannot be left unchallenged. Although he and I have a healthy respect for each other’s positions, I feel that he made a couple of statements that were quite wrong. First, he indicated there was clear public support for this bill in polls that have been taken. Well, all the polls I have seen have had support fluctuating between 40 and 60 percent, and the results of the last two surveys we have available are similar. One survey conducted showed variance of 45 or 46 percent, which hardly gives a clear majority for support, and a survey last week by a television programme showed 76 percent opposition to this bill. I do not know where the member gets his figures from but it seems he is making a very selective choice.

Secondly, the member asked: if we were to put these sorts of issues to a referendum, how would we decide what was a significant issue? I can tell him one thing—this issue is a significant issue. It seems to me that when we have issues that are as fundamental as the nature of marriage in our society, and when there is such a strong public division on the issue, there is a classic example of the need for a referendum.

In this bill we are looking at the undermining of what has been the four cornerstones of marriage in society—namely, that marriage is confined to two people, that it is confined to people who have reached a certain age, that it is confined to people who do not have relationships that are close in terms of blood ties, and that it is confined to a man and a woman. In this bill we want to destroy one of those foundations without getting society’s view on the matter. We risk undermining the foundations of marriage as a result, and that is a clear example where a referendum is necessary in terms of coming up with a mandate in order to make those changes.

In fact, I think that on any conscience issue this Parliament debates where there is less than 60 percent support, the issue should automatically be put to a referendum. If we cannot get 60 percent support, it demonstrates a clear division in society so that the issue should be decided on a much broader basis than simply by 120 members in the House. We need to give a greater say to the public. They are clamouring for it. We need to show them that we think there are certain issues in this country that ought to be decided beyond merely those issues that relate to the electoral system and beyond merely the 3-yearly vote. I think a referendum is an appropriate measure to do that.

The lesson that we should learn through that procedure is that it is important we hear the concerns of minority groups within our society and, most particularly, the concerns where those minority groups represent interests that we may disagree with personally. What we need to do is to listen, then to distinguish the genuine concerns that we ought to address from what are simply requests for wants rather than needs—wants that start undermining the fabric of our society.

If we had addressed earlier the needs of the homosexual community in terms of issues such as next-of-kin rights, then a measure such as the one Richard Worth promoted would have been the way to go. I am disappointed that even at this late stage we have not adopted that suggestion, because that does genuinely address the needs we have been told about.

It does not address the wants of the homosexual community, who want same-sex relationships to be seen to be equivalent to opposite-sex relationships, even though opposite-sex relationships have been a fundamental institution in terms of marriage and the rearing of children, and continue to be so in our society. That demand for those wants, which goes way beyond real needs, is what a large proportion of this Committee does not accept as being legitimate.

I cannot abide the kind of double standard I heard from the member who just resumed his seat. One becomes quite browbeaten from all sides of the Chamber, I guess, in this debate, but I think I have been involved in one way or the other with fighting for not only my rights but hopefully for others’ human rights. To hear these things trivialised, and to be treated as though there is some other being or person superior to some of us in society—where those who call for one law for all do not actually believe that in this particular instance—is most disturbing. It is most disturbing to hear that, and that is all I wanted to say.

Two weeks ago I was invited back to Hong Kong to take part in a public seminar, as part of the 50th anniversary celebration programme of my high-profile high school. In that speech I stated I was an above average student when I applied myself, but most of the time I did not achieve to that standard during my time at high school. It was no surprise that principals and teachers struggled to recall this now high-profile alumni, because it was my coming to New Zealand that brought about that change. New Zealand gives me the space, the opportunity, and the motivation to realise my potential. My pride as a member of the Asian ethnic minority community, the determination to earn my rights as a New Zealander, and the frustration of having to justify those rights stir up the dormant competitiveness inside me.

I work relentlessly to reinforce the positive image of New Zealanders as fair-minded people who believe in giving others a fair go. Ours is a country where minorities will have space and rights as long as the rights of the majority are not eroded. Passing the Civil Union Bill does not take away any rights from a man and a woman who choose to commit to each other under the Marriage Act, and who are legally entitled to address each other as husband and wife. Same-gender couples and heterosexual couples are given a separate legal framework when they choose to commit to each other.

If this bill had made amendments to the Marriage Act to make room for same-gender couples, I would not have supported it. It is important to accept that we do not live in a perfect world from every person’s perspective. Some will argue that this is a compromise, and we do need to compromise in a society of collective membership. In my judgment, that compromise means that minorities should be given space as long as the majority’s rights are not eroded.

This Parliament in 1987 passed legislation to decriminalise homosexuality. I remember the bitter arguments and the images of hatred and frustration of those times. The legislation was passed, and many now would say that of course it is not right to discriminate against gay members—which was not the case in 1987. Parliamentarians need to take into consideration the status quo preference of the majority against the need to bring about enlightened attitudes so that minorities in our society can go about their business without the shame and fear of being different.

I would like to read an extract from one of the very many emails that I, like many members of Parliament, have received: “It’s not easy to discover that you are gay. Our society makes it very clear what it thinks of gay people. We all hear the terrible jokes, the hurtful stereotypes, and the wrong ideas that circulate about gay people. It is no wonder that one might choose to hide one’s gay feelings from others. One might even be tempted to hide them from oneself.”

I have not supported the lowering of the drinking age, prostitution reform, or the voluntary euthanasia bill, which hardly puts me in the liberal camp, but I do support adults who choose to make a sincere commitment to each other. The passage of the Civil Union Bill will not undermine marriage. In the last 2 years we have seen statistics proving that the number of marriages has increased.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What about a referendum?

If New Zealand First members want to take another call, they are welcome to do that. In my speech I have stated very clearly that parliamentarians are elected here to make the hard decisions, and to take into consideration not only the views of the majority who prefer the status quo but also the views of the minority.

I have listened to this debate for many hours now, and I have heard arguments from both sides of the Chamber. Much of it has been very emotional and some of it has been very personal, but, really, what have we been listening to? We have heard one side stating that they want equality for people, yet they turn round and promote the complete opposite. On the other side of the argument, people are concerned that civil union will wreck marriage, and then we hear them stating that it is not about marriage. But this bill is all about, and is nothing more than, marriage for gays.

Let us look at what the promoters of this bill are trying to say. They are trying to promote that it will reduce the prejudice against them, and provide them with all sorts of other legal and technical issues. None of that will change. This bill will not change any of those things. People will not find that prejudice suddenly melts away overnight. It will not happen under this bill, at all. They will not have any additional rights to adopt children. Those rights already exist. People in de facto relationships can adopt children through the normal adoption processes now, so what is this bill really about? It is nothing more than marriage for gay people.

It is such an emotional issue, so why will this Government not allow the people of this country to decide such an emotional and important issue? New Zealand First has offered a binding referendum to decide this issue, but this Government is frightened of that. Why is it frightened? What is it frightened of? Why does the Government not give the people the opportunity to show that they care and that they have minds of their own? This Government does not believe that the people of New Zealand have minds of their own. It wants to protect them from making this decision. Well, the people of New Zealand want to make the decision themselves, and a binding referendum is the way for them to do that.

We have heard such emotional statements from both sides, that it is obvious members of Parliament do not have the ability to be objective about this issue. They cannot make the decision for the majority of people. Most deny the polling that has been going on with regard to this issue.

Some will deny that there is a huge majority against the bill, and some will claim that there is a huge majority for it. If that is the case, then let us ask the people, in a referendum, to make their decision. There is no point in polling people between elections to see who will govern the country. It is the poll held at election time that really decides who will govern the country, so let the people of New Zealand decide in a referendum at the next election whether gay marriage is to be the norm, and whether this legislation is wanted by the majority of people. If it is allowed to go to the public, and if they decide to go with it, well and good. That would be the decision of the people, not of the emotional members of this House. So it should be allowed to go to a referendum.

Why is the Government so frightened of that? Why will it not allow the people to decide? Is it because the Government knows that the people have minds of their own, and that they know how to make decisions on these sorts of things? We have heard the excuse that we should not allow the people to make decisions through referenda because they are not used to them. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said, the only way to learn how to swim is to get into the water. So why cannot the Government allow the people of New Zealand to use a referendum to make their own decisions—to decide what they want to have in place?

I apologise to members and to those listening to the debate for the quality of my voice; it is not that I have talked myself out. But I will do the best I can to make a final speech on this very important debate.

We are addressing the Civil Union Bill. I believe that a better title would be “Civil Relationship Bill”, as provided for in Richard Worth’s amendment, which I voted for. It is a shame that the bill is not to be entitled “Civil Relationship Bill”, because I believe that most members would be supportive of legislation that addresses the issues that were raised as the very basis of the bill—the issues that we have always called the “next-of-kin rights”, which in some instances may be denied some same-sex couples in this country.

We have discovered through this process, particularly as a result of some of the excellent submissions that were made to the select committee and one in particular from the Maxim Institute—which took the lid off the next-of-kin rights, because the institute went to many hospitals and places around New Zealand to find out exactly what was happening in regard to next-of-kin rights—that in very few cases at all was real discrimination taking place, and that in most cases, the rights of same-sex couples are being addressed. It is really not a case of bad law but of bad policy operating in many places that results in some instances of injustice occurring.

We have always said that we are supportive of addressing those issues, because they are issues of rights. As I said in my first speech on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, I believe that those rights apply not just to couples who have sexual relationships but also to other relationships in society in which people take care of each other without having a sexual relationship. We could have addressed their need for a recognition of that relationship and of next-of-kin rights in the amendment promoted by Richard Worth. That would have been covered by the “Civil Relationship Bill” concept. It is regrettable, because the Committee is divided and the vote on the third reading will be very close.

Again, many who have opposed the legislation will be called homophobic and not concerned about homosexual people, which is not the truth. We are simply concerned about the erosion of marriage, and the desire for those couples to gain acceptance from Parliament for their relationships by having a civil union that is seen as the same as marriage in all but name.

I will also address the issue regarding the amendments to clause 2 calling for a referendum before the legislation becomes law. I personally would support that it ought to go to a referendum in New Zealand and, as my colleague said earlier, I believe that matters dealt with by conscience in this House should go to a referendum when the House does not have at least a 60 percent majority. If we are not clear on the matter in this place, we should submit it to the people of New Zealand so they can have a say on the issue.

Personally, Gordon Copeland and I have been involved in a citizens initiated referendum to deal with the fiasco from the Prostitution Reform Bill of a year ago, which passed because of one abstention by Ashraf Choudhary, a man who could not make up his mind—

💬 Peter Brown: No, you’ve just had the Leader of the Opposition say he voted the wrong way.

I think most of the Muslim community think he voted the wrong way. He is certainly voting the wrong way this time, as well. That bill ought not to have passed into law on the basis of one abstention. That is a very good example of something that should have gone to a referendum, instead of us having to go around the country to gather the necessary signatures in order to force a referendum on the issue.

I have just returned from the Muslim world. I was in Doha last week at a meeting on the Doha Declaration, dealing with family values and issues, that has been signed up to by 139 countries. Throughout the debate members have been quoting examples of the European nations that have been so forward in their thinking as to have gay marriage and civil unions. I tell members that they are still a very small minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of nations are opposed to seeing civil unions or gay marriage established in their nations. There were 139 signatory countries to the Doha Declaration. It was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly on Monday this week and has been adopted as a UN declaration. It is very interesting to read that declaration, with its specific and clear statements about protecting marriage and upholding the natural family in our countries.

I am pleased to take a call in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I want to respond to one of the comments made by the previous speaker about hospitals being rung to ask them what their policy is when dealing with same-sex couples, and if, in fact, they would deny a person in a same-sex couple access to his or her partner. Of course they do not do that, and that was reiterated by the Nurses Organisation at the Justice and Electoral Committee. But the difficulty arises when there is some kind of disagreement between the family and the partner of a person in hospital who is unconscious, or has been in an accident, and is not in position to sign a next-of-kin form.

💬 Larry Baldock: And this doesn’t deal with it.

How many times do I have to say this? If someone is in a civil union, it is a legal, recognised relationship under the law. When same-sex couples came to the committee they said that they know there are no next-of-kin laws. Mr Smith will remember that, because, to his credit, he was there for all the submissions, unlike many members of the committee who have come to the Chamber and pretended that they were there for all of them. What same-sex couples said was that if they were in a civil union, it would be a legal, recognised relationship, and they could take their civil union certificate with them, if need be, and, like a marriage certificate, it would be evidence that the relationship was recognised under the law. That is how civil unions would be helpful for the next-of-kin issue in relation to people in hospital. The representatives from the Nurses Organisation themselves said that it would be very helpful, and that it is not fair that nurses have to make the call between the disapproving family and the partner.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: So we’re doing it for the nurses now?

We are doing it for the nurses. I feel that there are many areas that the bill helps, and if we can make it easier—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: What’s wrong with a referendum?

I will talk about the referendum soon, I say to Mr Peters. If we can, we should make it easier for hospital staff to implement their policy. I think same-sex couples should be given the right to choose to go into one of these relationships. Of course, not all of them will, and there will continue to be problems, but if they have a choice, we have fair legislation.

Now, just to keep Mr Peters happy, I will talk about the issue of a referendum. I do not support referenda on issues like this. I will tell members why. If we had had a referendum on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill 18 years ago, it would not have passed. How many people can honestly say that that law has changed their lives—that their lives are worse because 18 years ago that Act was passed? I wish we could have referenda on issues that actually affect people’s lives. I wish we had had a referendum on the student loan scheme. I would not have been old enough to vote, but I would have felt much better if a referendum had been held on the student loan scheme and we could have had a say. That scheme affects my life.

I am not opposed to the idea of referenda. However, I think MPs are here to make decisions. Referenda are costly, so they should be used sparingly. I do not have any problem with the concept of referenda, but referenda on issues like this are the reason that in a country like Switzerland, a progressive nation, women did not get the vote until 1971. In 1956 a referendum was held in Switzerland and it failed. Women did not get the vote in 1956 in Switzerland, because of the referendum system. It would be the same if a referendum was held here on an issue like this. I believe that referenda are useful when everyone voting on them is affected by what he or she is voting on. If people are affected by what they are voting on, then a referendum may be a very useful tool if Parliament is unable to make up its mind, or deems an issue serious enough to take to the people of this country. But we are paid to come here and do a job. In 20 years’ time, no one will even blink at the way his or her life has changed because the Civil Union Bill passed into law.

We could spend an awful lot of money on a referendum—and there would be posturing by a lot of people—but if we are serious about referenda, why are we not putting them up for issues that really affect the lives of New Zealanders? Will it be New Zealand First that decides what we have referenda on? Will it decide the important issues? Who will decide? To be fair to New Zealand First, I have to say that it is the one party in this Parliament that has a policy on referenda. I guarantee that if the opponents of this bill had the numbers to see this bill fail, they would not be calling for a referendum. National Party members would not be calling for a referendum if they had the numbers to see this bill fail. I have no doubt about that. I do not believe that United Future, as well, would be calling for a referendum if it had the numbers to see this bill fail. At least I am consistent. I would not support a referendum even if we did not have the numbers to pass this bill into law, because I do not believe that this is the right issue for a referendum.

I call the honourable member Richard Worth.

I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the speaker before he has had a chance to start. The Committee spent the best part of 4 hours this afternoon voting on amendments moved by Richard Worth. I am afraid that my records are not quite up to date. Can you confirm, Mr Chairman, that this is the first call that Mr Worth has taken in the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill? I think it is.

No, no. The member knows that that is not a point of order, and that it can actually lead to disorder. I ask the member to desist.

What a cheap shot that was from a cheap member! Like it or not, this is quite serious legislation, and when a young junior Government whip makes comments of that calibre, I suggest that the thinking public can express real reservation as to where Labour is going on this bill.

National members have made it clear from the outset that we have significant problems with this legislation. I have spoken about the strong opposition to it, but in the context of what I will talk about in this speech I will put that aside. However, this bill is being rushed through under urgency, and there are, quite clearly, better ways of achieving the objective.

This part of the debate is really concerned with two issues: the commencement date and also the title. I will talk for a moment about the title of the Civil Union Bill. In some respects it is the title and the implications behind it that caused 91 percent of the people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee to say that they did not want this bill. Ninety-one percent of 6,000 people is a significant number, in any setting, of people seeking to be heard in submissions before a select committee. I was saddened by the comments of the previous speaker, who clearly is not interested in, and is not prepared to take any account at all of, those who have heartfelt and sincere opposition to this proposal.

I have had the opportunity—despite what the young Government whip has said—of contributing in a reasonably substantial way to this legislation. Not only have I had the opportunity of speaking in the Committee stage but also I have had the opportunity of moving a number of amendments to provide a realistic and viable alternative. I want for a moment to highlight the concerns of those who say that this is a bad title.

Maybe, on the numbers, this legislation will pass. It may have to be revisited after a change of Government in 2005. But I want to talk about the fact that we are looking at an institution that is the equivalent—almost the verisimilitude—of marriage. Why is that? Well, there are ceremonial requirements in respect of civil union that are the same as those of marriage. That is the first point. The second point is that there are dissolution arrangements that are wholly similar to marriage. The 2-year rule is an illustration of that. The third thing is that civil union and marriage are both registered under the same legislation—the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act. It is a great pity that this legislation—and this Government will be judged by this—is, in effect, whatever others will say, a commitment to a same-sex marriage regime.

I will draw an analogy, very quickly, with what other countries are doing. In Australia the Federal Government, at the Senate level, has said that it does not want any part of this. In the United States presidential election, a series of referenda in 11 states overwhelmingly indicated that there should be no commitment to, no encouragement of, same-sex marriage. On Friday we will see a very interesting thing, I think, when the Supreme Court of Canada, on a reference from the Federal Government, looks at that same issue. On Friday at 1 p.m. local time, we will receive a very clear indication that New Zealand is moving against the trend. It is moving against the trend in a way that is so typical of this Government. If it is not: “Let’s ban smoking.”, and if it is not: “Let’s encourage prostitution.”, it is all about “Why not same-sex marriage?”.

I think it is quite reasonable for Christian and non-Christian groups across a wide spectrum of the community to say that, no, this is not the Government they want, and that this kind of political correctness should not characterise New Zealand society in its contemporary setting. I express a degree of sadness for those members who have not really seen the light, and have steamed ahead under the directive of the Prime Minister to produce an outcome we should not have.

I rise to speak in support of the title and commencement clauses of the Civil Union Bill. It is interesting to follow Richard Worth. I was pleased finally to hear a contribution from him in the Committee stage, particularly after we voted for so many hours on amendments that were proposed by him—not that I am necessarily saying they were drafted, written, or thought of by him, but they were certainly lodged by him on the floor of the Chamber earlier today. One of the things Mr Worth tried to say was that somehow Labour Party members were not exercising a conscience on this bill. I think that is a particularly low thing to say. It is true that the majority of Labour members of Parliament are voting in favour of this bill. A number are not; about six of our colleagues have said they will not support the bill, just as in the National Party the majority oppose the bill, apart from three members who support it. So in the two major parties there is a majority view one way, with a small group doing the opposite of their colleagues. We do not make a big point about that. We just recognise that that is a matter of conscience, so I do not think that is a fair thing for him to say.

In terms of the title, the bill is called the Civil Union Bill. However, we have not spent much time in Committee talking about civil unions. Opponents of the bill have spent most of the time talking about marriage and about the great damage that they believe this bill causes to marriage. I do not share that view, at all. The Government was very clear that it would protect marriage and that it would be available only to men and women in heterosexual relationships, because of some of the very specific concerns that members have been raising in this debate about the institution of marriage. The Government went away and looked at creating a new institution of civil union that would be open not just to heterosexual de facto couples but also to same-sex couples. This has not been done as some great attack on marriage, yet a number of MPs have only been able to talk about marriage, as though somehow this bill is an amendment to the Marriage Act. I ask members to reflect on that because we are protecting marriage and keeping it in its current form, but we are saying that given there are 320,000 New Zealanders in loving and committed relationships that are not marriages—either because they have chosen for them not to be or because the law prohibits them from being recognised in law—we are creating a new institution and calling it civil union.

I welcome the title of the bill. I wish members would focus on that because it does not hurt anybody. There is not one married member of Parliament in this Chamber whose marriage is in anyway demeaned, degraded, or abused by the fact that we will allow other New Zealanders in committed relationships to have the law recognise their relationships. Some members of Parliament are saying they would rather have gay couples treated as legal strangers, because somehow that enhances their own marriages. It has nothing to do with it, at all. People’s relationships are highly individual and unique. If a married couple lives in a street next door to another married couple, and their neighbours’ marriage breaks up—if there is an affair or a divorce—it does not demean their own marriage. We do not say that because we both had marriages and that because next door’s marriage busted up, my marriage has somehow been degraded. I think people are forgetting what relationships are. I do not think it is fair that we should say there should be no legal avenue at all for people who are gay or who are in de facto relationships and who choose not to marry. I cannot see how anybody is made a better person, or how anyone’s relationship is really better, because they have denied their neighbour—or someone who lives four or five streets away, or in another city, town, or village—the right to have their relationship recognised. Nobody has been able to explain that at all.

In terms of the commencement clause, although I respect the amendment Brian Donnelly is putting forward because it is consistent with New Zealand First’s policy on referendum, I will not be voting for his amendment. In defence of Brian Donnelly, I think the way that some members of Parliament have hijacked the New Zealand First policy as a way of trying to hide their own bankrupt positions on this bill is outrageous. Because they see the bill coming to a very close stage they say “Hang on, our arguments have not worked, so how can we try to delay it? I know, we’ll jump on to the New Zealand First bandwagon.” I think that is wrong. The person who is most wrong in that regard is the Leader of the Opposition, because he cast a personal vote in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill, which went through Parliament with a much tighter margin than this bill looks likely to do, and did not at any point call for a referendum. In fact, the Leader of the Opposition voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill and never had this great call of conscience in terms of a referendum. But New Zealand First, by contrast, has always done that.

I was very disappointed that another leader in this Chamber has called for a referendum, which came as a surprise, and that was the leader of the Māori Party, Tariana Turia. She now, I understand, believes that important matters ought to be decided for minorities by referendum. That is not her view, of course, on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. That is not her view on whether New Zealand should have Māori seats. She does not want to put those issues to the popular vote, because she will not expose minorities to that. I think positions have to be consistent. I support the bill.

I rise to take a call in this debate, and I do so not from a pious moral position, I might add, but because I am a beneficiary of a binding referendum, which was taken some time ago. While I am not permitted to label members in this Chamber with the “h” word, I ought to say that in terms of the “h” word, some people’s actions within this Chamber ought to be called into question. However, I will comment on a number of points made by some members of this Chamber during the debate so far.

The first question I ask is why we are in urgency. What is it about this very issue that demands that we have to deal with it under urgency? I have heard some people in this Chamber say that it is a matter of intolerance of one part of our society towards another group. If that is the case, then I want to talk about homosexual law reform, which took place in the 1980s, where the introduction of that legislation was based on the same argument—the intolerance of one part of our community towards another. After that legislation—and it is almost 20 years ago—the intolerance is still there. I do not believe for one minute that this bill will remove the intolerance that exists in this society. The enactment of this legislation will not in any way remove the intolerance that people have been talking about.

Earlier today a member mentioned that one of her offspring had been given a rough time by friends because of the member’s opposition to the bill. I do not know whether that was the reason why that particular member has since changed her view and declared her support for the bill, but I say to that member that if those are the sorts of friends her offspring has, then they are not really friends.

I also noted that that member concluded by saying that this legislation is for young people. Therein, I believe, lies the crux of the concerns that are coming from what may be seen to be a pious moral position in terms of the future of young people. I say that the urgency given this bill will not address that matter in any way. At the end of the day it is a matter of attitude, and the changing of people’s attitudes cannot be achieved by mere legislation. I will suggest to members of this House that in 15 or 20 years’ time the attitude that some people hold towards the intent of this bill will not have changed. If there is to be a change in this area, then the people need to be given the opportunity to participate in the debate.

New Zealand First, as a consequence of its policy of supporting binding referenda, addresses that issue. A referendum provides that opportunity. For those members in the Chamber who are denying that opportunity, it can be only because they fear that the people of New Zealand do not have the capabilities to make the right decisions concerning them.

There are a number of members on the Government’s side who oppose the bill but do not support the idea of a binding referendum. I say to the members from Mangere, Waimakariri, West Coast - Tasman, and from Tamaki Makaurau, that if they are true to their beliefs in opposing this bill, then they ought to consider supporting New Zealand First’s stance in calling for a referendum. I want to say also to the member for Tamaki Makaurau that if he wants to make a koha, and if he understands the real meaning of koha, this is an opportunity to support binding referenda.

This is the second speech on this bill that I have given and I am pleased to do so. When I took my first call earlier today I focused a lot on the statement that somebody had quoted that marriage was a “breeding unit”, and my objection to that term, particularly as someone who was, as I detailed, brought up in the Catholic Church. Because I believe that relationships are not confined to having children, otherwise why would we allow 70-year-olds to marry. If marriage is about those sorts of issues, why—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Because they are lonely, that’s why.

Yes. Marriage is not the only model of a loving relationship. I do not want to use my own words, because many people who have written to us in the last few days have said this much better. One person wrote: “Love is still love, at the end of the day, and this is extremely important and does not become any less strong because the couple are lesbian or gay.”

Others have been saying that people are worried about the erosion that this may cause to their concept of marriage. “I agree”, says one writer, “with many opponents to this bill who are worried about the erosion of the two-parent family. But the experience of my siblings, who are all adopted and who came through from abuse and abandonment, remind me that no institution, marriage or civil union alone, ensures the quality of a family’s care for its members.”

Another person wrote: “Civil unions do not affect marriage. If we are addressing the sanctity of marriage we should be looking at shotgun weddings, reality media weddings, green card weddings, extramarital affairs, and divorce rates.” So members should not come in here and quote the sanctity of marriage and say that that is the only way relationships can go.

Why do I support this bill? I support it because it gives people some options, some choice. Some people here keep saying that these are only options for the rainbow community. That is not so. I have two letters on this. One says: “My partner and I have a beautiful baby girl”—they are a male and a female, for those members who are going to get excited—“and we are a family, despite what the Church and some of you would say. However, in the current legislative climate, we either have to be married or sign powers of attorney just to find out how one of us is going in hospital. The Civil Union Bill will help us with that.”

Another person writes: “There have been many assertions by opponents of the bill that people in heterosexual relationships who do not wish to marry in a church can opt out of that by marriage in a civil ceremony. But that does not address the fundamental issue which is important to many modern people. We do not wish to be married, with all of that institution’s traditional assumptions. We have formed a better, more equal sort of relationship than that modelled by our parents’ generation, with all its failings.”

These heterosexual couples are beginning to say: “Civil union is an option for us.”

Now I come to something that, for me, is really important. The thing that really moves me in this kaupapa is that I have seen during this debate, and over the years since we have been fighting this issue, absolute damage done to the gay and lesbian community. I have known that as a school principal, and I have seen the hurt that has come into kids’ eyes. If people deny this particular legislation going through, they will send the message: “You in the gay and lesbian community are not fit to form partnerships that are recognised by the State.” They will send the message to adolescents, who already have an extremely high suicide rate in the gay community: “You are not worth being recognised.” That is not something I want to stand up for or have responsibility for. I want us to recognise and nurture all those people in their loving relationships and to have those relationships recognised by the State.

I have a lovely quote here from a cleric: “Kia ora. I write to strongly support the passing of the Civil Union Bill. As a long-time educator and a Presbyterian minister of people in the caring professions, and having been a chaplain in a psychiatric hospital, I have had the opportunity to see the hurt and damage that has been caused by prejudice against homosexuals, and the range of restrictions placed on them by a society only beginning to show loving and humanity in its collective actions and legislative enactments. It was a wonderful move made in the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill almost two decades ago. Please ensure that we continue to move towards a healthy society.”

I ask members whether any of them recall these dates. In March 1949 there was a referendum on off-course betting and the gaming Act. People say that New Zealanders do not understand referenda and cannot handle them—cannot get their heads around them. That is interesting. That referendum asked two questions, and the country voted 68 percent in favour of off-course betting. In August 1949 there was another referendum, on compulsory military training. How controversial that was in those days! And the country still got its head around it, with 77.9 percent of the population voting “Yes” to compulsory military training.

On 23 September 1967, people were asked a question regarding the term of Parliament—3 years or 4 years. Sixty-eight percent of them got their heads around the question and said “3 years”. In October 1990 there was another referendum on the term of Parliament—the same thing again—and 69 percent confirmed that they wanted it to be 3 years. On 19 September 1992 a very complex two-part referendum asked, firstly, whether people wished to retain first past the post or whether they wished to change the voting system. Eighty-four percent of them got their heads around the complexities of that question and said they wanted to change the voting system.

The second question asked which voting system they preferred and gave a range of choices—supplementary-member representation system, single transferable vote, MMP, and preferential voting. And what did we get? We got 70.5 percent working their way through the complexities of the arguments and making a decision. They said they wanted MMP.

That was followed up with another referendum, between MMP and first past the post. The country was bombarded with paper bags on heads and all sorts of strange advertisements. People still got their heads around the question, and 53.9 percent said they wanted MMP, which is the system we have today.

In September 1997, on the compulsory retirement savings scheme, 91.8 percent got their heads around the complexities of the referendum New Zealand First put up—again, establishing our very long-held belief in the use of referenda—and rejected the compulsory savings scheme.

In December 1995 there was a referendum on whether the number of professional firefighters employed in the full-time New Zealand service should be reduced. Labour campaigned on, championed, and hailed this referendum as something they could beat the National Party up with. And what did we get? We got 87.8 percent getting their heads around that complex issue and saying: “Don’t reduce the number of firefighters.”

In 1999 a referendum asked whether the House of Representatives should be reduced from 120 members to 99. Mrs Robertson received 81.5 percent support from the population, who said: “Too right. We don’t like the voting system, and now we just want you to know we don’t like having too many MPS; get the numbers down.” Did this place listen? No. It has a fine track record of not listening in recent years.

On 27 November 1999 we had another referendum, the Withers referendum dealing with longer and harsher penalties, and 91.8 percent of the people clearly got their heads around that question and said they wanted tougher and longer sentences.

So what is the problem? Here we have a situation where Labour is standing up and saying: “We won. You lost. Eat that! We’re going to make the decisions. We are the ones who know better.” But do they know better? Did National know better when Jenny Shipley declared we were living in a café society and everybody should be able to buy alcohol. That was just after she launched the Hero Parade in Auckland, I think. The result was that Parliament lowered the drinking age.

What is the result now? People said it was wrong. They said they wanted a choice. Now there has been an 87.4 percent increase in hospitalisation of children aged 14 to 19, because of the drinking problem. The medical experts, the medical professionals—even Matt Robson, who voted to lower the drinking age, now says he was wrong and Parliament was wrong. He is out there campaigning for a member’s bill that he has put together, copying mine. Parliament does not know better. This should be a referendum issue.

In speaking to the title clause—because that is what we are supposed to be speaking to—I recall the title put forward by Larry Baldock: “Civil Relationships Act”. I suggest that the title could actually be “Anything Goes Act”. If one sees the premise of the Civil Union Bill as being based on human rights and loving relationships, one has to ask oneself why, then, one would not support polygamy and having multiple partners, a husband having multiple wives or a wife having multiple husbands, or even support incestuous relationships. After all, people could say that it is their human right and their loving relationship.

Darren Hughes said that people’s relationships are unique, and Marian Hobbs talked about options and choice. That is what they see as the premise of this bill, so why should the title not be “Anything Goes”? Where do we set the benchmark for society? At what point do we say that this is a fundamental pillar of society and is what we need to nurture, rather than go to an “anything goes” premise based on human rights and loving relationships?

People have been asking why we in this place are doing this so quickly—why we are not going to public referendum. I fully support Brian Donnelly’s call for a public referendum—absolutely, unequivocally. I could not believe it when I heard Tim Barnett, who is really the driving force behind this bill, actually say he did not believe that the rest of New Zealand, other than those who were affected by this bill, should have the right to have a say in it. That is my understanding of what he said, and I have heard that said also by others in this Parliament. I absolutely deplore that. Every voting New Zealander should have an opportunity to decide what they see as the parameter for New Zealand society, and that is what this is about.

I will tell members why we are in urgency. I have a number of papers here, and one of them, the homosexual newspaper Express, points out that when Tim Barnett was invited to give his vision for the future, he said: “We will not have a queer-friendly Government forever.” He also said: “I believe there is a real urgency to completing the equal rights agenda.” That is what was said—“We will not have a queer-friendly Government forever.” I find that terminology offensive, and I am surprised that the paper itself did not find it offensive. We can look at others of the many bits of paper I have here. There is the MSN news poll, in which 1,337 were in support of the bill and 4,441 were opposed to it.

It is no wonder the Government did not want a referendum, because the New Zealand public would have resoundingly and completely dumped this bill. The Government brought the bill to this Committee of the whole House, under urgency, and we know the reason: it wants to pass it while it has the opportunity, because that opportunity will never come again. We have to wonder about what this Government really does, because another of the pieces of information that came across my desk stated that on 29 September 2003, Ms Dalziel, while still a Minister, announced that new immigration partnership rules were to take immediate effect. That meant that marriage relationships were, for the first time, to be treated as exact equivalents to de facto, heterosexual, and same-sex partnerships in terms of applications for permanent resident status in New Zealand. So they have already started.

I refer now to something Ian Wishart said, because we do not know what we have until it has gone. When a fundamental change like this is made, it is a fundamental change to society, and we have to think really carefully about what we do. Therefore, another reason why a referendum is needed is so the whole of society can say what it thinks the potential effects will be. We do not know what will be in place in 20 years’ time, or what the effects will be. There will be enormous amounts of effects. Ian Wishart asks whether we really believe that humanity has suddenly become so enlightened. As members heard from a previous speaker, society’s answer to that would be a resounding no. Do we believe that a select group of New Zealand parliamentarians know better than the collective human wisdom of New Zealand society? The answer would have to be absolutely and categorically no.

I am supporting the strike-down referendum proposal in this part of the debate, the title debate, for two reasons: first, it might give the population a chance to find out what the bill really does, which is almost nothing except to direct a pantomime ceremony, and, second, it takes at face value the claims of its supporters. We have heard them tonight. In fact, we have heard them all day, arguing that this bill is about respecting our fellow New Zealanders. This bill is about not denigrating people’s lifestyle choices, or, if they are not choices, the way they are born.

If this bill is passed by this House, which is not hugely respected, it will not carry the respect of the community. The respect of the community would come if the bill is passed because New Zealanders say they wanted to confer that endorsement. I think there might be a lot of New Zealanders who would do that. I suspect, if that had been a requirement, the bill would be quite different. It would actually do what claimants said it will do—remove disabilities and recognise that people who choose to live together in a sharing and stable committed relationship do deserve to be able to opt in to the rights presently enjoyed by married couples.

But this bill does not do anything of that. It does not require any kind of stable, long-term commitment to a shared life. In that respect, that is because marriage has been gutted, and that is because the State now says that marriage is just one of the few contracts that is absolutely unenforceable. It is one of the few contracts where the State will not even allow spouses to contract about damages until each has spent about $500 or $600 on lawyers, and even then the State will overturn it.

So this bill, and the debate about it, are about different visions of morality or respect. I think that if New Zealanders had a chance to vote, the leader writers in the papers might actually do a bit more research and see what it really is about. But what has driven me to speak yet again is the contempt for morality that I have seen from the bill’s proponents. I say that not because I share the concern that this bill will make any difference whatsoever to my marriage or to anyone else’s marriage—I think marriage now has been emptied of content for a very long time—but because of what the Labour Party claims here. Morality and culture matter enormously, and we do not really know how they are created and what erodes them. Unless one is racist, one does not think that a 38-year life expectancy in Botswana, Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, South Africa, or any other African country is a result of Blacks being somehow inferior or more susceptible. It is very clear that it is because the cultural norms in those countries have contributed to corruption, to an inability to govern, and to a huge spread of AIDS—people’s sexual morality also contributes. Promiscuity and prostitution as a norm actually make for Africa’s condemnation. It is serious. It is a dreadful price to pay to have that kind of outcome. There are millions of orphans. That situation comes because of culture, and we do not know why it is so much more severe in Africa than elsewhere. We do know that there ought to be a bit of humility about what contributes to cultural norms, how they are built, and how they get destroyed.

Here on my right are the Greens, who are terrified of a little bit of contamination with GE. That is basically superstitious, because science does not support them. Yet these people, with Sue Kedgley beside me, were scoffing at what she saw was superstition on the part of Christians who fear the impact of this bill. As I said, I do not share that fear, but I believe fervently that they have every right to continue to express it. What I do fear is the agenda that lies behind this bill, which is: “When we get this bill passed, we will make it impossible for people to express those views.” That is what lies behind this bill. This is the hate-speech thing; this is the Human Rights Act thing. Once this bill is through, a church will not be able to refuse to hire out its hall for one of those ceremonies.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Absolute rubbish!

The member should read the Human Rights Act. When I asked to have an assurance that if this bill went through we would have some protection from that kind of outcome, Labour Party members said no.

I rise to speak to clause 1 and to support Brian Donnelly’s amendment to have a referendum on civil unions in New Zealand. At the moment our form of democracy consists of placing ticks in boxes only once every 3 years.

💬 Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Two ticks.

We get to place two ticks only once every 3 years. We have the right of free speech, but most of the time nobody is listening. Most of the time most people are left either muttering to themselves or complaining to talkback radio. Often we even hear politicians on talkback radio. On this issue of civil unions the voice of ordinary New Zealanders is being lost. Like all MPs, I have received hundreds of emails and letters showing that the people of New Zealand definitely have some thoughts on this issue. A binding referendum would ensure that the voice of New Zealanders is heard on this issue.

Right throughout this entire debate, we have heard many different statistics on whether civil unions should proceed. Who knows which is the correct set of statistics? Are both sets of statistics right? Who really knows? Why not let the people of New Zealand choose? After all, members are here in Parliament basically to serve the people. We need to, and we can, trust the people and rely on their goodwill and common sense. I know that the statistics on previous referendums that my colleague Ron Mark read out earlier show that the people do understand what referendums are all about.

💬 Ron Mark: Labour thinks they are thick!

New Zealanders are definitely not thick; they do know what this issue is about. We are saying that democracy is far too important to be left solely to politicians. We say that it is far better to rely on the common sense of ordinary people to make decisions on some of the issues that are facing New Zealand. Why? Because politicians cannot be relied on to do the right thing and to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority. When people elect a Government to safeguard their society, culture, liberty, and future, the elected representatives have an obligation to listen to them. Democracy is totally lost when that elected Government and its officials fail to hear the voice of the people. That is what the Government is doing in this particular instance. The major benefit of binding citizens initiated referenda would be to end a political system whereby the inner circle of various Governments—as my colleague pointed out earlier, there have been many Governments that have initiated referenda—comes up with an agenda, and the Government’s MPs are forced basically to fall into line.

We know that citizens initiated referenda are not new. They are very common in Switzerland, where the people have voted on 300 issues over the past 100 years, and Brian Donnelly talked about that earlier. To give an example of citizens initiated referenda there, Switzerland recently had a referendum on spending money to upgrade the roading system, and it failed because the voters over there wanted their hospitals upgraded first. When the hospitals were completed, they then voted to upgrade the roads. So referenda can be used by a Government to seek endorsement of, or a veto on, issues or other policy matters.

I would say that the people of New Zealand would definitely know what they were voting for when it came to this particular referendum. It is more than just a moral issue. We believe that New Zealanders can make a decision, so let them have a voice on this particular issue. The bottom line is that opportunities to let them have a voice are often missed, because all of us politicians are talking when, really, we should be listening. We have heard from Ron Mark that the people of New Zealand can participate successfully in referenda. They have done so in the past, so why not ask them to participate in a referendum on this particular issue? It can be done. The people of New Zealand are not thick. They need to have a say. This bill did not need to be pushed through in urgency.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement date of this very important and controversial bill.

In this debate I think there has been very little discussion on the evolution over historical time—and I am looking at Dr Cullen as I say this—of this bill. I accept that the argument that this bill is being hurried through is not true; in New Zealand parliamentary terms there has been a fair amount of discussion about this bill. But in historical evolutionary terms the genesis of this bill is very short.

I heard Nandor Tanczos say the other night on television—and I have to be careful to quote him right—“The principle is simple. It’s about whether people should have equal civil rights.” But surely, in an ideal world, the principle is about freedom of choice; surely, liberal philosophy would say that as much freedom as possible is ideal, provided that it does no harm; and, surely, the freedom to be able to shape the framework of one’s own relationship is the ideal. Here in New Zealand we have a common law that can underpin that.

Last night I had spoken along those lines in this Chamber, and, much to my surprise, I had a variety of emails, with one from none other than a former Labour Party member, Judy Keall, who said: “Isn’t the logical conclusion of your argument that the Marriage Act is not needed in New Zealand?”. I say to Judy Keall that important, enduring institutions such as marriage will survive through the centuries, irrespective of legislation.

The point that I really want to make is this. Over the last 60 years we have seen huge changes in civil rights and human rights for same-gender relationships. I welcome them and I celebrate them, but—

💬 Darren Hughes: But you are voting against it.

Not at all. I say once again that, biologically, there are huge differences between men and women. As a former gynaecologist, I certainly have had a little bit of experience of that very point. Biologically, there are huge differences between same-sex unions and heterosexual unions. To my mind, all should be celebrated. There is no question about it.

We should think of Oscar Wilde. How would he be in modern-day New Zealand? He would be able to be as creative as he wanted. He would have that wonderful freedom. He would be able to shape the sort of relationship that he wanted to have, and to know that it was underpinned by common law. He would be able to celebrate that relationship in any way he wanted—unshackled by some sort of civil union that the Labour Government would want him to have. Surely, we have in this country at present the ideal situation, and the Oscar Wildes of 60 years ago would think it was the ultimate, ideal situation for them.

It seems to me that the Labour Government—and many of the European countries it quotes—has followed the herd instinct and ignored the opportunity of freedom that the present situation in fact allows people. In historical terms, the institution of marriage has evolved enormously over the years, and it has had a considerable amount of reshaping. But, in historical terms, the longstanding prejudices against gays and lesbians in the legislative sense have been unshackled in a relatively short period of time.

I believe that this bill is absolutely short-sighted. This bill actually curtails hard-won freedoms for same-sex couples. I have heard from my legal colleagues that the human rights issues, such as the hospital-visiting rights that Moana Mackey talked about, can easily be sorted out through simple—not complicated—legal remedies that provide what the Labour Government wants.

In the history of this Parliament, I wonder whether there has ever been such a misnomer of a bill to the extent that this title is. This bill is called the Civil Union Bill, but right now in New Zealand we all know that we have civil disunion. This country is divided very, very deeply indeed, according to whichever poll one likes to look at. I will take one that is relatively recent: the TV3 poll of 1,000 people, where 46 percent were in favour of this bill and 45 percent were against.

In the months ahead I think this bill will reshape the political landscape of this country. I say to the Labour Government that I am quite sure from the contacts I have that it has lost touch with its own support base. Let me tell the Committee about a recent conversation I had with a member of a blue-collar workers union of this country. He told me that he and his fellow unionists—thousands of them—have voted Labour for generations. It has never crossed their minds to vote for anybody else, because they revere the memory of people like Norman Kirk and Michael Joseph Savage, and so on and so forth. But he went on to say to me that they are now thinking the unthinkable, and that next year they will no longer vote for the Labour Party. He gave me the reason: the Labour Party’s moral agenda. It is not just civil unions but the whole agenda: legalised prostitution, resistance to parental notification of young women under 16 years who are pregnant and seek an abortion, and assisted human reproduction. Civil unions are just the last straw. It has been a cumulative process that has led them now to say they will no longer vote for the Labour Party.

What sorts of people are in those kinds of unions? They are heterosexual males of every race and colour, most of them are married, and most of them have kids. In other words, they are simply decent, mainstream people who regard Ken Douglas as an icon, and they have traditionally voted for the Labour Party. Labelling such people as homophobic causes deep resentment. I have spoken on civil union from, literally, Auckland to Gore, to hundreds of people at public meetings. At none of those meetings has any one on any occasion ever said to me that he or she dislikes or hates homosexuals—not one. Yet in this Committee we are told that anybody who opposes this bill is homophobic. If one says: “I’m not homophobic.”, the response is: “Oh yes, you are homophobic.” If one persists: “No, I’m not homophobic.”, the response is: “Oh yes, I insist you are homophobic.” That, I think, is a symbol simply of paranoia. Maybe it is paranoia that we are seeing very often, when people rush in so quickly to label other people with such a term—which means, for those who do not know, that the person dislikes or hates gays.

That is ridiculous nonsense. These are not people who are against other people. They are not people who are against gays, or lesbians, or this group, or that group, or bisexuals. These are people who are for something: for their marriages, for their children, and for their grandchildren. They are concerned about what their children and their grandchildren will be taught in the future if we pass this bill, because what will be taught to those children will be changed overnight. We are talking about a deep change in our culture, and unless we teach our culture and our morals to the next generation and beyond, we will eventually see Western civilisation, as we know it, undermined, and this measure is a step in that direction. These people are concerned that here we are again taking out another moral signpost, so that our young people are left in greater confusion than they have ever been in terms of what is right and what is wrong, in terms of how to live life, and in terms of what is wisdom and what is folly.

I say to the Labour Party that these people have given up on it. Members will see, I am sure, that that is fulfilled in the days and the months ahead, and they will see it especially in the results of the 2005 election, because I have it on assurance that a lot of these people will vote for an alternative to the Labour Party, for the first time in their lives.

I want to take the call in part to say to the member who preceded me that although I respect his views deeply, I have been here for 23 years and I do not know how many times I have heard the death of the Labour Party pronounced during that period. We leave Lazarus for dead in terms of our ability to rise from the grave. I have seen parties come and go in this House. Social Credit—where is it now? The Alliance—where is it now? I have a feeling that one or two parties here now will be gone at some point in the future.

The ACT party will almost certainly be gone at the next election. I want to say one word to Mr Franks: if he is so keen on referenda, will it be the ACT party’s policy at the next election that any State asset sale will be subject to a referendum? Oh no, no, of course not! We could not do that! We could not trust the people to make that kind of decision; that would be far too dangerous!

I want to come back to something I touched on this morning and that is the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law—the law of the Church and the law of the State. Nothing in this bill detracts from the law of the Church. Marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. If Parliament legislates for a civil union, marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church continues to draw a distinction between the significance of that sacrament and any other marriage performed under any other form of even Church or secular law. That does not change. But for the State, it is important to regularise relationships across the board. We started doing that in 1754 in English law, and we carried on in 1836 in terms of extending marriage outside the closed circle of the Church of England and the Quakers. They were the only people who could marry under English law before 1836. That is actually not that long ago in terms of the evolution of our society.

I have heard this stuff about the collapse of Western civilisation before. I think probably Mr Copeland is one of those who thinks the Roman Empire collapsed because of moral decay. It is a bit strange that it collapsed after it was converted to Christianity, and after the collapse of republican libertarianism in the 1st century BC, and after all the stuff about lions versus Christians in the Coliseum had long since gone. It was after all of that that the Roman Empire collapsed, when it was a Christian civilisation; that is when it collapsed—the barbarians overwhelmed it.

I want to know how recognising the deep emotional feelings of two people who do not wish to go through, or cannot go through, a formal marriage ceremony affects Mr Copeland’s marriage or my marriage. How does the fact that both of my daughters live in non-married, permanent relationships with extremely nice young men affect the meaning of the sacrament of marriage to Mr Copeland as a practising Roman Catholic? I was raised as a sort of Anglican, and for 5 years a real one. I myself am an atheist, and have been so since I was at secondary school. If one goes to Christ’s College, it is the obvious thing to be, actually, at the end of the day! I do not understand how anybody can feel that his or her feelings and beliefs are in any way entrenched upon by this bill.

In terms of what Dr Hutchison raised, I have to say that sometimes when one has been too close to an issue for too long, one can actually fail to see its significance. I have a feeling that is his problem about sexual differences, to put it as bluntly as I can. I fail to see how recognition of civil unions can affect what he said. He said that people’s liberties stop at the point where they entrench upon others, but recognising a civil union of two gay people does not entrench upon the meaning that marriage, whether through the church or elsewhere, has for other people. If we do not recognise two gay people or two heterosexual people who wish to live together in a civil union, but do not wish to go through a marriage ceremony, particularly an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony, we are saying to them that the State does not recognise their relationship as having some permanence or some meaning. Why do we do that, because the State, in fact, is neutral between those things?

I make a final point, and I relate it back to a referendum. A referendum on these issues is dangerous because these issues are about the rights of minorities, not about the rights of majorities. I say to those with deep religious beliefs that if one starts making the freedom of one’s religion dependent upon the will of transitory majorities, one is treading on very, very dangerous grounds indeed. I say to Mr Copeland, a practising Catholic, that he should investigate the long, long history of Catholic oppression within even our society. It was incomprehensible for a long period of time that a practising Roman Catholic could be Prime Minister of New Zealand. Now it is taken for granted that that is a possibility.

If the Government is so sure the people of New Zealand want this bill, it should put the issue to a binding referendum and stop being a Government for a minority. That is what New Zealand First believes, and personally I say: “Stop being a Government for a minority within a minority.” Why is the Government not governing for the people and listening to what they want? I feel very strongly that this Government does not want to put this issue to a referendum, because it thinks it would lose. But my colleague Brian Donnelly disagrees with me, and I strongly disagree with him. I think that people on my side of the argument—those against the bill—would win this referendum. But at the end of the day at least Brian Donnelly and I will be willing to go into a polling booth, and the people will have their say. One side will win and the other will lose, but the matter will be put to rest. That is what I say as a member of New Zealand First who strongly and vehemently disagrees with my colleague as far as this issue is concerned. That is what I say about which way the vote will swing.

But let us have that opportunity so the people of New Zealand can decide this issue, instead of the Government voting on behalf of its own self-interest. The Government should stop pushing its own agenda, and listen to the people for once. The arrogance ones hears from members opposite is quite amazing. They argue against a referendum. They are incredibly arrogant, believing they know best. We hear that viewpoint, speech in and speech out. “We know best. The people don’t know.” The Deputy Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Finance, said that it was too dangerous to put this issue to the people. I am sure that Government members think the people of New Zealand are too thick. But they are not. They are very capable of making up their minds on issues like this.

We hear a Government Minister and members of Parliament slagging the US administration and the people of that country. Mark Peck, member for Invercargill, basically said the people of the US were intolerant, because they voted down the referendum put up by 11 state Governments to allow gay marriage and civil unions. They voted it down, and this Labour Government wonders why it does not have a closer relationship with the United States, when it knows the degree of sentiment within those benches.

I oppose the bill but I do not mind this issue being put to a referendum, because the people will get what they deserve, either way. Whichever way they vote, they will get what they deserve. The history books tell us that the nation of Israel told their God that they knew best. They wanted their own king to rule them, rather than God Himself. In the end, God gave the people what they wanted, and the people paid for it later on. They had wars and the king who followed failed them miserably in many, many ways.

I say we should put this issue to a referendum, because I believe that the people would vote it down. The Government does not want a referendum, because it believes that the people would vote it down. The Government should rename the bill: “We don’t care about what you think, because we will do what we want and push through our lefty liberal legislative agenda, no matter what you say bill”. That is a long title, but it is true. That is what this Government wants to do. It does not care what the people of New Zealand think. It just wants to ram through its lefty liberal agenda, and it does not give a stuff. My view on the issue is the opposite of most Government members, but I say this issue should be put to a referendum.

I am pleased to get an opportunity to take a call, because I believe that I am hearing extreme views in the Chamber tonight, and I want to put a moderate and probably rather boring view on the Civil Union Bill. It certainly has not excited the passions in my community, and I am an electorate MP who sees people every day. There is nothing too salacious or sexy in my life story. I do not have a Pandora’s box I can open that the media will love. However, I have a view of the world that I think is entirely balanced and valid. I come from a family that showed us love, and generous, inclusive, and tolerant values of the world, and they were also open to intelligent and free debate. So I am probably a moderate liberal, one might say.

When listening to the debate, I found it interesting to hear people say that there are no next-of-kin rights that we need to give protections via the law in this Civil Union Bill. I can assure members that in my years of experience as a nurse I saw many homosexual couples denied the rights to have a say as next of kin at the time of death, and I found those situations incredibly sad. I am glad to see that those provisions will be protected in this bill. I also had a personal experience when my husband and I went to put a notice in the paper about the birth of our first son. The advertisement should have read: “To Steve and John, a son”. We were thrilled about it, but the paper would not publish it, because it thought that we were a couple of homosexuals. We had to show our wedding certificate to prove that we were not, before that notice went into the paper.

I come from a strong human rights framework, where the world looks at eliminating discrimination, especially against minority groups. I remind the Committee that in 1994 and 1999 we were signatories to a couple of major covenants that were committed to recognising the diversity of the family, developing policies and laws that better supported the family, contributing to its stability, and taking into account the plurality of all its forms. National when in Government signed up to the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 and 1999. Other conventions and protocols also protect the rights of children under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the National Government signed. It said that children should not be discriminated against on the basis of their parents’ status. We have forgotten that we have signed global covenants and global human rights laws that protect those values, and here we are today relitigating this.

I am hearing arguments about values that, frankly, make me sick. As if those who come from a Christian basis have a greater ownership of values than those of us who are agnostic but who care and are inclusive and respectful! They have no greater cache on values because they have God on their side. We do not need to be told. We have a brain. I do not need to be told how to vote on these issues by leadership in the Catholic Church or the Destiny Church. My point of view comes from life experience. I am tired of the hypocrisy in this House. I have heard MPs speak out against this bill, and I know what they are hiding behind. We know that they themselves need to look at their own hearts, their own lives, and their own values about how they treat their wives, partners, or look at their own sexuality.

New Zealand and the world looks at us as MPs and thinks: “Look at yourselves honestly, and live an honest life and reflect it in the way you vote in this House.” It is incredibly sad, when we see and hear sexual and lewd innuendo in the House. We saw it yesterday when Mr Brown was worried about his microphone. When people have to revert to such lewdness, I always wonder what they are hiding. As individuals, what are we hiding? What are we worried about? This bill is absolutely a victimless bill. There is no victim. There is no harm when two individuals of same sex want to live a life that hurts nobody else in society. I say give it to them. I am proud of this bill. I will put up with the rubbish in my community from an Anglican canon who said that we spell disaster in all directions. I do not mind.

As I rise tonight to make what will probably be my last contribution on this bill, I want to take the time to thank the literally hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders who have been concerned enough about this issue, on both sides of the argument, to take the time to send me their opinions on this matter. I noticed earlier in the debate that Mr Barnett took great delight in reading out some of the more extreme and negative sides to the argument that I have been taking. I guess I, too, could have played that game if I had wanted to. I also have received, from those supporting the bill, some rather appalling emails that I am sure even he would be ashamed of. I will not disgrace the Committee by reading excerpts from them. However, I do want to take time to honour the people who have written to me and who do not get the chance to vote on this legislation that has been given to us.

I would like to read a very significant article that was sent to me, which has influenced my thinking. It is entitled “Civil Unions—A Question of Justice”. It states: “In many respects the debate about according legal recognition to homosexual relationships, be it through civil unions or marriage licences, is an argument about justice. It is unjust, some say, to limit marriage’s legal benefits to one man and one woman who commit themselves to a lifelong exclusive relationship. In modern times the word ‘discrimination’ is often used as a synonym for injustice. On one level, this echoes the fact that every human being, by virtue of being human, enjoys equal dignity. They are thus entitled to be treated in certain ways. But does equal dignity automatically translate into equal treatment? The short answer is, not always. There is, for example, nothing discriminatory about declining to issue a gun licence to a child. This does not mean that the child is not owed equal respect as a person, but the child may be legitimately denied a shooting licence because a child person is different from an adult person with regard to guns. In this example, discrimination is not unjust. It is in fact an act of just discrimination.

“When we apply the same logic to the question of extending marriage’s legal benefits to homosexual couples, which is what civil unions do, we begin to see that denying such benefits is not unjust. Those claiming that homosexuals should be allowed to enter civil unions often argue that a homosexual couple’s relationship can be equal to a man and woman’s relationship. They maintain that such elements, such as the duration of the relationship between two persons, its sexual character, its mutual dependence, its exclusiveness, may be as present in a homosexual couple’s relationship as in a heterosexual relationship. These elements do not, however, constitute the basic reasons why marriage is accorded legal privileges. They are, rather, the necessary preconditions for the feature that makes marriage different from other restricted dependent sexual and lasting relationships. This element is the distinct function of procreating and raising children.”

Tonight, as we finish the Committee stage, that is what I want to focus on. For me the deciding factor in this matter is: what do we think and what are we considering? Are we considering the rights and the desires of adults who want some formalisation and status for their adult relationship, or are we thinking past that, to what we see developing in terms of family units in which children are to be raised and where there is no intention from the outset of giving those children either a mother or a father?

This issue is not about whether the adults involved are caring people—whether they are suitable to be in contact with children and raising children. That is not the question here. It is not a judgment on whether gay people are able to be suitable parents. But when we talk about children in the law, we talk about their welfare, their immediate safety, their nurturing and well-being, and then we talk about their long-term best interests. It is in that area where I have some serious concerns. Certainly, to date and historically, social parenting arrangements for children have always ended predominantly with those children needing to search out their biological parents, to help provide the important pieces of the jigsaw that determine their identity.

I am not opposed to referenda, per se. I think that there are some constitutional issues that should be decided only by a referendum, like the electoral system. But I think there was a flaw in the MMP referendum, even though I was a very strong supporter of MMP. The flaw was the quality of the material that was presented to the public before they voted on the subject. People might recall some paper bags appearing on the heads of certain people as they said that list MPs would be invisible, not known to the public, yet we have some very fine list MPs in this Parliament today. Everyone who quotes Switzerland fails to mention the 20 years that lay between the law being voted on and passed in that country, and the referenda that prevented it from becoming law. It was the law to allow women the vote in Switzerland. It is very interesting how a majority—in that case, only men were able to vote in it—was able to keep women away from the polling booth for so long.

I recall attending a seminar on alcohol policy a few years ago. We were told that binding referenda in California had completely tied the legislature’s hands over imposing taxes on the sale of liquor. It was interesting because price is a very powerful weapon against increased consumption. In fact, taxes had been used deliberately to minimise the harm that alcohol causes. The graphs showed consumption levels before the referendum was carried. They showed a steady increase in consumption particularly amongst young people once taxes could not be imposed. We might think that that is the will of the people; they voted for it. However, if we compare how much money the liquor interests poured into the advertising campaign with the pittance that the public health groups could put up against that campaign, then we know that the powerful will always be better placed to persuade the majority.

I was in the United States when the Hillary Clinton bill on health reform was before Congress. I sat in on some of the committee hearings, so I heard stories from ordinary Americans, who came to tell their stories of losing health-care coverage when they needed it most. I heard one man talk about being sacked when his wife became terminally ill, and his company’s health maintenance organisation did not want to keep paying her for treatment. But it was not those stories that I saw on TV—the stories of ordinary people. I saw the insurance industry having a field day. I saw insurance company advertisements, with actors playing the roles of a couple at work. One said: “Gee, this health reform bill sounds great, doesn’t it?”, and the other one said: “Yeah, but it’s a shame we won’t be able to offer our employees the benefits we have been able to offer them in the past.”

Public opinion destroyed that legislation. That, to me, says that the real issue here is: why would we want a referendum when someone like Brian Tāmaki, who has plenty of money to spend on advertising campaigns, will be able to outspend everyone else, building fear and loathing amongst decent New Zealanders who give their hard-earned money in accordance with the Bible’s call for a tithe? I think it is very important that people realise that that is what opening up a referendum would do. I think a biblical reference to a camel passing through the eye of a needle might well apply to an evangelist on a Harley Davidson. But I am not prepared to give him, and others like him, a platform for the hatefulness he has brought to this debate. If anyone thinks that it is hateful, I say that it is.

I want to quote from an email that I received today: “I agree with many opponents to this bill who are worried about the erosion of the two-parent family as the core of our society, but the experience of my siblings reminds me that no institution alone ensures the quality of a family’s care for its members. There is nothing inherently sacred or sacrosanct about a marriage between a man and a woman that produces violence, physical and sexual abuse, and self-hatred as it has done for my siblings. As you consider this bill, I encourage those opposed to abstain or vote in favour, so that the Parliament’s energies may be redirected towards bills that strengthen all family units in whatever form they take. The greatest threat to the institution of marriage lies in married couples who abuse their vows, not with gay couples who wish to make a formal commitment to each other.”

I feel very strongly about this. Two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other are not to be loathed or feared. All this bill does is give people who cannot marry, or do not wish to marry, access to a status that is recognised in law. This is a matter of civil rights. It should be decided by Parliament, not a referendum.

I think the title should be: “Merry Christmas (Civil Union Marriage) Bill”, which if this bill passes it will be. In the debate today we have heard many views on this issue, views mainly putting down the suggestion of a referendum. I am not pointing the finger at Mr Darren Hughes directly, but a number of Labour MPs protested against the right of all New Zealanders to participate in a referendum. I say to those members that the amendment for a referendum that Mr Donnelly is putting forward would be good for Labour, because on the day of the general election if Labour wins, it will be on the right side of it, and if it loses—well, sorry—it will be on the wrong side of it. But a referendum would give the people of Aotearoa an opportunity to make a decision about whether the legislation becomes law, rather than have a number of MPs, including Labour members, make the decision to pass the bill.

I say to United Future folk that they had the opportunity to put this bill to bed. But no, they did not do that. This bill is no different from the bill about cannabis, and I would not agree to that, either. United Future put that bill down, and it could have done the same with the Civil Union Bill. It could have told Labour that it disagreed with this legislation but that it agreed with putting it to a referendum. It could have pinched New Zealand First’s thunder, but it has missed the boat. Now, United Future members are wasting taxpayers’ money, sitting here debating this bill. I say to the people of New Zealand that they should note what has been said by United Future members, who had the opportunity to put this bill down.

I remind our colleague from Labour Mr Choudhary that he swore on the Koran—

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Don’t be like that.

EDWIN PERRY:—and just recently on Morning Report I heard that reports are coming in that the people he represents are not happy about what he is doing. I say to him that he should save his face and vote against this bill.

I say to members opposite, including Lianne Dalziel, that the poll taken on Television One showing that 21,000 people had phoned in, reported that 17,000 were against the bill and 4,000 were for it.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: That doesn’t mean anything.

Yes, it does. Where has Labour been getting its polls from? I do not know. All New Zealanders are wondering about that, quite frankly.

I say to the people of New Zealand that the Rt Hon Winston Peters introduced a referendum in November 2003. We are the only party, as Mr Hughes said, that has been consistent about referenda. We have been consistent and we are consistent now, but everybody else has hung on the end of our coat-tails for a referendum on this bill. Obviously, we are happy they are doing that, because it puts more pressure on the Government to push our amendment put forward by Mr Donnelly. I tell Mr Hughes that more of his kōrero with regard to a referendum would be really appreciated.

I shall read out a letter that was sent to me, which has to disturb the Labour Party: “My name is Graham Turner. I am 65 years old. I have been married for over 39 years to Joyce Turner, who is also 65 years old. We have four married daughters and 13 grandchildren. We have been loyal Labour supporters all our voting life. This is the first time I have had to contact a member of Parliament, but this Civil Union Bill and Relationships Bill must not be allowed to go through. I would urge you to vote against this bill.” The letter was addressed to me, and obviously I am voting against the bill.

“Enough is enough”, this person said, who has been a loyal, Labour supporter. He is not the only one; there are plenty out there who would vote against the bill in a referendum. He continued: “If this bill goes through, it is watering down all the beliefs of the standard of the marriage commitment which I signed 39 years ago. All the studies taken show that the family means mum and dad, and when a child is brought up in this happy environment they do much better.” How can one argue against somebody who has been married for 39 years? How can Labour argue against that?

I move, That the question be now put.

I begin by sharing the views of Winston Churchill on the family. He said that the foundation and stability of our communities and the society we live in are dependent on the stability of our families. That is very important for each and every one of us to hear tonight.

I will go back a few years. I was professionally trained in jungle warfare. There came the time when we had to go out on operations, in combat. Before we went on our first operation our platoon commander asked us: “Men, are you ready?”. [Interruption] We were not married then. Then he said: “You have a choice. You know what is going to happen when we go out.” The total report back to our platoon commander was that we would take what was coming. I ask that member across the Chamber whether he would accept the public asking us, as members of Parliament, to take on a referendum. There will be no bullets flying his way, as there were when I accepted that challenge. Would he accept the challenge of taking upon his shoulders a referendum of the citizens of New Zealand? Yes or no?

💬 Jill Pettis: Desperado!

We are not desperate. Those members are the ones who will be desperate.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: We have constituents; you don’t.

That is fine. I am prepared to put my future on the line. Are they? When the Prostitution Reform Act was passed, I listened to some of the Labour Party members say that they had gone around Papakura with the police and had seen all their young female relatives becoming prostitutes. It is all in Hansard. Now those same people are turning against the very things they voted for in terms of the Prostitution Reform Act. The theme of the conference I attended in South Africa was AIDS. That is a health problem for over 14 million people. Where did it start?

💬 Lianne Dalziel: More than that!

Yes, and it is starting to creep through the Pacific. There is a concern in the Islands. Will the minority Labour Government accept the challenge of a referendum?

I also have a challenge for the United Future party. Why did it allow the bill to come into the House? Just like with the Prostitution Reform Act, without that party’s support this bill would not have got to this stage. So now I challenge United Future members as to why they do not want to accept New Zealand First’s challenge of a referendum. Then we would see whom the public supports. Labour members should answer.

💬 Craig McNair: There is no answer.

Let us have it. I ask Mr Carter why he does not accept the challenge. There are many people sitting in the gallery who may be for or against the bill. Let them hear the Labour members.

💬 Craig McNair: They think they know best.

Do Labour members know best? I thought this was a democratic country. Their fathers and my fathers fought for that freedom. I did, and now I challenge them. I did not do it for nothing. Accept the challenge! We should have a referendum. I disagree with my colleague Mr Donnelly.

We have had a very interesting debate over these last 2 days, and one of the concerns I have—and I have listened to much of the debate—is that anybody who takes the opposing view to the Government on this bill, dares to criticise the bill, or dares to question it is labelled homophobic.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: I have never called you that.

The former Minister says she has not, but plenty of her colleagues have alluded to it. They have said that me and many of my colleagues are homophobic because we have some concerns about this bill. Let me put the record straight from my point of view. I went to sea as a young man well before the Homosexual Law Reform Bill came in. I sailed with many homosexual people and they got treated with the same respect, regard, and tolerance that anybody else on the ship received.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: Did you deal to them with a broom like I’ve been told about?

The former Minister is obsessed with broomsticks going—where? I have no experience in that. I will bow to the former Minister’s experience and knowledge on that matter.

💬 Lianne Dalziel: It’s not funny. It actually happened.

I will not defend that sort of action one iota. I am well aware of homosexual people being quite open about their sexuality, and well before the Homosexual Law Reform Bill came about. It was no secret on a ship. We were a small community. So I do not speak from a position of being homophobic at all.

But I do have concerns about this bill. I have some major concerns. I have listened to the Government speakers over there, and only one—only one whom I took note of—mentioned the possible concern about children, and that was Georgina Beyer. Her views are actually the direct opposite from mine, but she actually referred to the long-time concern about children. I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if this bill goes through, we are one small step away—because we are talking about gay marriage in all but name—from whoever determines who adopts a child not being allowed to determine that it should go to what one might call natural parents over two homosexual men.

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: A single person can now. Didn’t you hear what I said yesterday?

That can happen now, can it?

💬 Hon David Benson-Pope: Didn’t you hear what I said yesterday? It’s got nothing to do with it.

The Minister says it has nothing to do with it, but he knows that it is one step away. I say to the Minister and all members in this Chamber that if New Zealanders have their say on this bill, and if they say that that is what they want, there will be no argument from me—no argument at all. If the people sitting in the gallery now want it and vote for it, there will be no argument from me, at all. I will let them have their say, and freely. I heard the Minister on Morning Report saying that the principal reason, I think, from memory, for this issue not going to a public referendum is that it would cost so much money. It would cost $10 million or something like that.

💬 Hon Brian Donnelly: It could go in at election time.

Yes, it could be held at election time. My honourable colleague’s amendment provides for the referendum to be held at election time. But I am saying that the money is not important. This legislation, some people say, will change the fabric of our society, and I agree with them. I have been known to be wrong, but I tend to subscribe to the view that this bill will change the fabric of society. But we should let New Zealanders decide whether it will do that and whether they want it. I am a total supporter of my colleague’s amendment calling for a referendum.

I also share his view—which is contrary to that of my colleague Craig McNair—that if this issue went to a referendum, the result would probably favour the bill’s supporters, but I will not be arrogant enough to prejudge it. I think it would be close, but I think New Zealanders would probably vote for this legislation at the end of the day. I am saying here that we should let New Zealanders decide. This is a key issue for New Zealanders. It will impact on our society. It will be a matter of controversial debate for years to come. If it were the subject of a referendum, then, pass or fail, that would be the end of it—at least, in the short term.

I move, That the question be now put.

Before I put the questions, we have a number of amendments. The first is to clause 1 and is in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314. It has been ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee.

The next question is an amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly. The amendment is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 to omit and substitute subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 2. The amendment relates to a referendum to be held with the 2005 general election.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 2 be agreed to.

The next question is an amendment in the name of Richard Worth. It is his first amendment to clause 2, to omit the commencement date and substitute words set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314. The amendment relates to a referendum to be held by postal vote.

The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 2(1) be agreed to.

The amendment to clause 2(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth is out of order because it is inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee.