Civil Union Bill

I move, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time. Today we will finally pass this, the Civil Union Bill, into law. We pass into law a bill that is necessary if the Government is to live up to its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. We pass into law a bill that will enable our country to join the ranks of the now numerous countries that recognise that same-sex couples, no less than opposite-sex couples, are entitled to have their relationships recognised and, if they wish, solemnised. And we pass into law a bill that signals our growing maturity as a nation. There remain a few who say they are sorry it has reached this point. I say I am sorry only that it has taken so long and that there are still members of this House who oppose it. After all, what is being asked for here seems so modest. Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry, or who do not wish to marry. Civil unions are to be a new relationship option that takes nothing from anyone else, while providing choice to people currently denied it.

Some argue that only a small minority of the population might ever want to enter a civil union. Does this make removing discrimination any less worthwhile? As the majority of New Zealanders who have supported this bill seem to have understood only too well, human rights are not measured by numbers through a turnstile. The uproar over the Civil Union Bill has not been dissimilar to that that occurred almost 20 years ago over the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. There are, of course, some differences—most notably, how much better informed people are today. The notable exception to that has been the many arguments proffered in this House from Opposition benches—the wild and woolly phantoms produced, the lame excuses for not supporting something that is so clearly the right course of action, and the almost total lack of intellectual rigour or common humanity.

And in that way, sadly, one constant has remained from the debate of two decades ago—that is, that the arguments put forward by those in Opposition are often just emotive, fuelled by fear and misunderstanding. There is, in fact, no danger to the family from civil unions, as the experience of Denmark and other countries that have introduced such arrangements has amply proved.

💬 Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you are going to enforce your decision in regard to the Opposition—or I should say those opposed to this bill, because we are led to believe that the Government has not exercised a whip on its caucus—then I would have thought it reasonable that those who speak do so in a way that is about their view of this bill, not about their view of those who oppose it or, for that matter, those who support it. If we are to have an extra insistence by the Speaker that there be a nice, gentlemanly approach to this debate, then those who are on their feet have some obligation to be respectful of those who are according them similar respect.

Let me just say that I am adopting not a gentlemanly approach but a parliamentary approach. A lot of people from throughout New Zealand congratulated the House on the way it conducted the second reading debate. I received hundreds of emails, and I intend to reflect on that. The Standing Orders provide that there should be no interjection. I allow some, because Speakers’ rulings allow some. The Standing Orders do not provide for interjections. The member should read them. As far as the Minister is concerned, I just say that there is an obligation on the people who speak to reflect on their own point of view and not put words into the mouth of other parties.

💬 Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: In the countries I refer to, there has simply been no negative impact whatsoever on marriage by legislation such as this, or on families in those countries. I predict that something else will prove to be similar, as well. Once this bill is passed and the sky does not fall in, the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate.

There have, of course, been calls at the eleventh hour to delay the passage of the legislation until the holding of a referendum. But a referendum would clearly be inappropriate. I have not rejected the idea of a referendum because I think that a majority of people might vote against it. Public opinion tells us that in fact they are most unlikely to do that. Rather, a referendum would be inappropriate because human rights are simply not the appropriate subject of a referendum. What could it possibly mean to say that New Zealand’s human rights legislation, including the Human Rights Act, should be applied in a particular instance only if the majority of the population decides that it should be so? What kind of protection for a minority is that? It is a not unremarkable coincidence that tomorrow is International Human Rights Day, celebrating the signing of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The words of Louise Arbour, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, seem particularly apt today: “Human rights are our common heritage and their realisation depends on the contributions that each and every one of us is willing to make, individually and collectively, now and in the future.”

There are same-sex couples in New Zealand who have been together in a loving relationship for many years, and in some cases many decades, and who have throughout that time been denied the opportunity to make a State-sanctioned public declaration of that relationship that would be recognised and protected by the law. Today we will end that situation.

Many people have spoken and written in favour of the Civil Union Bill, in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the bill, and in letters of support that have been flooding into our offices over the past few days. I will read a couple of them now.

One states: “New Zealand has always been a front-runner in recognising that all people should have the same rights, and I hope we can keep that fine tradition. As a Christian, my support for these bills is consistent with and mandated by my faith. Christian teaching is based on the message of love and treating others with dignity and respect.”

A second states: “My partner and I have been in a committed and loving relationship now for 23 years. I am thinking of what I wanted to write to encourage you to support the Civil Union Bill. I was thinking of describing the positions of responsibility we each hold in our work, our contribution to the wider community in a variety of ways, and our faith journeys. Then I decided not to. Why should I feel I have to convince you that as part of a lesbian couple I am a decent and honourable person and worthy of having my relationship given legal recognition? Ours is not a second-rate relationship.”

The third states: “Currently our relationship lives only on the fringes of the law, and we are not eligible to the legal protections that support those who are married. This is not only a matter of personal interest to us but an issue of justice. There are no valid reasons why we and others like us should be discriminated against.”

We should listen to those voices speaking in favour of the Civil Union Bill. We should listen to the voices telling us to vote for what we know is right. They are the voices of the people who have been discriminated against for long enough and who have suffered from that discrimination. This bill takes away nothing but gives that simplest of things—the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders. I am honoured to commend the bill to the House.

This Parliament has a greater obligation to the people of New Zealand than the debate that we have had over the last couple of days. I would have to say I am pleased that my marriage at least is valid due to the tradition and sacrament of the Catholic Church and does not depend on the type of debate or legislation that we are passing today. In fact, it is an irony that a generation that has spent much of its time saying that marriage, the certificate and the formality, does not prescribe love, has suddenly decided that a certificate and a formality are the ultimate expression of human rights in New Zealand. Where Parliament has an obligation is simply to make its law clear, and the bill we are voting on today will lead to a legal mess. No one else in the country has the obligation to get the law right; we do. But what happened here is that the Government failed in its policy project. We are meant to be debating two bills: the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. The second one is not here, because the Government could not resolve all the problems that that bill creates in amending hundreds of pieces of legislation to make all relationships the same. It could not resolve the issues. So what we have here now is the horse without the cart.

I listened to the debate carefully and took some part in it for 2 days. This Parliament does not know even now, after that debate, what the legal effect of a civil union is. We do not know. I asked the Minister to explain it and he never did, because he cannot. I will give members just one example of the confusion. A number of speakers in favour of this legislation said that civil union is not gay marriage. They are saying that for political purposes, because they do not want anyone to get the impression that civil union will be exactly the same as marriage. But when I look at the bill as reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee, I find in clause 17 that the purpose of the clause is to allow couples who are married to change their relationship into a civil union, and that clause 18 allows couples who have a civil union to change their relationship into a marriage. But everyone who supported this bill said it was not about gay marriage. The bill states it must be something like that, because one can be the other.

The commentary on the bill underlines that sense of direction when it states that the policy intent is to make sure that civil union is the legal equal of marriage. So what are we to make of this? I say to proponents of the bill that they have let down those people who have waited so long for a civil union, as well as those people who are deeply concerned about it, because we do not know what civil union is. The expression of civil union was going to be in the other legislation, but it is mired in a mess of its own contradictions in the Justice and Electoral Committee. We may see it in March next year; we may not see it at all next year. It is much more controversial than this legislation, and I doubt that this Government will want that bill in front of this House in election year.

The policy intention of the Government is clear. It wants to make all adult relationships have the same legal effect—the same rights and obligations. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill pulls together civil union—which will be a new thing if this bill passes—marriage, and de facto relationships. Every New Zealander should be worried about that project—not so much the married people, because their rights and obligations are relatively clear, but all those young people who are testing and trying their relationships. The Government intends, with the passage of this bill and the companion legislation, that people will enter adult relationships in New Zealand on the Government’s terms or not at all. People who shacked up 2 months ago will end up with the same rights and obligations as someone who has been married for 20 years with four kids.

That is why there is widespread unease about the Civil Union Bill. People have an intuition that this is part of something that is headed in the wrong direction. The legislation will not bring the world to its knees. All we are now legislating is confusion about what a civil union is, and we are legislating a ceremony and a certificate. No doubt some will celebrate that as a great victory, and they are welcome to it if this bill is passed. But the intuition that there is more at stake is correct. I will tell members why.

The second reason I oppose the bill—the first reason is that it is a legal mess—is Labour’s insistence that the State should be totally neutral about every relationship. That is a new point of view for a New Zealand Government. It is not how we have done it before. The Government is so determined on neutrality that it will impose legal rights and obligations on people who never chose them. The insistence on neutrality will override the personal choices of all sorts of couples, including gay couples. If the Government fulfils its project, gay couples will not have the choice of civil union—they will be civil-unionised whether or not they have the ceremony. They will be covered by the de facto law. The de facto threshold will have to be the welfare threshold, which is very low—cohabitation of a matter of weeks, or maybe a couple of months. The Government will override all those preferences.

When we think about this issue of being neutral we realise the proponents of this and the companion bill are determined to override the customs and practices of the people, which give different significance to different relationships. It is not anti - human rights to do so; it is a recognition of the reality of how people live. Some people commit in a way that is permanent, public, and long term, and some people do not. The community attributes different values to those relationships, and why should it not? Marriage is based on a tradition of 2,000 years of Christian history. Civil unions will be picked up by a handful of people, and the statistics tell us that only some of them will turn out to be long-term, committed relationships. That is the international experience.

The Government goes too far with its theory of bureaucratic neutrality when it says that every relationship will be the same. The Civil Union Bill is one step in that path. I say to those who are in favour of this bill that the biggest scrap is yet to come. That will be over the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which tries to equalise all relationships. I say to those who oppose the bill that I hope they share my view that we should have a legal structure that recognises the custom and the practice of the people but that also recognises the public benefits of the private choices people make. Long-term, committed married relationships—in fact, long-term, committed de facto relationships—have fiscal and family benefits to the wider community. They are associated with higher levels of education and employment and with less troubled children. That is a fact, not a prejudice, which is what some members of the gay community keep trying to tell us. It is not a prejudice; it is not bigotry. It is how people live. If the law cannot recognise that, then it is a stupid law that will be defeated.

The Civil Union Bill on its own will not bring the sky down, but the direction in which the Government is headed means that this is one more step in the wrong direction, and that is why I oppose it.

Four years ago this legislation was a spark in the minds of a few people who gave their time and skills to grow the idea. I honour Regan Andrew, Clare Bear, Calum Bennachie, Jay Ocampo, and Nick Toonen. For the past 2 years this bill has been moulded by politicians and officials and, for the past 6 months, by Parliament. I thank Lianne Dalziel and David Benson-Pope for bringing their own particular style to the development and management of this legislation. I thank all those groups of ordinary New Zealanders who submitted on the bill, both for and against, at the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thank Victoria Crawford, who advised the select committee so well, and Cameron Law, Margaret Mayman, and Michael Wallmannsberger, who, as campaigners, explained the issues to the public.

A passionate debate etches memories on the mind. Young people and families with lesbian and gay members understand in their hearts the need for civil unions. Mark Peck, Deborah Coddington, Luamanuvao Winnie Laban, Nanaia Mahuta, and Brian Donnelly know that. Yet some do not understand. I thought that Tariana Turia understood. Having watched her through the last week advocate same-sex marriage, then the abolition of marriage, and then majority referenda for minority rights, I now know and regret that she does not. I thought my colleague Stephen Franks understood. Instead, having declared the issue of civil unions a simple one—and I think he was quite right in that—he then performed a remarkable, self-administered, intellectual knock-out blow, and remains a little confused in recovery. On a good day I even thought Richard Worth understood. Instead he fronted a Maxim Institute amendment to the bill, which came within a hair’s breadth of offering legal recognition to a friendship between a man and his horse. Then, possibly realising the extent of his mistake, he galloped out of town.

Few laws offer win-win solutions; I believe that the Civil Union Bill does. Its opponents have not shown what harm it does to anyone, and have failed to answer repeated questions on what unintended and negative consequences have flowed from homosexual law reform or from human rights protections for lesbian and gay people. The truth is that they were seriously wrong then and they are seriously wrong now. But it is never too late to repent. If any of their children or grandchildren are brave enough to admit to them that they are lesbian or gay, the personal will quite properly take over from the political and the world will look suddenly quite different to them. It happened to Senator Barry Goldwater, a famed Arizona conservative campaigner against diversity, and particularly against homosexuals. His grandson came out as gay. With love came understanding. Senator Goldwater re-emerged as a campaigner for human rights, side by side with his grandson.

I am not easily moved to tears, but twice in this debate I have felt them welling up. The human stories pull at my heartstrings, and I will quote one example: “My great-uncle David met his male partner, Harry, in 1947 in Wellington. In 1955, David’s father found out about their relationship and threatened to have them arrested and jailed. Eventually he calmed down and instead told them that they must move away from Wellington and have nothing to do with the family. They moved to Auckland, where they spent the rest of their lives together. In 1997, Harry died peacefully in his sleep lying next to the man he had shared 50 years of his life with. For 45 of those 50 years, not one of David and Harry’s siblings, nephews, nieces, great-nephews, or great-nieces ever acknowledged, let alone celebrated, their relationship, and for the first 40 years of their lives together they lived in fear of the police—a nagging anxiety in the back of their minds. Even in the 1990s they could not bring themselves to get rid of the second bed they always had in their bedroom just in case the police knocked on the door in the middle of the night.”

Those tears were there when colleagues whom I have never associated with these matters were stung by the venom flowing in this House and came into the House to speak in support of civil unions as the debate went on over the last few days. On 1 May, the morning after the first civil unions, the birds will sing the dawn chorus, the sun will rise, our volcanoes will not simultaneously explode, and some New Zealand couples will awake as civil union partners. Their friends and families will also awake feeling that the world is a bit fairer than it was the day before. Homophobia will not disappear, but the State will have recognised that love and commitment between two men and between two women is of value to the wider society and is worth protecting, and that some men and women in de facto relationships want something other than marriage. What can be wrong with that?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: New Zealand First will split its 10-minute speech into two 5-minute speeches.

The real issue is whether we can give credence to people’s words. The supporters of the Civil Union Bill argue that this is an equality issue, an equity issue, a fairness issue, and a one-law-for-all issue. The real question is whether that is correct, right, and factual. For that to be right, correct, and factual the proponents of this bill know full well that it would have only one clause in it: a clause that gave homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals under the Marriage Act. In order to be correct, right, and factual, that is what this bill would state. Mr Barnett, after all, promised that to the gay community. Does this bill do that? No, it does not. It does everything but that, which is why so many fundamental homosexuals do not want a bar of this bill. Why is it that Mr Barnett says he supports it, yet condemns those very people to second-class citizenry? He is condemned out of his own mouth. Fundamental homosexuals do not support this bill, and the proponents of this bill know that. But not having the courage of their convictions, they throw a sop to the homosexual community and say homosexuals can like it or lump it, but they are here for them.

What has happened to the courage of those members’ convictions? What has happened to their integrity? What has really happened to their honesty? They know that some gays want equality under the Marriage Act. Why do they not come here and admit that? Why do they not admit that this bill does not give gays that? Is this bill what Mr Barnett claims it to be, or is it a lie? Is it deceit—more double talk? Is it more duplicity? As I said before, this bill means that those who have argued for equality will not get it, and members should not let anybody here disabuse them of that.

My colleague Brian Donnelly quite properly put up the issue of a referendum in which the people of this country would decide this issue, not Parliament. The argument to counter that was that Labour said it was here to govern and to make decisions. Members will recall that between 1984 and 1990 Labour sold about $9 billion worth of this country’s assets, without any conference or consultation with the people of this country, whatsoever. That is the kind of power Labour usurped for itself, even though it had not promised to do that. Labour has also said that referenda are costly, which is a palpable dishonesty when we know that at a general election we could run the two processes together.

Mr Benson-Pope, by denying us a referendum, denies members of the gay community the opportunity to gain the public acknowledgment that today he claimed for them: the endorsement of the relationships they are in by the public of New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope meant what he said, why would he not give members of the gay community the chance to have their relationships endorsed by the people of New Zealand—why not? That is quite ironic, given that one of his real concerns is that they currently do not enjoy such acceptance. How odd is that? On the one hand we argue that the public should have a chance to give their view, but on the other hand Mr Benson-Pope will not give the public a chance to decide whether they accept the issue. If Mr Benson-Pope is so confident that the Government would win a referendum, why does he stand in the way of delivering to gay people a message from New Zealand that says: “It’s OK; we accept you.” Rather, he has taken the dictatorial, autocratic, imperious, arrogant, elitist, and superior view so often taken by Labour that the public cannot be trusted—the view that says: “Trust only we who are Labour.” I say to people today that if they are Labour voters and think that the people should have had a vote in a referendum on this issue, then they should not vote for Labour in 2005.

Parliament is a place where we are supposed to set principles and standards. The Civil Union Bill has a conscience vote, and I believe that the principle we must set is that marriage can be the relationship of only a man and a woman, with a view to having children. I believe that that is a basic human right for a man, a woman, and their children. We have had many submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee on this bill, and I refer to the submission of John Sax, in which he made an excellent point in reference to the New Zealand Government’s civil union website, which is headed: “love doesn’t discriminate … neither should the law.” Mr Sax correctly states in his submission: “… that is a lie.” He claims that if we love our children, we must discriminate between good and bad, right and wrong, good behaviour and bad behaviour, and good unions and bad unions. The Government website also states that the law should not discriminate, but of course the law must and does discriminate. It discriminates right from wrong, and it encourages good outcomes and minimises bad outcomes. It respects the freedom, liberty, and rights of all people for the good of all people, not for the good of a select few. The Government website, like so much of the other Government propaganda that is forced on New Zealand today, in the words of Mr Sax is a lie.

My colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly proposed a referendum. Every New Zealand First member supported that referendum, and a large number of other members of this House also supported it. I was disappointed that Mr Richard Worth did not support it, although he had an amendment that contained a referendum provision and every New Zealand First member of this House supported that.

I will refer now to some of the things that happened during the Committee stage. I must congratulate the following members of the Labour Party: the Hon Taito Phillip Field, the honourable John Tamihere, the Hon Damien O’Connor, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, and the honourable members Clayton Cosgrove and Ross Robertson for their opposition to the bill. If certain movements in the south Auckland area are not to take foot, then credit for that will go largely, I believe, to the Hon Taito Phillip Field and the honourable member Ross Robertson, rather than to any action of the Rt Hon Helen Clark. I also say that the honourable Tariana Turia largely voted against this bill, although she did not support the referendum provision. When we hear talk of what future referenda there may be, I suppose I am not surprised at that.

This bill came into the House on 21 June 2004, and it is receiving its third reading today, less than 6 months later. It is a bill that affects fewer than 10,000 people, and there is absolutely no reason why it should have been given priority over bills that apply to all New Zealanders, some of which have been sitting on the Order Paper since last year and for more than 18 months. This bill is really, very simply, a present to the coterie of homosexuals and lesbians who surround the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It has cost the taxpayer about $10 million. It is the gift of a Labour Prime Minister who has no regard for the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders, and who has no regard for the public good of New Zealand. One of the major advantages currently available to homosexuals and lesbians is their diversity, but this bill, as the Hon Bill English points out, removes all diversity from all forms of relationships and makes life dreadfully boring—but, of course, that is what we expect from social leadership, which likes to put everyone in the one straitjacket.

New Zealand First has offered the people a referendum on this issue. I repeat the words of the Rt Hon Winston Peters that the only way for anyone to get full public approval for this type of behaviour is by way of a referendum. If a referendum supported it, then I would vote in the House to give effect to the result of that referendum.

Mr Speaker, despite your request and despite your satisfaction with the debate, in this House over the last few days we have been trading insults, some thinly disguised and some undisguised. Behind them have been a whole stream of messages to the country and from the country that reflect the fact that this has not been a debate about law or the meaning of words in law. This has been a debate about which tribe the Government wants to identify with. This debate was deliberately intended to divide. It has been a deliberate piece of wedge politics, as Mr Cunliffe so carefully defined for us during the Committee stage.

Why? Because the legislation itself is almost empty. The legislation talks about a concept that is never defined. It was swathed in fine language that we could all aspire to uphold: “commitment”, “exclusivity”, “caring”, “stable”, and “long-term relationships”. But there is nothing in this bill about those things, and there is nothing in the companion bill about them, either.

We—probably 70 or 80 percent of members of this House—could have been celebrating, instead, the removal of disabilities from a minority that has been oppressed and that has good reason to feel that the law has not been on its side. We could have been extending to couples who have offered their communities a great deal, and continue to do so, the same legal treatment as has been extended to married couples for many years. Instead, we have what I believe is a consciously nasty piece of political strategy. It has ended up as a political triumph because—as I think was calculated—commentators in the media did not choose to look behind the slogans. I believe that the Government did this deliberately. It has kept citing international precedent, has kept citing its intentions, in a very misleading way.

I want to get to what is behind it. For example, the notion that this legislation was first hatched up only 4 years ago belies the fact that the Law Commission in 1999—5 years ago—did a reasonably accessible summary of the laws in this area overseas and of what we could do here. We have heard a lot about Swedish, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and French laws. Well, they are quite different from what this House is now voting on. The Law Commission stated in 1999: “… gays and lesbians should be prepared to acknowledge that they are not harmed by a legal code designed to avoid giving what may be seen as gratuitous offence to those for whom matrimony is a holy estate.” The Law Commission recommended that we do what Danish law does: provide for registration of a same-sex partnership. Well, the effects of registration of a same-sex partnership would, as far as the law goes, make it virtually identical to marriage. As the Law Commission stated: “The necessary legislation can be elegantly succinct.” If the Government had cared to look at the recommendations of the Law Commission, it would have seen that most of the changes were implemented on one page. It is very simple.

The reason it is so simple is that the Law Commission did not set out to ape the ceremonial; it set out to give the substance. The New Zealand Government has, instead, deliberately set out a pantomime copy of the ceremonial around marriage, and has left out all the substance. I believe that was deliberate. In fact, so different is the law this House is voting on that I think the Dutch relationships will not even qualify to be treated as civil unions in this country, even though Government speakers have been citing Dutch law as an example. Why? Because in the Scandinavian and European examples they dropped the paraphernalia that had to do with tradition only. Holland, for example, does not require a court to rubber-stamp a dissolution. The way we have drafted clause 34 means, I think, that those relationships will not qualify in New Zealand. In those examples they also dropped the solemnisation procedures.

So we have the emptiness of this law. In the time we have spent on this law we could have been genuinely trying to restore respect for commitment, stability, exclusiveness, and the other things that are cited; what we have instead is deliberate, careful offence. I say “careful” because the offence goes only so far as not to cause enough people to vote against the bill for it to fail.

I believe that the Government chose the ceremony and not the substance because this legislation is a political act to reward supporters, and to designate tribal boundaries by offending those who are considered to be irrelevant, or to be too stupid to remember this issue when the time for the ballot box comes around. I heard the dismissive language—the talk of “the fundies”, and the sneering comments that the sky would not fall. I heard the Hon Chris Carter telling objectors in Hamilton that they must come from the Roman Catholic Church—that “archaic bigotry”, as he described it.

These are people who are worried about morality. They are right to be worried about morality, because the whole debate has been couched in moral terms. People have not bothered to look at the words in this legislation. There has been an attempt to make this a debate about what kind of virtue the people voting on each side reveal. When it is cast in those terms, it is perfectly proper for a vast number of New Zealanders desperately concerned about the state of our family law and our children to come up here without reading the law and to say “Enough is enough!”.

They might have chosen the wrong target—and I think they have; I do not think there is a logical connection between gay marriage or same-sex relationships and the 30,000 or more children who are at risk in this country today. But I do think there is a logical connection—much more distant— between those children and the view of many in this House that we can play with our cultural institutions, scoff at traditional morality, and scorn those who express concern, without there being a consequence. I think there are far more logical reasons for those people to be concerned, such as a welfare system that funds breeding by sad women with vicious men who have absolutely no intention of caring for the women or the children, or a marriage law—which should be the most important contract we have—that the State has now decreed cannot be enforced in any form.

One of the interesting things is that the partnership agreements that can be registered in France, for example, are enforceable. We cannot do that. The only way that we can get an enforceable contract, which might mean that the person who is grossly at fault in breaching his or her promise of a long-term, stable commitment receives some sanction, is by getting a lawyer for each side to write it, and, even then, the court can overturn it so that all bets are off if it thinks things have changed.

So the time that we should have been spending on strengthening family law, and that we could have been spending on producing something that made all of us feel we were supporting gay couples, same-sex couples, to become what people said they were aspiring to become, has instead been spent—deliberately, in my view—on whipping up contention.

I asked for some simple assurances. One of them is in the New South Wales equivalent—an old one. So that the courts cannot use their creative desires to get into law writing, the legislation should simply state, as the New South Wales law does, that there is no intention to demean the status of marriage. I asked for an assurance that would keep the Jacquie Grants out of the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and keep out the advertising standards authorities members and the film censors who have decided that this country’s interests are best served by suppressing people who want to argue that homosexuality is wrong. I may disagree with them, but I will fight in this House as long as I can for the kind of freedom that New Zealanders once thought was axiomatic—that they could shun vice if they wished, and they could argue against it without being labelled as bigots or hostile, and without being victims of a cunning political plot to exploit this issue.

I wish first to thank those who have contributed to this debate. The enormous public interest shows that far from being apathetic, New Zealanders have an acute interest in politics. I acknowledge in particular the commitment shown by members of the closed Brethren Church in being here for the duration of the debate. I want to thank all of those who wrote in support of the bill and the organisers of the civil union campaign, and I want to thank the Green Party for having a policy commitment to equal rights for homosexual people. All nine Green MPs are voting for this bill because our consciences say it is the right thing to do and because our party thinks it is the right thing to do. That is our mandate.

I have been trying to understand the reasons why people oppose the bill, and I think I can boil it down to three basic arguments: that this is gay marriage, which opponents see as an intrinsically bad thing; that this will weaken marriage, thereby harming society; and that it is unnecessary.

Firstly, is this gay marriage? Well, I wish it were. We would have preferred to amend the Marriage Act to allow homosexual couples to marry. This bill does not do that. But it is not quite as simple as that. Marriage has a cultural meaning and a legal meaning. When most people speak about marriage, they refer to the practice of two people making a public and long-term commitment to each other. Those practices are culture-bound, and what we mean by them changes over time. Until recently, Christian marriage was akin to a property right over women’s fertility. For most of history marriage has not been enacted in legislation, and across times and cultures marriage has included polygamy, incest, and paedophilia. John Boswell, an admittedly controversial Yale scholar, suggests that gay marriages were celebrated inside Christian churches until around 700 years ago. Same-sex relationships have been celebrated at one time or another by most of the cultures that now inhabit Aotearoa, including Polynesian cultures.

What does marriage mean here today? When I was younger, many of my friends and I rejected the concept of marriage, because of its connotations of ownership. Then two close friends of mine got married. I asked whether it made a difference. My friend replied that it did, and that living together was about individuals, but the marriage ceremony joined their families. When I asked my beloved this year on the banks of my ancestral river, the Tisza, to marry me, I was not thinking about the law or about our property arrangements. I wanted to pledge our lives together—for my kin to become hers, and hers mine.

So does this bill create gay marriage? No. In that cultural sense, gay marriage already happens. Homosexual couples already go through commitment ceremonies. This bill will not change that, but neither, in a legal sense, does this bill create gay marriage—and this Parliament can enact only law, not culture. What this bill does is allow homosexual couples to register their long-term relationships as civil unions with the State. It does not allow them to be married, but it does allow them to be coupled.

Why would gay marriage be bad, if the bill did allow it? If marriage is good for society and for individuals, we need more, not less. This is not the All Blacks, where only 15 elite players are allowed on the field. I say the more the merrier. The more people play club rugby, the stronger the All Blacks will be. Some say it will be bad because marriage should be only, or primarily, for the purpose of having children. But we do not forbid people to marry because they are menopausal or because they have had a vasectomy. In any case, the Lavender Island survey of gays and lesbians showed 37 percent of female and 14 percent of male respondents had some kind of parenting relationship. Their children also deserve the protection of the law.

The real issue is the belief that civil unions will destabilise marriage. I have strained my brain over this, and I simply do not see how they will. If civil unions destabilise marriage, we would see that reflected in the countries with civil union - like legislation. My colleague Sue Kedgley challenged opponents of the bill to show a single example where that had happened. None has been forthcoming. Marriage-rate trends are unaffected by the introduction of civil unions. In Denmark, the first country to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships, heterosexual marriage rates are the highest they have been since the 1970s. I believe that many opponents of the bill have a genuine concern for the future of our country, but I believe that their fears are misguided.

Finally, the weakest argument is that the legislation is simply not needed, that homosexual couples can go to a lawyer, sign a bunch of documents, and relegate their love to a legal contract. Let me read, briefly, an extract from a gay couple, who said: “We have had to spend considerable sums of money on legal fees for the drafting of a relationship property agreement, wills, and enduring powers of attorney. Despite these moves, our relationship still lacks any legal protection even approaching that automatically conferred on our heterosexual friends who choose to marry. In the event of a third-party challenge to any of the documents mentioned, for example if one of us fell ill and required someone to consent to his medical treatment, the only certainty that the law gives us at the moment is the hope that a judge will regard the arrangements we have made as fair.”

This bill is not about gay marriage. There is no reason to think it will do anything other than strengthen marriage. And the bill is clearly needed. Let me finish my speech by reminding us all that New Zealanders will be celebrating Christmas in a few weeks—celebrating the birth of a man who embodied love and compassion, and was the antithesis of self-righteousness. It is a time to spend with family members of all types, regardless of what we think of them. It is a time to show particular compassion and love. It is a time, especially, to show love to our children. This Parliament today has the opportunity to make a significant contribution to one of the most precious gifts we can give to our children, who are the future of this nation. That gift is an Aotearoa grounded in human rights, equality, and respect for all its people.

I am simply amazed that so many MPs have uncritically repeated the claim that civil unions will not interfere with people’s marriages. Nobody has ever claimed that this bill will interfere with people’s marriages. Rather it is society’s understanding of marriage, and the false signals that will be sent out, especially to younger people, that are being distorted when marriage and same-sex partnerships are simply put on a par. They are not equivalent or equal. Marriage is unique. It is different from same-sex relationships—sexually, reproductively, and therefore morally.

Today if this bill becomes law, we will have removed yet another moral signpost from the landscape of our beautiful country. It will change what our children and grandchildren are taught in the school system. Good law should always conform to basic moral principles. If Parliament has any desire to build strong families, it should pass laws that reinforce the moral values that people not only endeavour to live by—not always successfully—but wish to see taught to their children and grandchildren. If we pass this law, giving the stamp of legal approval to same-sex partnerships, as distinct from tolerance for such partnerships, which is the status quo, then the law and the morality of many New Zealanders will be in contradiction, and in conflict, one with the other.

New Zealanders then face a most cruel choice. Either they lose their moral sense or they lose their respect for the law and the lawmakers. A new and unfortunate step will have been taken, whereby Parliament holds itself out not only as lawmaker but also as a new and rival source of moral truth itself. The tragedy is that this most unsatisfactory result is completely unnecessary. Only one of the more than 150,000 de facto couples in this country has indicated to me any interest in civil unioning, and that came only after I put out a press release last Monday stating that I knew of none.

Information provided to all MPs by the Parliamentary Library, and overseas evidence, show that once the novelty factor wears off, only about 55 homosexual partners a year will be civil unionised. The public easily forgets that the majority of gays and lesbians have no interest in entering into civil unions. I know many who are of that view. So why do we risk perpetuating the deep division within New Zealand society? It makes no sense. The deep division now evident in our country reminds me of the 1981 Springbok Tour—of divided families, divided workplaces, and people afraid to voice their real feelings. People now fear being labelled homophobic. People have marched to Parliament. People are gathering in silent protest outside Parliament, as I speak.

In the second reading, on a conscience vote, all of Cabinet voted in favour of this bill, yet the polls show that the people of New Zealand were divided about fifty-fifty. This House should shelve this bill, while there is still time. We should pull back from the brink. I appeal to members of Parliament today that when they vote in the third reading they vote according to their own conscience. They should not be afraid to follow their conscience.

It has been a cornerstone and persistent argument of the supporters of this bill that this issue is about human rights. This is not a human rights issue. The issue of same-sex marriage is not a human right. It is not a human right to have one’s relationship recognised by the State. It is not a right akin to the rights of free speech, freedom of religion, or freedom of association. Those rights are not created; they exist. The State simply is implored to uphold and defend them.

Human rights are typically unconditional, except on the one condition that they do not infringe on someone else’s human rights. Nor is this an issue really of civil and political rights. Civil and political rights are created and granted by the State, are usually conditional, and are frequently discriminatory. The right to vote is not provided for people under the age of 18. The right not to be arrested without charge is currently being challenged with regard to Mr Zaoui. Even the right to appoint another person as one’s next of kin could be considered to be a civil right. Marriage is not a civil right. It is an institution, like Parliament. Until now it has been unique, and it is illogical—indeed nonsense—to suggest that creating a parallel to that institution will not affect that institution. In removing its uniqueness, clearly it will.

The State’s recognition of marriage is therefore not a human right, a civil right, or a political right. It is a privilege. It is a recognition given by the State to people who meet four criteria: that there are two people only, that they are not too closely related, that they are not already married, and that they are of the opposite sex. It is a recognition the State gives because the State recognises that society has an interest in providing for the next generation, and, in particular, in providing the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Marriage overwhelmingly does that, and that is the reason, and the sole reason in my view, that it is endorsed.

Should that privilege be extended to civil unions? The answer is no. Firstly, we do not know what civil unions are. We do not know whether they will be relationships that are permanent or exclusive, and any suggestion that that might be the case, and what Parliament wanted, was removed by those who supported the bill. To the extent that civil unions will duplicate marriage, then extending that privilege is clearly unnecessary. To the extent that it extends to same-sex relationships, it breaches one of the four key criteria—that partners must be of the opposite sex. That is not discriminatory. The Court of Appeal, in the Quilter case, made that abundantly clear.

So is it a realistic provision that there should be a marriage that the State endorses only of opposite sexes? Yes, it is. We recognise that a mother and a father are necessary to give the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Male and female are complementary. Boys need fathers and mothers; girls need mothers and fathers, if they are to grow up to be whole and fulfilled people. That recognition was endorsed only this week by the United Nations, by consensus. In its document celebrating the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family, the United Nations this Monday stated: “We emphasise that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses, and that the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised, and that husband and wife should be equal partners.”; “States should take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship.” So the United Nations is clearly stating that marriage has a unique and an important function—a function that this bill is watering down.

The real motive for this bill is not to recognise another form of relationship but to encourage society’s acceptance of homosexual relations as equivalent to, and of the same value to society as, heterosexual ones. As such it will not deliver, without additional rights being granted. Typically, overseas we have seen those additional rights to be the repression of human rights, the freedom of speech in particular, and the freedom not to associate. The public knows there is a qualitative difference between the two.

This bill is a watering down of an institution that, although not perfect, has been tried and tested over centuries. I make a final plea to each of those who have supported the bill thus far to, in all good conscience, vote against it. This bill should not pass.

This morning I looked up my third reading speech on the Human Rights Bill in 1993. On that day I said I was proud to be a member of Parliament, and I am proud again today. I spoke about prejudice that day, and I want to speak about it again today. Prejudice is a bias—a preconceived opinion. It can involve prejudging people, based on a characteristic like race or ethnicity, or on a grouping they belong to, like a political party. I have often said that prejudice is based on ignorance, and that knowledge is the most powerful weapon against it. Prejudice against people because of a lifestyle choice is often based on ignorance because it is not a lifestyle choice that they would choose for themselves, nor one they can readily understand. It is therefore vital that we build understanding between people who are different.

The classic example is religious belief, a lifestyle that many New Zealanders are born into or adopt during their lives. People often do not understand the faith that others place in their God, and they can be prejudiced against them as a result. One does not have to share the faith to have an understanding of, and respect for, the right of such people to hold that faith and to worship their God in their own way in the privacy of their own home, in a church, or even on the street, as long as it is not illegal or offensive. I was brought up in the Catholic faith. We were taught, and this was reinforced every Sunday, that ours was the one true faith. How lucky was that—to be born into a family that was Catholic, the only faith that counted!

Actually, I had a lot of luck on my side when I chose the circumstances of my birth. I was born into majority status in every respect—white, female, and heterosexual. The year 1960 was a great year to be born, with a parent at home and a parent in paid work, grandmothers available to come and stay when babies were born, no TV until after I started school, no videos, no PlayStation, and no Internet. It may have left me ill-equipped for the information age, but I learnt to read, I learnt to use my imagination, and I learnt to think for myself.

The ability to think for myself is something that is challenged by calls from the Church within which I was raised for me to set aside one of the principles it stands for, one of the values it taught me, and that is the one that affirms committed, faithful, loving relationships between two people who wish to share their lives together. It asked me to set aside that principle because the couple is same-sex. The hundreds of New Zealanders who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee spoke of their love for their country, love for their husbands, wives, and partners, and love for their children. It did not matter which side of the debate they were on; they all spoke of those things. But there was a sense of loss from those who were opposed to this bill, and I think others are right when they say that the slogan “Enough is enough!” found a convenient home with civil union, when it was really about a whole lot of other things.

But are those people looking back at the golden era of my childhood with rose-tinted glasses? It was a time when parents stayed together for the sake of the children, even if they had unhappy or unfulfilling lives, or, worse, the relationships were violent and abusive. If people were the minority race, they dared not even speak a word of their own language at school, and if they were homosexual, well, they did not really suffer prejudice, because they hid their sexuality from everyone—sometimes even from themselves.

This bill is important because it provides recognition for relationships that matter.

I do not stand here as one who supports the bill because I have an immediate family member who is gay. As with everyone who has a wider family, there is a gay union within my family, but that is not why I support the bill. I support it because for 25 or 30 years of legal practice I was proud to represent the marginalised in this society. I do not need to be marginalised to know what it is like to be marginalised. If someone is treated as a classless citizen, without full legal rights, that person is easily put down and subjugated. Too many people accept that treatment with humility and tolerance and try to get on with their lives, but the barriers, the unspoken barriers, the hurdles, the preconceptions—the shifting of a shoulder, the glance—are hurtful to the individual, although not recognised by many others. That is why I support this bill. Any effort at all to remove that social hurt, that discrimination, that treating of a fellow citizen without humanity, I stand against.

I therefore support this bill enthusiastically and I do hope it is passed today. As my good friend Tim Barnett said in his speech, the sun will rise tomorrow, the world will be the same, but there will be some people in this country who can treat the world with a little more optimism. Winston Peters was correct in his speech when he said that this bill falls short of providing marriage. He is absolutely correct. He is correct when he says it offers a sop to the gay community. It is sad that that is the case. But if someone is a second-class citizen, if someone is marginalised, one piece of bread is better than two if that person cannot get anything at all. Maybe the day will come when those who do treasure marriage, as I do, will appreciate that the world will not end if others who have a different orientation can also enjoy that status. But then society will be ready for it. We have heard the speeches in this House, we have read the emails, and we have heard the submissions before the select committee, and, clearly, many, many people are not ready for that big move, because their own emotions, their own barriers, their own set ways of thinking, prevent them from embracing such a move.

So Winston Peters is right: this bill is a sop to the gay community, but it is one that many of its members welcome with open arms, and some of them reject because they still feel as though they are being treated as second-class citizens. It is a sop because we are not offering the gay community and others, those who cannot marry in this country but want to have legal relationships, the equality of society. We are not offering them the warmth of humanity. We are offering them the cold face of legal equality. The cold face of legal equality is only that. So when people say they do not know what a civil union is, I say they do not need to know. If we try to describe what a marriage is, we cannot do that, either. Most people who marry do not read the Marriage Act. But those who do get married know what it means to them. I expect that those who enter into a civil union will also know what it means to them.

It will not open up amazing doors for them. There may be problems in our subsequent legislation, as we try to define the cut-off point between marriage and civil union, but at least this measure is a step along the way. All of those out there today who cannot speak up and say they love someone else, those who cannot have that affection recognised publicly, at least can take that step. We can see that they do not have horns on their heads. We can see that they are human beings, with the same emotions as those of us who are not gay. We heterosexual men and women can walk around this community in the knowledge that we are not harming the lifestyle of others who are born and act differently.

I saw the celebration outside Parliament today. There were orange balloons, and there were protesters protesting against civil union. That is the New Zealand I want, where both factions in a social argument can express themselves openly and joyously. It is amazing that those who are against the legislation were sullen and quiet, and those who are in favour of it were exuberant and noisy. That is the New Zealand where we can exchange our views, we can learn from each other, and we can share the warmth of humanity, without labelling people, but loving one another. That is surely a basic Christian message.

This bill comes down to a contest. We have a Government that is more interested in the wants of adults than in the needs of children; a Government more interested in the politics of the present than in the future of our nation. I make no apologies for being a staunch defender of the importance of family, and by family I mean a mum, a dad, and their children.

Not a single week goes by in this Parliament without hand-wringing concern about issues like child abuse, declining literacy, declining immunisation rates, youth suicide, drug abuse, and increasing youth crime. In all those areas where this nation’s statistics have become worse, so too has there been a decline in the number of children being raised by their mum and their dad. So why on earth would we want to pass a bill that kicks the family union in the guts again? We passed the Prostitution Reform Bill. Only 2 months ago we passed legislation that said that women could be fathers. Well, natural law is actually even more important than parliamentary law. It is simply a matter that all relationships are not the same. The relationships of a de facto couple, a married couple, and a same-sex couple are not the same.

I also want to put on record the appalling way our democracy has been treated by the way that this bill has been advanced. Why is it needed urgently? Why has this Parliament been in urgency all week? There is only one reason: the Government wants this issue off the agenda before the election next year, because it knows that the majority of New Zealanders know in their heart of hearts that this law is wrong. Secondly, I want to know why we have only the door of a bill, not the complete house. Why have we separated the two bills, when every member in this House knows they sit side by side? Why were 93 percent of the submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee completely ignored? I say shame on the members who have referred in a derogatory manner to those New Zealanders who, because they cared about families, made submissions to the committee.

Also, let nobody pretend that civil union is anything less than gay marriage. In 1,034 pieces of law, marriage and gay union are to be identical—absolutely identical. The Government is proposing that in education, in health, in family law, in superannuation law—in every single area—there will not be any difference, and I question why it will not be honest and simply front up and say that civil union is gay marriage. There is a simple, historical quid pro quo: that this Parliament provide, in the law of the land, special recognition of marriage, because marriage between a man and a woman is the beginning of the next generation of a family and of the future of our country.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If any further comment is made by anyone other than a member of Parliament, the person making it will immediately be leaving. I want to make that clear. Members of the public are here because they have been invited to hear our citizens who have been properly elected in a democratic way. I am sorry to have interrupted Dr Smith, and I will not take time off his speech. I just say that all speeches will be heard in silence by those people who are witnessing the debate.

There is a further flaw in the whole approach to this important law, and it is about men and women. Men and women are equal but they are different. When people try to pretend that men and men relationships and women and women relationships are the same as relationships between men and women, they are wrong. I plead with members opposite to read the statistics about the appalling disparity in relation to the boys of our country. I say to the people in this House that until we recognise those sorts of social statistics and the background to them, there is a sorry future for this country. The boys in this country need mums and they need dads—not mums and mums and dads and dads.

I also want to say that this is the most anti-family Government in the history of New Zealand. That is a fact. I fear for what will come next. I know that work is going on with the adoption law. I am sure that gay adoption will be the next piece of legislation this Government will attempt to ram through this House. I note that Georgina Beyer wants to introduce another bill to the effect that in this country we not only will have men and women but will separately recognise, through another set of legislation, a third so-called sex, transgender. I say that, too, will be a step backwards for our country.

It is a sad day for Parliament today because we are failing to recognise the most important institution in this country, and that is the institution of family. I say that the only way in which we will stop the ongoing undermining of, and attacks on, families, which provide the best future for the children in New Zealand, is to sack this Government. That is the only way in which I have confidence that this Parliament will start to recognise that families are the foundation of our society, and if we want a strong country and a strong future, we need to start passing laws that back strong families.

I am pleased to take a call in support of the third reading of the Civil Union Bill. In my second reading speech I outlined why this bill does not provide for gay marriage, and I was pleased to have that view validated by a high-profile opponent of the bill. Mr Brian Connell said on the radio this morning that his gay friends do not support this bill, because it is “a cop-out”. He went on to say that they want to have gay marriage, and that this bill does not deliver gay marriage. I say to Mr Connell that for once in this debate we are in complete agreement. The administrative procedures for civil unions are based on the Marriage Act because, as a relationship-registration process, it has worked pretty well for the last 60 years. Having civil unions registered with the same organisation will not undermine marriage any more than the fact that we also register deaths with the same organisation.

Although I have some recollection of the emotions and turmoil that surrounded the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986, I was quite young at the time. I have grown up in a generation that views homosexuality very differently from previous generations. I do not believe it was the mere passing of a law that so drastically changed opinions. It was because, freed from the threat of prosecution, gay people did not have to hide who they were. We found out that they were actually successful business people, artists, sportspeople, politicians, and pillars of our community—dare I say it, just like anyone else. Maybe with the passing of this bill and the subsequent civil unions that will follow, we will be able to recognise the long-term committed relationships of gay couples as well, and maybe the beliefs about the promiscuity of homosexuals held by those who would deny them the ability to formalise their relationships will also disappear.

I do not remember whether gay people said they wanted to be different from everyone else at the time that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passing. I can certainly understand, though, how a group of people who were forced for so long to pretend to be something they were not might have felt liberated at finally being able to be who they are, and that they would have wanted to celebrate that difference. But my friends who are gay, and who were at primary school when that happened, want their voices to be heard now. Apart from their sexual orientation they are no different from myself and my straight friends in any respect. They want to meet someone and settle down, have a family, or maybe get some cats. Some are commitment-phobes while others lurch from one tragic Bridget Jones - style relationship to another, and many are in long-term relationships. But all of us want to have the support, companionship, and emotional fulfilment that comes from a loving, intimate relationship. We are not very different from one another, even though the inordinate amount of time we spend on talking about our difference could lead us to believe otherwise.

In talking about the destructive effect that this bill will have on families, it seems we are suggesting that gay and de facto couples do not have or are not part of families. Of course they are, and if this bill does not pass today that fact will not change, but their families, and in particular the children in their families, will not enjoy the security of family status that the rest of us take for granted. They do not know what will happen to their families in the event of the death or incapacitation of one partner, particularly if that partner is the only biological parent. Not everyone can afford to put in place complex legal arrangements, and those who can often do not get around to doing it, as we do not always plan for the unthinkable. Heterosexual de factos may not feel as concerned as same-sex couples about having a secure family status, as they are more likely to have the support of their families. But for those who do not have the support of their immediate families and who do not have the option of marriage, there is no security for them or their children. How is that good for the fabric of society? A civil union certificate is all that those couples need in order to show that their relationship is legally recognised under our country’s law, and it takes from third parties the onus of having to decide between the partner and the family when there is a conflict.

Research is clear on the fact that children do better in two-parent families than in single-parent families, but what opponents of gay and de facto parents then do is try to extrapolate the outcomes for children from single-parent families to those for children from any family outside of marriage, and that is not the case. Peer-reviewed, methodologically sound research shows no significant differences in outcomes for children raised in same-sex families from those raised in marriage. Marriage on its own does not make good parents. The existence of good de facto and gay parents and of bad married parents is proof of that. Some people have pointed to worse outcomes for children in de facto families, and have claimed that is because of the family structure. Do they honestly think that the many de facto couples in this House who are parents are more likely to abuse their children than married couples? Did they even know those couples were not married until this week? In reality, marriage does not make good parents; good parents are simply more likely to marry. So are we serious about supporting families and the children in those families, or do we want to support only the children who grow up in married families? Does it not seem illogical to say we will support all marriages, from the great ones right down to the destructive ones, but not the many other functioning relationships and families that do not adhere to the traditional nuclear family structure? How does that help the fabric of society?

All relationships are not equal, but I challenge members to resist the temptation to take the easy road of simply blaming gay and de facto couples for all society’s ills. I urge all members to think about the taxpaying, law-abiding, real families and real people who will actually be directly affected by this bill. They deserve our support.

May this Civil Union Bill be passed this afternoon. This bill gives people choice in the formal recognition of their relationship, choice to the rainbow community who have had no choice up until this time, and additional options to those couples who do not wish to be married. Rather than go through an expensive array of legal processes to gain the legal protections that a couple needs, the civil union will provide another avenue.

This bill affirms equality for all New Zealanders regardless of their sexual preferences, and this sends a message of hope to adolescent gays and lesbians. For too long those young people have faced discrimination at a time when they so much want to be part of a group, want to be accepted, and want to dream of a future. Suicide is far too high among our gay and lesbian adolescents. I say to those who box for the charity for preventing youth suicide that they could well achieve as much by voting for this bill.

Passing this legislation today says to gay and lesbian people that they are important, that they are valued by society, and that they are able to form loving relationships that are recognised by the State. Some have argued that the prime purpose of marriage and a loving relationship is to bear and rear children, and that a civil union therefore should not be allowed. That argument ignores that marriage and civil union are different. For myself, I would wish for a clearer distinction between church and State ceremonies, as has been adopted in some European countries, where a Catholic couple can have their relationship blessed by the sacrament of matrimony but where the State registration is the compulsory ceremony. But at least we in New Zealand will have, I hope, civil union.

The argument about the prime purpose of marriage being children also ignores that marriage does not always result in children. Members should consider a marriage between two 70-year-olds. It is considered quite legitimate—and having children would defy all possibilities. It also ignores those relationships that are not marriage but which provide a loving, stable environment for children.

Some in this House have argued that civil union will weaken their marriage. I find that so strange. Strong relationships are worked on by those inside the relationship. Outside factors can put a stress on the relationship: war, unemployment, the death of a child, and discrimination. But a law that grants human rights to others? How can that make any marriage weak? My puzzled reaction to that claim is mirrored by the hundreds of New Zealand Christians who have emailed me to say that their marriage is not at risk and that they feel the passage of this bill will add to the fabric of social justice necessary for the health of New Zealand.

I hope that tonight will be celebratory. I hope that with the passage of this law there will be many celebrations, formal and all, of wonderful, loving relationships. I hope that those who have felt threatened will come to see in the next few years that any imagined threat has not come to pass. Their marriages are safe and their kids are growing healthily—some of them may even be gay. I support this bill with my mind, my spirit, and my heart.

I am saddened that this is an anti-family Government. In the curious world of MMP we need to remind ourselves that this is a minority Government with a clear agenda of social engineering. It is difficult to legislate on moral issues, and it is often unwise to do so. It is also not certain, even at this point, that the Civil Union Bill will pass the third reading. I was privileged to be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was to that committee that this bill and its companion bill, which is now in a state of disarray, were referred. I was one of a minority on that committee. I stated the following things in a minority report that was provided to the House: “I am strongly opposed to the passage of the Civil Union Bill without a referendum from New Zealanders as to whether they support this controversial legislation. That referendum should be binding. A binding referendum would enable the country to express its views and in particular for concerns to be indicated on issues such as: The fact that the legislation is Labour Party manifesto policy. Marriage is a valuable institution in civil society and it is important that its value is not degraded or diminished by Act of Parliament. In the case of heterosexual couples there is no significant difference between civil union and marriage. Both events are registered under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act. The significant law change proposed by the Civil Union Bill is to enable the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.”

As a member of the select committee that heard submissions on both bills, I spent literally days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills. Not only did this issue receive more submissions than any other has received but it has been one of the most emotionally charged that I can remember. It is relevant to reflect on the numbers. There were about 6,000 submissions, and 91 percent were opposed to this legislation. Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise their loving and committed relationships in law, but with equal sincerity most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage in New Zealand—something that they believed would undermine the unique status of marriage.

I think we should also remind ourselves that as New Zealand is moving in one direction, in other parts of the world quite contrary directions are being followed. In Australia, for example, the federal Senate has set its heart against what the New Zealand Government proposes. In the United States, as we have seen in 11 referenda held in separate states in the context of the presidential election, the populace has said no to what our Government proposes.

I believe that both sides of the debate have raised valid concerns that deserve consideration. Unfortunately, the Government’s haste to be done with civil unions before the next election has dominated the debate. That should never be the case. It is completely wrong that in circumstances of urgency the Committee stage of this bill has been rushed through. There are hallmarks all the way through of the Government’s determination to see this legislation passed, no matter what the cost of that is. We see that in the early reporting back of this bill. We see it in the urgency that has characterised the Committee stage. We see it in what seems to be the short-circuiting of a clear Cabinet rule that requires a specific time period to elapse before regulations can come into force. There is, in every sense, an urgency to clear the decks of this controversial legislation.

One of the things that the select committee heard about was that not being recognised as next of kin has created a daily uncertainty for many same-sex and de facto couples, who fear, for example, that they will not be able to visit their partner in hospital if he or she becomes ill. The right to be at the partner’s bedside and the ability to be buried together were understandably of great importance to many submitters who supported the bills. I believe that there may well be supporters here today who actually believe that the passage of this legislation will deal with those issues. It will not, at all. We heard accounts of people being denied the opportunity to view their deceased partner’s body, or to be involved in important medical decisions. Although those stories are tragic and the situations should not have happened, the fact is that this bill and its companion piece, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, will do nothing to change those situations.

That is why I embarked on another course, which was to propose in the Committee stage a set of detailed amendments to the bill that would have enabled, in a very simple way, a next-of-kin relationship structure to be set up and recognised. The result is that although that proposal secured about one-third of the votes in the Committee, it has failed to pass into law. The Civil Union Bill does not grant certainty regarding a person’s next of kin, as claimed. What I proposed would have done just that. I am interested in seeing law passed that considers the long-term consequences for all—law that is honest about what it will and will not achieve, and that protects important social institutions like marriage. The passage of this bill will simply not achieve those objectives.

I will talk in summary about my concerns. I put them in this very simple way. First of all, civil unions do not guarantee certainty regarding a person’s next of kin. Second, civil unions are not inclusive. All people deserve certainty regarding their next of kin. Civil unions discriminate against non-sexual relationships. The third and final point I would make is that civil unions imitate marriage, because in both the marriage context and the civil union context there are ceremonial requirements. In the marriage context, there are religious celebrants. In the civil union context, we similarly have celebrants. There is dissolution of a civil union and dissolution of a marriage. Finally, there is the point I made relating to the registration of both sets of relationships—civil union and marriage—under statutory legislation. I express the hope that this bill will not pass. There are better ways than this of achieving the outcomes that some of the submitters who came before the select committee sought.

I rise to support the Civil Union Bill, and I do so with a tremendous sense of joy, optimism, and an understanding that tonight we are making history. I would also like to acknowledge the presence in the House at the moment of the Hon Fran Wilde, the former member for Wellington Central, who oversaw the passage of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill almost 20 years ago. It must be a strange sense of déjà vu for that former member to listen to the same tired old arguments against this bill as she was subjected to all those years ago.

I am confident that this bill will pass in the vote that will follow soon after my speech. Tomorrow, all New Zealanders will wake up in a country that has enhanced its reputation as a society that respects human rights and cares about all its people. Tomorrow, all New Zealanders will wake up with a new freedom and we will not have taken anything from anyone. For the first time, every citizen in this nation will be able to formalise with the State his or her long-term relationship. For the majority, they will have a choice between a marriage and a civil union. For the nation’s same-sex couples, we will have an opportunity that we have always been denied. For my partner, Peter, and I, the ability to register our relationship will come almost 32 years after we met.

I have attended many weddings in my life. I have stood beside good friends as they marry. I look forward to the chance to extend a similar invitation to commemorate my partnership. In the months and years following today, I expect that tens of thousands of loving, stable couples—both homosexual and heterosexual—will participate in civil union ceremonies all over New Zealand. In doing so they will celebrate with their friends and their families, gay and straight, everything that makes us human, in the same way that other couples do when they get married.

I would like to take this opportunity to say congratulations to those who will take up a civil union, because the more couples who are encouraged into loving, committed, long-term relationships, the stronger our society and our families will be. Sadly, in other people’s happiness, some see disaster or, worse still, a chance to display their own innate prejudice. This bill appears to have stirred some churches and MPs more markedly than entrenched social problems such as poverty, child abuse, youth suicide, or the trafficking of drugs ever have. When did an MP ever fast to ask God to ensure that the poorest of our children had food in their mouths or were free from the scourge of child abuse? Never! But we have one here today fasting to stop the Civil Union Bill, a piece of legislation without any victims—talk about a distorted sense of social justice!

I do not understand those priorities but I, like all gay and lesbian people everywhere, am painfully aware that for some people prejudice about homosexuality still runs deep. A famous author and clergyman once said: “Bigotry warps the soul by shutting out the truth.”, and the truth is that gays and lesbians are flesh and blood. We have always been part of New Zealand society. Indeed, all cultures throughout history have recorded the presence of gay and lesbian people. We are mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, and friends. We are ordinary, and we are flawed. We have emotions, likes, and dislikes. We are nurses, lawyers, policemen, artists, singers, farmers, and even—occasionally—politicians. We are obvious, but we are also invisible.

We are people, and we deserve to be treated like all other people. A gay doctor saves a life just like a straight one. A gay soldier dies for his or her country just like a straight one, and a gay person falls in love just like a straight one.

Last month I received an email from a gay officer in the armed forces. I thought I would quote a short section of that email. He wrote: “I am not a political man; I am one of your warriors. I believe in common sense guided by a sense of duty and polished with sound judgment. The many emotions surrounding the Civil Union Bill, homosexuality, and sexuality in general are all valid, but they are not based on these factors. I would ask you to put aside your emotions for this vote, and consider the real people who will be affected by this bill. I am an ordinary, considerate, and sensible New Zealander. I am not a family-breaker, I am not abominable, and when I attested for service in the armed services, I did so on a Bible.”

This bill recognises the essential decency of that young officer and of many others like him. But it recognises something even more important. It recognises that New Zealand has a proud legal history of tolerance that has made us a great nation, and we will grow greater if we continue this tradition. Do we as a society judge people for what they are, or do we as a society judge people for who they are? Do we ignore the quality of people’s actions, their contribution, and their compassion? Do we look first at their sexuality, the colour of their skin, or their gender? Is that what we should be teaching our children? We do not but, unfortunately, for a long time now the law surrounding relationships has done just that. It is time it was changed. Our society has reached that point. Polls show that a majority support this bill, which comes as no surprise to me.

I am an openly gay Cabinet Minister. I travel the length and breadth of this country, and people greet me warmly, knowing who I am. That is the New Zealand way; that is what our people do; in that, the law belongs to the people. This bill needs to pass. It is part of the progress of this country as a modern, liberal, tolerant nation.

The previous speaker said that this legislation was out of sync with what was happening in the rest of the world, but last week the British House of Commons passed its civil union bill. Do we want to be a country like Britain—a modern, liberal, social democracy—or do we want to become a country like George Bush’s United States of America? I know where I would rather live. I would rather live in a tolerant, liberal democracy—and that is what this bill is about. I commend it and urge all members of this House to support it.

I thank the Hon Chris Carter for allowing me to share this time-slot. The Progressive Party has supported these two bills from the beginning. As a caucus, we have been 100 percent in support of the legislation, and I believe we share that with the Green Party in this Parliament.

I am speaking today on behalf of the Hon Jim Anderton, the Progressive leader. This is what Jim Anderton wrote in reply to the open letter from the Catholic bishops on the Civil Union Bill: “I also believe the letter has unnecessarily associated Catholics, and the Church, alongside the more strident Destiny Church and its very obvious prejudices. I recall that some churches led the charge against Homosexual Law Reform in the 1980s, hopefully to their regret later on when they were exposed as bigoted and alarmist. The walls of civilisation did not collapse. Civilisation was enhanced. The moral issues of life continued to be debated. And more people were able to be openly involved in a more tolerant and less discriminatory society.

“This Bill before Parliament provides a non-discriminatory means of State-recognition of people’s choices to live as partners. For those who believe adults are moral individuals before God, this Bill leaves them with the same sorts of moral choices in life that they have always had. I find it naïve to think that a Bill will end civilisation, or the family, or the sanctity of marriage, or going to Church. Whatever changes are taking place in those areas have their own momentum. The key for a sensible society is to find ways of clarifying the legal relationships that people are forming, and giving them a measure of dignity without discrimination.

“There are moral issues in all personal choices. Of course the Catholic Church wants to express a voice in such things and it has an absolute right to do so. But it is a pity that this voice echoes the Destiny Church’s misunderstandings, rather than adding to sensible debate about building partnerships and families with love and dignity. And it is even more of a pity that some Catholic leaders aligned themselves with the Destiny Church on political and electoral suggestions. Progressives support laws encouraging long-term, loving relationships where people take responsibility for their actions, their families and their communities, particularly if those same laws reduce discrimination and reinforce the principle of equality …”.

That is the end of the quote from Jim Anderton; now I take responsibility for the rest. The Progressive Party supports the legislation before Parliament, because this legislation will help strengthen long-term meaningful and loving relationships between sovereign and moral adults. The Progressive Party believes that any honest attempt to strengthen meaningful relationships deserves support, because there is no doubt that society as a whole benefits from individuals being in caring, stable, and long-term relationships, which deliver more social stability. The action we are taking in Parliament today is a step forward for justice—just as, across the road, the step taken by the Supreme Court today is a step forward for justice—in New Zealand.