Thursday, 24 June 2004

Thursday, 24 June 2004

Thursday, 24 June 2004

Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Business Statement

Business Statement

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Next week in the House priority will be given to completion of the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; the third readings of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, and the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 3), if they are not completed today; and the first reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill. The Government then intends to move an urgency motion, and the likely business to be included in that motion is the remaining stages of the Local Government (Auckland) Amendment Bill, the Local Government Law Reform Bill (No 3), the Meat Board Restructuring Bill, the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill, and other legislation, including a number of first readings.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): Noting the Government’s intention to take urgency, I ask whether he can give the House an assurance that the right of the Opposition to scrutinise the Government by way of question time will not be lost, and that the Government will recognise that its performance generally in the House has been poor—

Mr SPEAKER: The business statement is not a time for that sort of comment—it is to ask about the business. The question has been asked.

Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House): Whilst I must admit to a little surprise that the Opposition would want any questions after its performance, we are always—

Mr SPEAKER: That is the end of that. [Interruption] Well, I will have the answer—and just the answer.

Hon MARK BURTON: I apologise, Mr Speaker. Of course, as always we are open to negotiation.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Scampi Fishery—Commission of Inquiry

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Will she ask the Governor-General to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the allegations made in an affidavit read to the House yesterday by the Hon Ken Shirley so that they can be seen to be considered in a non-political setting; if not, why not?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister): I understand that the matter has been referred to the Speaker to consider whether a matter of privilege is involved. It would be inappropriate to make any comment while this is happening.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is it not desirable that where the reputation of a member of this House is being seriously impugned the matter is seen to be considered away from the possible perception that political factors might influence any decisions?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: If the question being raised is a question of a breach of the Standing Orders, the Privileges Committee is entirely the appropriate place to deal with that. If there are others who think there are criminal matters involved, then the course open to them is to go to the police.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether she has ever, in her long political career, seen such serious allegations made about a member of Parliament, and can she further tell us whether she is aware that the Privileges Committee cannot act at this point because there is no prima facie case, and does she therefore—

Mr SPEAKER: I just interrupt the member to say that I have received a letter that I am giving consideration to. There has been no ruling on that letter yet. The member might like to rephrase the question.

Gerry Brownlee: That is new information to me. I apologise for that.

Mr SPEAKER: That is all right. Re-ask the question.

Gerry Brownlee: Has the Prime Minister ever seen, in her long political career, allegations as serious as this ever laid at the feet of a member of Parliament; does she accept that these allegations, if not dealt with by some form of inquiry, bring all parliamentarians and this Parliament into disrepute; and if there is an inability for the Privileges Committee to move, will she then consider asking a commission, similar to the one asked for by the Greens, to look at the matter in order that the member himself may clear his name?

Mr SPEAKER: There were three questions there. With regard to the first one, the Prime Minister is not responsible for privilege matters, but she can certainly answer the second and third questions.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Over the more than three and a half decades that I have taken an interest in politics I can think of at least two other examples of very serious allegations being made against members of Parliament. I repeat: if the issue is a breach of the Standing Orders, the Privileges Committee is the place for it, but the Speaker will have to determine whether it justifies that. If members feel that a criminal offence may have been committed, then they should go to the police.

Hon Ken Shirley: Can the Prime Minister assure the House that Winston Peters’ extraordinary and inexplicable U-turn in support of the Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation is in no way related to assurances she has given that this matter will not be pursued by the Government?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Let us be very clear: this matter has never been discussed with Mr Peters. Nor, I might observe, was there a U-turn on that legislation. Mr Peters had never signalled what his view of it was, to the best of my knowledge.

Child, Youth and Family Services, Department—Monitoring of Critically Ill Child

2. KATHERINE RICH (National) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Does she stand by her statement that the “mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children.”; if so, does she still believe that the case of the 6-week-old boy in Starship Children’s Hospital was “correctly assessed” by the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment), on behalf of the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF): Any situation where a child is abused or injured is totally unacceptable to myself, the service, and, I am sure, all members of this Parliament. I am advised that in this case this was an outcome that could not have been professionally predicted. However, the incident and the department’s review of it will give us an opportunity to learn from this tragic situation and reduce the likelihood of such an event recurring.

Katherine Rich: That was all very interesting, but my question was: “Does she stand by her statement?”.

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services had previously investigated and confirmed that the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital had beaten her 6-year-old stepson in her care, leaving him with a black eye; did the Minister know this at the time she answered her previous oral questions?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am advised that the Tauranga police have requested that the details in this particular case should not be put in the public arena, because a police investigation is under way. Charges have been laid. Any further comments could affect the trial. I also want to make the point that there is a concern over protecting the privacy of the children concerned.

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker —[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not having any interjections during points of order, and that is the only warning the member gets today.

Katherine Rich: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specifically about the awareness of the Minister when she had previously answered oral questions.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister said he was not prepared to go into that detail, because there was something before the courts. That addresses the question. It might not please the member, but that addressed that particular question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it may also be worth pointing out to members who have not had experience in this area—which has been raised fairly extensively, but some time ago—that there is not an obligation on a Minister to answer a question at all if the member judges that it is not in the public interest to answer that question. I think that Mr Speaker, in giving some advice to my colleague, is probably saying that in a rather indirect way.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard raises a very interesting point that I think in many ways gives weight to the plea that Katherine Rich made to you. If the Minister knew, prior to giving the answer in the House, that there were matters that perhaps should not be discussed, then the option that Mr Mallard suggested should have been taken. Instead, the Minister chose to give the House a view of events that was quite unrelated to the way in which those events truly transpired. So we are simply saying that in giving that answer, the Minister is leaving the situation open to the allegation that the House has been misled.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Minister did not refuse to answer. He chose to be circumspect in view of the legal proceedings, and that is his choice.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, that was his choice, and I am not having any further argument on that matter, because I have ruled.

Gerry Brownlee: All right. If the Minister was choosing to be circumspect in the question that was asked by Mrs Rich today, what is different today from the day on which the original question was answered?

Mr SPEAKER: That is a debatable point.

Sue Bradford: What percentage, roughly, of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services social workers now have professional qualifications, and does the Minister feel that the rate at which the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services front-line caseworkers are being brought up to a satisfactory level is happening quickly enough?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am satisfied that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services is making good progress. There are 90 more social workers now. Fifty-seven are about to start. The Government has invested $127 million extra into it. A great deal of effort is going into improving the quality of the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services, and good progress is being made.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services had decided previously that the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital would join his two siblings in foster care, but that that decision was overruled by a senior staff member after the baby was born, and that some Department of Child, Youth and Family Services staff argued vigorously about the final decision to send that baby home with his mother; if not, what questions has the Minister asked officials about this case?

Hon RICK BARKER: That question goes into some of the details of this particular case, and I ask the member to respect the request of the Tauranga police that those details not be put in the public arena, because an investigation is under way. There is a right to a fair trial—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask you to have another think about the exchange that is going on here. Questions are being asked about the performance of the Minister. For the Minister to reply: “Please don’t ask that question, because the Tauranga police don’t want details of this case made public.”, is an utter nonsense. The questions are about the times, dates, and places at which the Minister became aware. The Minister can answer that, surely, without affecting the outcome of a court case.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister can address the question in any way he chooses, as long as the question is addressed. The answer has not satisfied the questioner, but that is the answer that has been given.

Katherine Rich: Can the Minister confirm that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services knew of a psychiatric report that described the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital as “high risk”; if not, why not?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am not prepared to confirm those details, because they may give substance to the claims, but I am concerned to ensure that the police are able to conduct their investigation in a way that does not prejudice the trial. I can advise the member that many questions will be asked about this case, because we want to learn from the details of it so that we can avoid any similar repetition in the future.

Dr Muriel Newman: Is the Minister satisfied that she is being fully informed by her departmental officials; if so, how does she explain her statement yesterday in the House that she was not advised of the appalling harm inflicted on the two older children by the mother?

Hon RICK BARKER: I am not prepared to confirm the last statement. I am prepared to advise the House that the Minister has been fully briefed, and I can confirm that I have received some good briefings myself. People are well abreast of the situation. We want to ensure that there is a fair trail. We want to ensure that we learn the best we can from this situation, so that we do not see a repetition of it in the future.

Dr Muriel Newman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe you could help here. The Minister was asked about a statement that was made in the House yesterday. He states that he is not prepared to confirm that that statement was made in the House yesterday, yet it is on the public record.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

Katherine Rich: Why does the Minister remain so confident that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services assessed the risk to the baby correctly, when the mother had been evaluated as being high risk and when the department had previously dealt with her over the beating, and blackened eye, of her 6-year-old stepson, the neglect of her 4-year-old child, and the near starvation of her 2-year-old child?

Hon RICK BARKER: The department has to make judgments on each individual case. As I said in my primary answer to the member, the outcome in this situation could not have been professionally predicted.

Katherine Rich: Given that the Department of Child, Youth and Family Services knew that the mother of the 6-week-old baby in Starship Children’s Hospital was high-risk, that she had previously beaten, and blackened the eye of, her 6-year-old son, seriously neglected her 4-year-old, and left her 2-year-old on the verge of starvation, does the Minister accept that New Zealanders are struggling to see how she could think the risk to the baby had been correctly assessed?

Hon RICK BARKER: Because a member says things, it does not necessarily mean that they are true. What is important here is that there is an investigation under way, charges have been laid, they will go to court, and the truth of the matter will come out.

Question No. 1 to Minister

DAIL JONES (Junior Whip—NZ First): I seek the leave of the House to table the New Zealand First policy on the foreshore and seabed, as set out by the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 25 June 2003 in Hansard, Volume 609, at page 6565, which is absolutely consistent with what we are doing today, and if the Hon Ken Shirley were a gentleman, he would apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 2 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider the final answer given to Ms Rich’s questions by the Minister, in which I think it is quite clear that he implied that there were statements of mistruth in the question. That is quite inappropriate. While it might be easy for us to sit here and think that the Minister’s own interpretation of events is somewhat fanciful, it is not appropriate for him, in his answer, to get away with accusing a member of misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did not do that. What the Minister said was that the facts might not be as the member states. If he had said that the member was telling a lie or a deliberate mistruth, or something like that, it most certainly would have been out of order.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you an issue about which, the more I sit here and think about it, the more concerned I become. That is the issue that has just now developed with regard to the Minister’s answers—or non-answers—and the rulings you have made with regard to the response to those. I ask you to give a considered opinion to the House a little later. The issue here is that this is an opportunity for the Opposition to question Ministers about policy and performance. That is what question time is about. The difficulty we have run into is that we wanted to ask the Minister—or the Minister on behalf of the Minister—about her performance. Unfortunately, the way events are unfolding is that there is now a police investigation, which the Minister seems to be able to use to not answer those questions. I wonder whether you could give an opinion as to where the line is drawn when a Minister cannot answer questions that are asked by the Opposition because there is already some form of investigation. Where do we draw the line? If the question is asked of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, and the New Zealand Rugby Football Union is making an investigation, is it sufficient for him not to answer questions?

Mr SPEAKER: Let me refer the member to Speakers’ rulings on page 144. There are five of them, and at least four of them are appropriate in this instance.

KATHERINE RICH (National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the Associate Minister answering that last question, while he spent some time talking about the validity of my assertions, my actual question was about whether he accepted that some New Zealanders are struggling to see how the assessment could be deemed correct—which ties into questions earlier in the week.

Mr SPEAKER: There is no responsibility for the Minister to answer that part of the question, but I thought he did give an answer.

JOHN CARTER (Senior Whip—National): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Look, I do not want this to carry on, because I am prepared to do what the member said, and I will think about the issue he has raised.

China and Thailand—Trade Negotiations

3. MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) to the Minister for Trade Negotiations: What progress is being made on trade negotiations with China and Thailand?

Hon JIM SUTTON (Minister for Trade Negotiations): Significant progress is being made. Last week, formal negotiations started with Thai officials, and we anticipate that those negotiations could be completed by the end of the year. Yesterday, the public consultation process on a trade deal with China began, and I hope the feasibility study on that proposed agreement can also be completed by the end of this year.

Mark Peck: Would the Minister tell the House whether those are the only trade liberalisation prospects we have?

Hon JIM SUTTON: Plan A for this Government has always been the World Trade Organization multilateral negotiations, which hold the most potential for us. But we do have plan B, a network of comprehensive regional and bilateral agreements, of which agreements with China and Thailand are just two. Negotiations on the Pacific Three Closer Economic Partnership with Chile and Singapore will resume in August, and a variety of others are also under active investigation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen the testimony of Mr Harry Wu, a survivor of the Chinese Laogai prison labour camps, in which 6.8 million people are interred mostly for political or religious non-conformity, and is he aware that those camps make 200 Chinese export products, including most of China’s export rubber chemicals, one-third of its tea, and much of its tools, steel products, and cotton; and how can New Zealand recognise China as a market economy in that situation?

Hon JIM SUTTON: No, I have not seen the programme the member alludes to, but the Government has clear views on international standards on labour and human rights. In negotiating trade agreements, we aim for outcomes that promote decent work and are compatible with International Labour Organization principles. Human rights are also a priority for the Government. Our policy is that trade and economic growth should help to facilitate progress in those areas.

Peter Brown: Noting that answer, is the Minister in a position to guarantee to this House that any trade deal with China and Thailand will not impact adversely on New Zealand employment prospects?

Hon JIM SUTTON: To the contrary, these negotiations are intended to strengthen the New Zealand economy and create more jobs, and better paid jobs, for New Zealanders.

Hon Peter Dunne: At which sectors of the economy and wider society is the public consultation process aimed, what matters does the Minister expect to be raised during that process, and what action will the Government take on those matters in any negotiations with China towards a free-trade agreement?

Hon JIM SUTTON: The public will raise what it wishes to raise, and the Government will address all those concerns. But let me say that I would be surprised if there were not people in contact with us—as there already have been, particularly in the apparel sector—who are concerned about their industries’ ability to compete effectively against China. My answer to that is that the apparel industry is already substantially exposed to international competition in New Zealand, and in recent years has been increasing in both employment and the quality of the jobs on offer. I believe that even in the apparel industry, the New Zealand industry will be able to increase its sales to China and other Asian markets of those niche products in which we can create competitive advantage.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What measures is he proposing should be written into the free-trade agreement with China to improve its human rights behaviour, and how does he specifically propose to ensure that none of the 200 products made by prison labour camps comes into New Zealand, so that in economic terms we are not supporting that practice?

Hon JIM SUTTON: New Zealand adheres to the relevant ILO principles and bindings, and we will continue to support those principles and objectives at every opportunity.

Schools, Invercargill—Enrolment Schemes

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his February statement that, with regard to schooling arrangements to be imposed in Invercargill, “it is not my intention to put enrolment schemes where they do not currently apply.”; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised that the Minister’s reply will be a little longer than usual.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): Had the proposals I put forward in February been accepted, there would not have been any need for any new enrolment schemes to be put in place. However, I subsequently agreed to the mayor and community trust’s suggestion for a mediation process, which resulted in the retention of small rural schools close to Invercargill, at least one of which is on a limited site. I am not prepared to rule out an arrangement that gives students living in the area immediately around a rural school priority over those students coming out from town. Obviously, where we are building new buildings and there is room, priority will be given to meeting parents’ preferences, thereby reducing to a minimum the need for enrolment schemes.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister now saying he did not mean what he said to a meeting of almost a thousand parents in Invercargill—that when he closed up to a dozen of their schools, he would move to stop the parents from choosing what other school to send their children to?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: No, not at all. If the member had listened to my answer he would have understood. The changes that were proposed in February would have resulted in substantial building at most Invercargill schools, and it would have been possible to have the buildings where the parents wanted to send their kids. In this case, the result of my acceptance of the mediation has meant that some small schools, including at least one rural school on a very limited site where there is not room for an unlimited number of children, have remained. There may not be room on that very limited site for all the children who want to go there. My preference is that the rural kids who live next to the school should have the right to go there.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Why, in reorganising schools in Invercargill in order, presumably, that enrolment schemes would not be needed, has he decided to shut down middle-school and intermediate school education in a way that returns the structure of schooling in Invercargill to that which last existed nationally in the 1920s; and why is he so antagonistic to intermediate and middle-school education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There was an extensive process in Invercargill. There was a mediator who established the views of the community, and I agreed with the mediator.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that his officials have told Waihopai School to restrict its numbers, Tisbury School to implement an enrolment scheme, and Salford School to keep its enrolment scheme in place and shrink its numbers; if his answers to this House are correct, why are his bureaucrats enforcing enrolment schemes in three Invercargill schools?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do not have in my head the details of all 30-odd schools in Invercargill. I do know that Salford School has had an enrolment scheme for some time. If there is currently room for students at that school, if they fit on the school site and the school has the appropriate buildings, there are not grounds for reducing the numbers, and they will not be reduced. Tisbury School is a rural school with a limited site. There is not room for a large number of extra students. The reason I am supporting that school being zoned is so that the kids who are rural and live next door to it have a right to go there. [Interruption] The reason I have changed my tune, as silly Nick Smith says—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister knows he cannot say that. He will stand, withdraw, apologise, and finish his answer concisely.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw and apologise. The reason I have changed my tune is that the mediator recommended that the school stay open. I agreed with her.

Hon Bill English: What would the Minister say in answer to Mr David Begg, who attended the meeting along with almost a thousand other Invercargill parents, who has said that there had been a perception there would be no enrolment schemes next year, and “Perhaps we misunderstood what the ministry said.”?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: The ministry did not speak at the meeting. I did.

Mark Peck: Is the Minister prepared to tell the House whether Tisbury School would prefer to have an enrolment scheme, or whether it would prefer to close, which was the original proposition in the first model?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I was very strongly advised by the people of Tisbury School that they would like the school to stay open. They convinced the mediator that that was appropriate, and I agreed with her. Mr English might want to go back to the original plan, but I do not think the people of Tisbury School want to.

Police—Dismissal Procedure

5. RON MARK (NZ First) to the Minister of Police: What lessons have been learned by the police administration, if any, from the Alec Waugh incident?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): I have been advised by the Office of the Commissioner of Police that it has moved to ensure that there is now clear separation of disciplinary issues from criminal issues.

Ron Mark: What steps is he taking to ensure taxpayers do not again see millions of dollars squandered on lawyers, courts, and administrative costs—not to mention, thousands of lost police man-hours—in defending incompetent police administrators, who through their own stupidity created this entire debacle?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I think the police have learnt a lesson from what happened way back in the 1990s, when there was a different Government in power.

Martin Gallagher: When exactly did Alec Waugh resign, and what involvement did the Minister have in the events that led to his resignation?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Alec Waugh resigned in 1998. I had no direct, or indirect, involvement in those events, as I was not the Minister of Police at the time. The Government at the time was a New Zealand First - National coalition. Perhaps the member who asked the original question should ask his own leader, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time.

Brian Connell: Now that the Minister is the Minister responsible for the police, will he accede to Mr Waugh’s lawyer’s request for Mr Waugh to be appointed to a senior metropolitan command, and if so, to which one; if not, does he not agree with Judge Goddard’s findings that Mr Waugh would have achieved the position of Wellington or Christchurch police commander in 1999 had his career not been derailed?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The member obviously does not know that Ministers cannot get themselves involved in the appointment of staff anywhere. I would have thought the Opposition spokesperson on the police would know that.

Ron Mark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave of the House to table a number of press releases that may well show that the coalition Government had dissolved by that time and the Rt Hon Winston Peters was not the deputy leader of the coalition Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those. Is there any objection? There is.

Ron Mark: What confidence can we have in assistant commissioner Jon White’s ability to properly discharge his responsibilities for counter-terrorism, given that he has now been shown to have been totally incapable of handling a simple human resources issue in relation to Alec Waugh, and what performance review, if any, will assistant commissioner White now be facing?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Matters of staffing and the positions that individual police officers hold are for the decision of the commissioner. I have not discussed this matter with him because I do not get involved in such matters. I must tell the member that the coalition dissolved on 26 August 1998, after Alec Waugh had been to court.

Relationships (Statutory References) Bill—Civil Union Bill

6. Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) to the Associate Minister of Justice: Does he intend to proceed with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill if the Civil Union Bill fails to progress through all of its legislative stages?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice): I am confident that the Civil Union Bill will progress through all of its legislative stages and will be enacted into law. The Government sees these two bills as being very much interrelated and progressing in tandem. The member’s question is rather premature.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not normally take points of order in relation to ministerial answers to questions, but I asked a very straightforward question—that is, given that the Minister said that these are tandem measures, will one proceed without the other? It is not a speculative question; it is a simple question of fact that the Minister should be able to give an answer to.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the last words he said were that he thought that any suggestion of that was premature. That certainly addressed the question. I listened to the first part of the answer, but when he came to the second part, I thought he addressed the question.

Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm the advice that I have received from the Deputy Prime Minister that if the Civil Union Bill does not proceed, then the second bill will have to be withdrawn and rewritten; if he can confirm that advice, why did he not say so in response to the first question?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I am not aware of that advice, but I would say that if the Civil Union Bill did not pass through its discussions and stages, many couples would be deprived of the right to have their relationships solemnised and registered under the law.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister acknowledge that both these bills are contentious, and if he does, will he consider making a binding referendum mandatory so that all New Zealanders can decide whether they want this type of legislation; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, no, and that is the reason for the public select committee process.

Lianne Dalziel: Has the Minister seen reports suggesting that the Civil Union Bill will enhance marriage; if so, what do they say?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes. Today’s Otago Daily Times editorial describes well how this bill will operate in reality. It states: “The Civil Union Bill seeks not to destroy Christian marriage or lower the status of heterosexual unions. In fact, it could be argued that it will reinforce the status of heterosexual marriage because the Marriage Act will remain as an option only available to heterosexual couples.” The author goes on to state: “It does not alter or diminish the special nature of legal marriage that distinguishes it from other sexual and lasting relationships, while at the same time it acknowledges longstanding societal realities that couples do live together, that children are sometimes born outside marriage—”.

Mr SPEAKER: That is enough. The Minister will please be seated.

Hon Peter Dunne: In the light of that answer, will the Minister therefore confirm his comments to Paul Holmes this morning, in response to a question: “So therefore it’s a parallel marriage, isn’t it?”, to which the answer was: “Well, it’s a system parallel to marriage.”, and if he will confirm those comments, how then can he say, as he said in response to other interviewers, that the two situations are quite different?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: There is no inconsistency or contradiction between the two statements.

Hon Peter Dunne: If the Civil Union Bill is defeated, is it not a fact that the provisions of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill relating to the right to inherit, next-of-kin status, issues such as burial in common plots, etc., would, in the event that that bill is passed, be available to couples who are not married, and in that case would render the whole notion of a civil union redundant?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: No.

Scampi Fishery—State Services Commission Report

7. PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to the Minister of Fisheries: Are the terms “inconsistent”, “unevenhanded” and “grossly inadequate”, as used in the State Services Commission report on the scampi inquiry to describe the then fisheries ministry, indicative of the Ministry of Fisheries today?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Minister of Fisheries): No.

Phil Heatley: Why then, in amateur fishing reform documents obtained under the Official Information Act, does the ministry say it will consult recreational fishers by “focusing the public discussion around the Internet” but that “an Internet-based consultation will not be a satisfactory basis for discussion with Māori as this would not adequately reflect their ‘status’ ”, and is this not race-based inconsistency and unevenhandedness?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: While I have no advice on the particular matter, my response is no. Clearly, the ministry, as the questioner is aware, has a statutory responsibility to consult Māori.

Russell Fairbrother: Has the Government received any recommendations from the Primary Production Committee relating to the scampi inquiry?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: Yes, the select committee inquiry on scampi recommended to the Government that compensation be paid to individual identified scampi fishers. The Government accepted that advice and has instructed the Ministry of Fisheries to commence negotiations. Those negotiations are under way, and I am advised that they are being carried out with diligence and in good faith.

Gerrard Eckhoff: Does the Minister think that the allocation of scampi by the ministry was fair; if so, why, and if not, why not?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: The matters in relation to allocation have been canvassed by the select committee, of which he is a member, on two occasions. I am in receipt of further correspondence, which will be responded to in due course.

Gerrard Eckhoff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister for his opinion, not the opinion of the commission of inquiry and, indeed, the Primary Production Committee.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can ask for it, but the Minister does not have to give it in that way. He addressed the question that was asked, and he is entitled to do that. I am not judging the adequacy of the answer; I am judging the fact that an answer was given.

Phil Heatley: Why will the ministry only consult the general public over the Internet and not front up to the public because “the public have other commitments and leisure opportunities”, yet it will front up personally to Māori, or is he suggesting that Māori do not work, do not have other commitments, and do not have leisure opportunities?

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE: I believe the questioner is drawing a number of illogical conclusions. He will know from the comments made this morning at the select committee that the ministry is undertaking extensive consultation initiatives right across the whole community.

Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the amateur fishing reform Next Steps document obtained under the Official Information Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Secondary School Students—Numeracy

8. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Education: What steps is he taking to ensure that secondary school students develop critical numeracy skills?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Education): About 430 secondary school maths teachers, who teach around 10,000 year 9 and year 10 maths students, will take part in the secondary numeracy project—a $1 million professional development project to improve the quality of maths teaching. This builds on the success of the numeracy development project in primary and intermediate schools since 2000, which has benefited over 300,000 students. Research shows that our 15-year-olds are third in the OECD in numeracy skills, but at the lower end there are large numbers of students not performing so well. Our Government is determined to lift education standards so that every single student benefits, and this project will be key in delivering those goals.

Lynne Pillay: How does numeracy fit with other Government priorities in education?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: This Government is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders get a fair go. We want all students to leave school able to read and write, and with good mathematical skills. We are investing heavily in the basics of education—for example, this year $43 million in literacy initiatives alone, and over $12 million in numeracy initiatives. We have put 2,000 extra teachers in schools, over and above roll growth. Operational funding has increased by over 23 percent since 1999, which, adjusted for inflation and roll growth, amounts to an increase in real terms of over 10 percent. This Government is committed to education.

Hon Bill English: When will the Minister make publicly available nationally comparable data on numeracy for different schools, different regions, and different gender and ethnic groups?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is quite a lot of work going on at the moment developing a base for that work. I do accept that it is important for schools and for parents to see how their school works vis-à-vis other schools of the same type. It is a little bit away from the straight numeracy question, but it applies in that area as well as in some others.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Will the Minister confirm that there is a significant shortfall in the content qualifications—not pedagogical qualifications but content qualifications—held by those teaching year 9 and year 10 mathematics, not just numeracy, and what is he doing to rectify this recognised problem?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is fair to say there are some issues right through our society in mathematics, and in numeracy in particular. We saw examples of it, of course, late last year in people who were in this House. We are working hard to attract mathematics teachers. We are paying them to train, rather than having them pay to train. That is making some difference. One of our real problems, though, is that not enough of our secondary school students who go on to be teachers are those who have good mathematical skills and are confident with those skills.

Parole Act—Victims' Rights

9. STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Why did he not include any definition in the Parole Act 2002 of “due weight” in relation to victims’ rights, and how much weight does he think should be given to a victim’s wish to see justice done?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Justice): The Parole Act 2002, for the first time ever, requires that victims’ rights are upheld and that due weight is given to their submissions. Those requirements sent a clear message to the board that the victim is a key participant in the process, which was never previously the case. That does not require further legislative definition. In making an assessment about the suitability of an offender for release on parole, the board has to look at all the evidence put before it in order to ensure that the safety of the community and of the victim is not put at risk.

Stephen Franks: Has he considered whether the Parole Board should be allowed to take into account the despair and rage felt by every taxi-driver and by Mr Les Williamson last month on hearing that the criminal who stabbed him 17 times and left a carving fork embedded in his brain was to get out of prison only 6 months after getting a 4-year sentence; and why has he not brought in an amendment to oblige the board, and to permit the board, to consider such issues?

Hon PHIL GOFF: There are two Acts of Parliament that are relevant in responding to any particular offence, and, of course, I cannot comment—as the member knows—on specific cases. The first, the Sentencing Act, makes it very clear that justice needs to be done for the victim. It sets it out in three separate places: to hold the offender accountable for the harm done to the victim; to provide for the interests of the victim; and to provide reparation for the harm done. The original sentence sets out the minimum period of the sentence that should be served before parole, and the Parole Act requires that the victims be heard—which was never the case under previous Governments—and that their views be taken into account. I am proud of that legislation, as the member should be.

Darren Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House of any feedback or comments he might have received from victims’ rights groups on the changes that have been made to legislation around victims’ rights?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Yes, I have had feedback from Victim Support, and it is delighted with the greater recognition of victims’ rights. It is also delighted with the fact that, for the first time, the panel that selects members of the Parole Board includes a representative of the Victim Support organisation. Can I say finally that just last week, in a parole case that Stephen Franks was involved in, the person that heads the Sensible Sentencing Trust acknowledged that for the first time the trust was able to represent in an official capacity the rights of the victims, and it acknowledged that that was a result of the growing recognition of victims’ rights by this Government.

Richard Worth: Will the Minister categorically rule out any changes to the statutory tests in the Parole Act for the remaining period that this Government lingers in office?

Hon PHIL GOFF: This Government plans to linger in office for at least another 9 years, and the hard work put in by that member will help ensure that that occurs. I am always willing to look at how we can further enhance victims’ rights. I am looking at the moment at several things that the Parole Board could well be doing to achieve that end. I would be more than happy to consult the select committee on that, but I want to point out, finally, to that member that this Government is the only Government that has ever legislated for victims’ rights. The National Party, in many years of Government, never did a damn thing.

Hon Ken Shirley: In view of the fact that the only explanation the Minister has offered for not ending parole is costs, why will he not give greater weight to the costs that are incurred with the suffering of victims?

Hon PHIL GOFF: Every change that we have made in legislation has been designed to improve the situation of victims. What that member has never explained to the House is why his party promotes flat tax as well as promising another $7 billion, which would be the cost, over 10 years, of removing parole. Parole also allows the offender a time to adjust, under close supervision, to life back in the community, and it has been proven to lower the level of reoffending.

Stephen Franks: Does the Minister think that the victims’ rights he mentioned to the House last Thursday and again today—to be notified of hearings, to make submissions, and to know what courses the prisoner has done—are outweighed by the victims’ interests in seeing justice done and a sentence served; and when he knows that the Parole Board cannot look at the latter interest, why has he not brought in an amendment to the Parole Act to allow and require the board to respect the victims’ main interests.

Hon PHIL GOFF: At the risk of repeating myself, the Sentencing Act requires that, for the first time in the history of this Parliament, the victims’ rights to see justice done are upheld, including holding the offender to account for the harm done. The Parole Act that the member is talking about requires, again for the first time in legislation passed by this Parliament, for the victims to be notified of hearings, for their submissions to be heard—in person, if they require—and for them to be given due weight, and for the safety of the victim to be taken into account in terms of whether the offender should be released on parole. They are all firsts, and they are all enormous steps forward for victims’ rights.

Development Assistance Programme—Pacific Region

10. MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West), on behalf of Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour), to the Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance): How will recent funding announcements regarding New Zealand’s overseas development assistance help advance security in the Pacific?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Official Development Assistance)): The Government has provided an extra $14 million for development in the Pacific. Over 20 percent of that amount will support region-wide police training and conflict prevention. There is also significant funding for education in the Solomon Islands, which will help address the root causes of community instability.

Martin Gallagher: How does greater peace in the Pacific further New Zealand’s interests?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Strengthening peace in the Pacific will help those countries develop their economies and stand on their own feet. Supporting our Pacific neighbours in their domestic law enforcement can prevent violent confrontation and subsequent requests for our intervention. Having neighbours at peace and in work is of benefit to all New Zealanders.

Dail Jones: What action, if any, is the Minister proposing to take with regard to the extraordinary reports of members of Parliament from Tonga, elected by the people, recommending that aid to Tonga should be withdrawn until a full democracy is instituted in that country?

Hon MARIAN HOBBS: Of the $5.6 million allocated to Tonga, $3 million is spent at community level or in the outer islands—much of that in supplying clean water to villages. Even when Fiji was in trouble with the Commonwealth, New Zealand still supported the independent Fiji Human Rights Commission and village-based projects.

Police—Priorities

11. NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) to the Minister of Police: Is he confident that police time is well prioritised?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Minister of Police): Generally, yes.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister confirm that around 300,000 police hours are spent each year on cannabis offences, which is the equivalent of 50 front-line officers who could otherwise be investigating violent crime and property crime?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I do not know whether it has escaped the member’s attention, but cannabis is an outlawed drug in New Zealand, and police enforce it very heavily.

Nandor Tanczos: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the question was addressed. I am telling the member that.

H V Ross Robertson: What information has the Minister received regarding cannabis offences?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I am advised that cannabis offences have dropped 19.4 percent, and police operational hours around cannabis offences have fallen 18 percent, since the Labour-led Government took office in 1999. That is a tremendous result. We are on top of it.

Brian Connell: In relation to the primary question, does the Minister believe that the growing expectation on police to hand out traffic tickets, as evidenced by the New Zealand Police Statement of Intent 2004/2005, which aims to increase by 27 percent the number of tickets expected to be handed out—which is on top of the 30 percent increase from the year before—is placing an unnecessary burden on our police force and therefore diverting them from their other duties?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The police enforce all laws. Traffic laws are important, and if that member does not support that, then he should say so. The police support the road toll coming down, and it would be good if they got some support instead of whinging from the other side.

Peter Brown: In light of that answer, does the Minister believe that police time spent on traffic stops has a higher priority over fighting crime; if not, will he consider splitting the police and setting up a highway agency, as is being proposed in Britain, in order to make both traffic administration and general policing more efficient and effective?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I have to say that over the last few years the road toll has been generally coming down. The rate of crime is dropping, and there will be more good results soon. It is dropping significantly, and I cannot see the point of trying to unscramble an egg that that side over there put together.

Dr Muriel Newman: Can the Minister deny that the police are currently carrying out a phone survey of the public, asking for their opinion of the police and their attitudes towards them; and what is his response to claims that preliminary results show huge dissatisfaction?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I can tell the member that the police continually monitor their performance by talking to the public, and I would say that they are a lot more pleased with their results than that member’s party could be with its 2 percent poll rating.

Keith Locke: Will the pressure on police resources result in a ministerial policy to stop traffic-assigned police doing roadside checks for overstaying, given that this will lead to racial targeting and undermine the cooperation between migrant communities and the police needed to track down the real criminals?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: There is no such policy. The person is dreaming.

Marc Alexander: Can the Minister confirm that the number of convictions where the use of cannabis was the sole offence was down to 1,741 in 2003, and that nearly 60 percent of cases where custodial sentences result from cannabis offences include offenders who are guilty of other offences, such as violence, disorderly behaviour, and property and traffic offences; and does he agree that those people are not the complete innocents that the Green Party tries to make them out to be?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Regarding the first part of the question, I will get detailed information for the member. Regarding the second part, some of the people who use cannabis commit other crimes. It is a fact.

Mr SPEAKER: Mr Mark advised me that his supplementary question is slightly longer than usual. I have approved it.

Ron Mark: What does it say about police priorities when a dispatcher faced with a call for help from an elderly lady is unable to dispatch a unit to her, due to the fact that the one available constable is engaged in his fourth response, with one pending, despite there being seven highway patrol units in the same area, none of which the dispatcher is permitted to deploy because dispatchers have been instructed that those units are not to attend to any other incidents, including traffic accidents?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: The dispatcher needs to undergo retraining, because he or she should be sending the nearest car, be it a traffic vehicle or an ordinary police vehicle.

Nandor Tanczos: Can the Minister confirm that last year police resources were spent convicting 19 people over the age of 60 for cannabis offences, and can he tell the House how many of those were for medicinal use of cannabis?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I do not have that precise number, but I am always pleased when people breaking the law are caught.

Ron Mark: Is it appropriate prioritisation to have highway patrol, general traffic, excess blood alcohol, city traffic patrol, and commercial vehicle investigating units dedicated to ticketing only and debarred from attending traffic accidents, whilst general duties officers and incident car officers who struggle to keep up with violence and dishonesty offences are instructed not only to attend traffic accidents, but also to issue one infringement notice per hour?

Mr SPEAKER: I allowed one long question. That makes two long questions. The member is lucky today. He had better shorten them in future.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: That member has been the police spokesman for that party for a long time. He should have better knowledge and a better background, because it just simply is not true. I have instances where the highway patrol has had some very good catches—drug dealers, burglars, etc.—and it is about time that that member stopped bagging the police.

Nandor Tanczos: Given the Minister’s answer to my previous question, does he really believe that arresting elderly people for baking cannabis cookies to relieve their arthritis and insomnia is an effective deterrent to drug abuse?

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: I would have thought that member would not support that going on, because those biscuits are probably not labelled and packaged in a way that consumers can find out what they are putting into their bodies.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Press Association document dated 16 June, proving that there is a memorandum of understanding to be signed between the New Zealand Police and the Immigration Service to allow the roadside checks—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Unemployment Benefit—Youth

12. GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) to the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment: What trends have there been in the number of young people on the unemployment benefit?

Hon RICK BARKER (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am sure the House will be delighted to know that the trends are good. In May 1999, there were 15,322 18 to 19-year-olds who were unemployed. In May of this year, 5,991 people in the same age group were unemployed—a drop of over 61 percent. The same is true for young people between the ages of 20 and 24: in 1999 there were over 30,000 people in this age group who were on the unemployment benefit; in May this year, this number was down to just over 11,500, which is also a drop, of 62 percent.

Georgina Beyer: Is the Minister confident the downward trend will be continued?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes, I am. Earlier this year I asked Work and Income to develop strategies to help young New Zealanders move off the benefit and into jobs quickly. This has been done. An outstanding tool-box has been implemented in each region to provide young people with the skills and opportunities to move into permanent work. This stands in stark contrast to the 1990s, when young people were left in misery on the unemployment scrap heap. This Government is giving young people hope and opportunity for a good future.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister confirm that figures released by his office reveal that since the year 2000 the number of under-20-year-olds on the sickness benefit has increased by 34 percent, and the number of those on the invalids benefit has increased by 28 percent; and what is his explanation for the increase?

Hon RICK BARKER: I do not quite agree with the percentages. I think they are slightly less than that. I do agree that the numbers have increased, but I can tell the member that the proportion of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit is less today than it was then. We are making some progress, at least.

Judy Turner: Is the Minister disturbed that the increasing number of under-20-year-olds on sickness and invalids benefits follows a broader trend across all age groups, including a comparable 20 percent of youth claiming a benefit due to stress or depression; if so, why is the Government consigning people who should be at the height of fitness and health to a benefit before they really begin their working lives?

Hon RICK BARKER: The Government is not consigning people—as the member said—to a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. To get one of those benefits, people have to fail a medical test. What the Government is doing is enhancing its case management. We want to work with those young people, to ensure that they can overcome those issues and get productive and meaningful jobs.

Urgent Debates Declined

Home Detention—Review of Scheme

Mr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Marc Alexander seeking to debate, under Standing Order 373, an announcement that the Government is to review the home detention scheme. This is merely an announcement of review. It does not contain any substantive policy changes. In those circumstances, I do not believe there is a particular case of recent occurrence requiring the immediate attention of the House. The application is therefore declined.

Bills

Civil Union Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I will propose that this bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. At the outset, I thank my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel for all her efforts in initiating and progressing this work until I took portfolio responsibility for family law earlier this year. I also convey my thanks to the officials for their considerable work during the development of this legislation.

Providing for civil union in New Zealand will contribute to achieving the Government’s objective of creating a more positive human rights culture. Civil union provides for different-sex couples who want formal recognition of their relationship but for some reason do not wish to marry. Civil union will also address the current situation in which same-sex couples cannot receive legal recognition of their loving and committed relationships. The Civil Union Bill therefore provides a mechanism for those couples to publicly declare commitment to each other and have that commitment legally and socially recognised.

Our intention is that civil union will be a new legal entity, designed to reflect the diversity of New Zealand society and people’s personal choices about their relationships in the 21st century. This is a bill appropriate to the times, which recognises the reality of relationships instead of attempting to deny their existence. The Civil Union Bill will provide for the registration of civil unions, while the recognition of civil unions in other legislation will occur through the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which I will also introduce this afternoon.

New Zealand, which has for a long time taken a leading role in the evolution and promotion of human rights, is not alone in promoting equality of treatment for de facto and same-sex couples. During the past three decades, nations across the world have been grappling with the question of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter the institution of marriage, or be granted the various rights, benefits, and obligations that flow from marriage. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have enacted legislation that regulates the legal status of same-sex partnerships in a comprehensive manner.

In Britain, the Civil Partnership Bill, which provides for legal recognition of same-sex partnerships, was introduced on 30 March this year. Only Belgium and the Netherlands have enacted legislation opening the institution of civil marriage to same-sex couples, with the possibility that Canada may soon join them. The Government’s proposals are thus in step with the international community, and certainly not ahead. This is moderate and conservative legislation.

Through the Civil Union Bill, the Government is introducing the mechanism for couples to publicly declare commitment to each other, and have that commitment recognised legally and socially. It is also confirming that in New Zealand marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. Marriage will continue to be covered by a separate Act and recognised as a separate institution. The Civil Union Bill will not amend the Marriage Act of 1955. The social, religious, and traditional values associated with marriage will remain.

The bill sets out the requirements and processes to enter a civil union. The key points are as follows: A civil union will be registered under the law. It gives legal status to a one-to-one relationship, and will be open to different and same-sex partners. The bill includes provisions about who is able to enter into a civil union, and the formalities that are necessary. A commitment by each partner to a civil union will be made publicly in front of a registrar or celebrant. Religious denominations will decide themselves whether or not to conduct such ceremonies. Provision is made for an organisation to apply to solemnise civil unions in accordance with its beliefs and practices if these are inconsistent with the requirements of the bill. The bill provides for dissolution of civil unions under the Family Proceedings Act of 1980. Married couples will be able to convert to a civil union, and civil union couples who are otherwise able to marry will be able to convert to marriage.

Providing for conversion is about choice and making sensible laws. There are reasons why couples may wish to convert their relationship, and the law should provide for that. It would be nonsensical for a married couple to have to go through a period of separation, in order to have their relationship recognised as a civil union, just so they could take up an option that was not available to them when they married. Equally, the option should be available for a civil union couple to convert to marriage—a couple who, for example, were planning to travel to live in a country where civil union was not recognised.

This Government is committed to promoting respect for the human rights of all individuals in New Zealand society. We wish to support the choices of the one in five New Zealanders currently living in a relationship who have chosen not to marry, and who may now choose to commit to each other in a civil union. It is our belief that this legislation will create more stable relationships, not fewer.

It is simply an issue of choice. This Government is not forcing anybody to do anything. People will be able to put their own value on their relationship and decide how they want to present that to the world. There are no victims here. This is about giving some couples rights that others already have. What harm could there be in that? That, for me, is the nub of this issue. I look forward to informed discussion and debate on this important civil rights matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I have been advised by a number of parties that they will split their speeches. I have recognised all of those, and so the first call goes to Mr Gerry Brownlee.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): If this is “moderate and conservative” legislation, why has the Government not brought out the whip, showed the strength of its leadership conviction, and required all its members to vote for the Civil Union Bill? It has not done that because this is an issue that New Zealanders should be speaking on in a much wider forum than just this Parliament. If this bill does progress today, it will be by a very slim majority. I ask the Government’s subsequent speakers to explain why they have called this issue a conscience issue, while trying to promote this bill as being progressive, moderate, conservative legislation from the Labour Government.

Having said that, when I consider the position of various gay couples whom I am familiar with or know of, I have to ask myself why we would want to deny those people the right to make a commitment to one another in a legal sense. That causes the mind to range over all sorts of things, but it also causes us to ask what the general state of society today is. Members have just come through a question time where a Minister had to explain how two children in particular came to be so brutally treated by the people whom they were in the care of. I cannot help wondering whether those sorts of terrible situations are occurring with such regular occurrence in our society today partly because we have not done the work to protect families, to value families, and above all to value children. I do not think this bill does much to improve that situation.

I want to send a message—as I have previously—to that brave band of bishops in this country who are willing to storm Parliament, and particularly the Opposition, on all sorts of secular matters, but on this essentially moral issue are silent as a group. I think that if they want to leave it to politicians alone, the result will be one they are not too happy with.

The question is why one would want to recognise in law a group of people who have said for so long that they want to be recognised as different, but are now saying they want to be treated the same as other people. In my view, the sad fact is—although some will find this difficult to take—they are not the same. All the legal issues that might arise out of a commitment that two people of the same sex, in a relationship they choose, might make can be recognised and sorted out. I do not think taking the additional step of creating the option of a civil union, which to all intents and purposes is exactly the same as marriage, is acceptable. Marriage exists essentially for the protection of children, and, as I said at the start, this country is increasingly putting unacceptable pressures on children. Any measure that cheapens the environment that is best for children to grow up in shows very, very poor leadership. I will not be voting for this bill.

Mr SPEAKER: That was a split speech. I call Brian Connell.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia): This is not a civil union; this is a civil disgrace. I could not think of anything that would have done more harm to New Zealand society than legalising prostitution, but if this Civil Union Bill is passed, it will have that distinction. This bill will tear the social and moral fabric of New Zealand society asunder. Let us be clear: this bill is a calculated and carefully promoted strategy to undermine the role of marriage and families as the cornerstone of New Zealand society. It is being promoted by a few powerful Government politicians who are abusing society’s trust in them. Let us be absolutely clear: this bill is being promoted by the Government. Those members are abusing their position by foisting their type of morality on to the many.

I want topick up on a point raised by Mr Brownlee about conscience votes. I do not believe that the Labour caucus truly will have a conscience vote on this issue. What happened with the Prostitution Reform Bill tells us otherwise. Labour colleagues confided in me—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, Mr Connell; this will not come off your time. This is an important debate and a conscience debate. This is the sort of debate I want to hear, without interjection. I do not think any is necessary. I want Mr Connell to be heard.

BRIAN CONNELL: Some Labour colleagues confided in me that they had been intimidated into voting for the Prostitution Reform Bill by none other than the Prime Minister with the words: “If you don’t vote for this, you’re not going to go any further.” So why would we think that is not happening now? In any other institution, that would have been called harassment, and the full force of the law would have been brought to bear on the perpetrator.

I believe that it is probably happening again. I believe there are back-bench Labour caucus members—and probably some others—who will have the courage to stand up for their convictions, but others will vote for this bill simply because they feel intimidated. As for those who feel like sitting on the fence—like Professor Choudhary did the last time such an important issue was before the House—I am reminded of this quote: “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

What has ever happened to New Zealand society to allow this type of social re-engineering to prevail? This politically correct nonsense that preaches that homosexual and lesbian relationships are the equal to marriage, and are a satisfactory environment in which to raise kids, is an absolute disgrace. Worse, it is a disgrace that a Government in New Zealand would bring this bill forward. I for one will not stand for that, and I am asking colleagues in the House to have the courage to stand with me and vote against this bill. We need strong people who are prepared to rail against this type of nonsense. It will erode the values that New Zealand holds dear to its heart.

What this bill is doing is casualise relationships. This trend has been happening in this country for 30 years, and we can see the damage it has done to families. I ask members of the House to put self-interest aside and answer this question: is this really the type of society we want? Is this really the type of society we want for our kids? I believe that the answer is no. I am not suggesting that marriage is perfect, but as Winston Churchill simply responded when asked whether there was a better system than democracy: “It’s not perfect but I can’t think of a better one.” I cannot think of a better institution than marriage. I cannot think of a better role model for our young kids than to see mum and dad with two or three kids as the cornerstone of our society.

I again ask members in this House to put self-interest aside and stand up and be counted on what is probably the most critical issue they will decide in their term in this Parliament.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I am pleased to speak to the introduction of the Civil Union Bill, and thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that had been done prior to his very ably taking over responsibility for the bill. I too want to acknowledge those who have gone before—in particular, Russell Fairbrother, who did a lot of work on preparing a member’s bill on this subject.

The year 2004 is a significant anniversary for this Parliament. It is the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 1 February 1994. The Human Rights Act was significant for a whole range of reasons in terms of expanding human rights in this country. It applied, for the first time, non-discrimination laws to volunteers. It expanded the definition of “age”, and it applied to disability. By way of a Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Hon Katherine O’Regan, it applied to sexual orientation, and organisms in the body capable of causing disease. These measures were both conscience votes in this Parliament, were passed by this Parliament, and must be honoured by this Parliament.

Despite the wide-ranging nature of the changes, many of the over 800 submissions received on the bill focused on the subject matter of the Supplementary Order Paper, rather than the bill. The weight of evidence supported the inclusion of those grounds in our human rights laws. However, many submissions opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation on morality grounds. The dire consequences predicted by many who submitted on the bill have not come to fruition in the 10 years that have passed since the bill was enacted.

There was a provision in the legislation that is highly relevant to the debate today. It was a sunset provision. The Government of the day was given 5 years to review all existing legislation that conflicted with the Human Rights Act. The subordinate status of the Human Rights Act to all other legislation was to have lasted 5 years, and within that time the Government was to have been required to make express decisions to continue with any discrimination—if that was the intention. Unfortunately, the Government of the day allowed the situation to continue beyond the 5 years, and extensions were required by legislative follow-up in both 1999 and 2001.

The Civil Union Bill is part of a commitment this Parliament made 10 years ago. The Marriage Act allows only for a man and a woman to marry. That is discrimination. Essentially, the Civil Union Bill maintains that discrimination, but in order to meet the underlying civil right, or human right, that marriage allows only to a man and a woman, an alternative mechanism is proposed for legally recognising a relationship between couples who cannot, or for personal reasons, do not wish to, enter into marriage.

Let me say at this point—as people have said on occasions—civil union is not for me personally. For those who argue about setting aside personal interest, there is no personal interest for me to set aside. I am a very happily married woman. I am proud to refer to Rob as my husband, and to me as his wife. What I like about being married is that I have a way of explaining my relationship with Rob with a single word that requires no further explanation. The ceremony itself entailed a public statement of commitment that we made to each other, but in front of friends and family. I know it sounds old-fashioned, but it truly was the happiest day of my life.

So will the Civil Union Bill affect me personally? No, not at all. It does not undermine my commitment to Rob, or Rob’s commitment to me. If civil union had been an option when we decided to make that level of commitment, we would not have chosen it. We would still have chosen to get married. That was our choice. So how does providing choice to those who cannot, by law, choose marriage, affect me or anyone else who chooses marriage? It does not.

If two people want a mechanism to have the State recognise their public declaration of love for each other, their commitment to fidelity and support for each other, how does the strengthening of the support for that relationship diminish the strength of another relationship? It does not. Does it undermine marriage? There are those, including me, who believe it gives strength to the principles of marriage—love, honour, respect, fidelity, and lifelong support. People can already live together in a de facto relationship without any public declaration of those commitments.

I guess the question that can be asked is does the relationship change after making those commitments? I used to think not. However, my experience says it does. It will not save a failing relationship. Marrying somebody in order to save the relationship will not save it. However, I believe it strengthens a committed relationship, because the public ceremony is the calling upon of friends and family to support the couple in meeting the declarations and commitments they have made to each other. To offer this opportunity to other couples denied marriage must be a societal benefit.

I noticed a news report in the Dominion Post yesterday whereby the survivor of a same-sex relationship secured through the House of Lords the same legal rights as a married couple, even though the rights were expressed in the Rent Act as applying to those living together as “his or her wife or husband”. Baroness Hale said in the leading judgment: “Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability, and interdependence that heterosexuals do. The guarantee of equal treatment is essential to democracy. A homosexual couple, as much as a heterosexual couple, share each other’s lives and make their home together. There is no rational or fair ground for distinguishing one couple from the other in that context.”

Those comments are just as relevant to this bill as they will be to the next bill on the Order Paper. This bill, at its heart, is about human and civil rights. The guarantee of equal treatment is, to quote Baroness Hale, “essential to democracy.” Ten years ago, this Parliament extended the grounds in our Human Rights Act to sexual orientation. If we as a Parliament make no provision for the State to recognise such relationships legally, we will not be meeting our obligations under the law.

This bill is designed to uphold human rights. That is what it is all about. The fact that it provides a choice for gay men and lesbians to have their committed relationships recognised by the State does not increase the prevalence of homosexuality any more than the Human Rights Act did, despite its outlawing of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That was one of the dire warnings the select committee heard back in 1993. It simply has not come to pass. This bill is about human rights.

I am on the Justice and Electoral Committee that will be considering the bill. I look forward to scrutinising this bill and making any necessary changes. I look forward to both reading and hearing submissions from people who are committed to New Zealand’s human rights, and reporting back to the House so that this bill can become law, in this, the 10th anniversary year of the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act.

Mr SPEAKER: Before Mr Brown starts his speech, I am advised that there will be two 5-minute speeches.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): That was one of the best speeches I have heard the former Minister make, but she has got it all wrong. She made a good speech, but the facts were wrong. I suggest to the House and to the former Minister that when MPs voted some 11 years ago for the human rights legislation that she referred to, not many of them thought that in a very short space of time we would be trying to legalise a de facto type of marriage by passing a Civil Union Bill. I do not think that would have been at the back of their minds, at all. By passing this bill we will be one step closer to allowing gay people—gay males in particular—to adopt children. I cannot go along with that, at all. That is experimenting with children to the worst degree.[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I will only ever warn a person in the gallery once. Anyone who makes a noise who is not a member of Parliament will be leaving this gallery immediately. This is a serious debate, and the gallery, as part of the democratic process, is allowed to participate in listening. The only people who participate in the debate are those who are speaking, and members of Parliament.

PETER BROWN: This is a very contentious issue. I do not think I have had more correspondence on any other issue. The vast majority of the correspondence, the email and faxes that have come to my office, tell me that I should not support this bill. New Zealanders out there are worried about the effects of this bill. They see it as undermining marriage, and that is a concern that I have. We here in this Parliament represent people. We are not dictators to tell them what they should have and what they should not have. If the Government is so determined to pass this legislation, then why will it not put it to public referendum? Why will the Government not ask New Zealanders what they want? Why does the Government just want to impose another set of values on ordinary New Zealanders out there, who, I would suggest, in the main do not want anything to do with this? By a public referendum, I mean something similar to that conducted when the New Zealand First - National coalition Government wanted superannuation. We had a campaign to educate people what it was all about; we then asked them: “What do you think?”. We know the answer there, and I would say the answer on this issue would be about the same level percentage—that is 90-odd percent no. New Zealanders are not ready for this. If they have to be ready for it eventually, they are not ready for it now.

Marriages and families are exceedingly important to this society. It disappoints me, and my colleagues in New Zealand First, that the definition of a family in the Families Commission Act is so liberalised. To my mind this is a flow-on effect from that type of liberalisation. By and large, New Zealanders are conservative. They are fair-minded and conservative, and they do not buy into this sort of legislation. Almost without exception every average New Zealander I have spoken to on this legislation has said: “Please vote against it. Please honour my wishes. Please recognise that you are here to represent me, not to impose what you personally feel in terms of this type of contentious legislation. Please do your job properly.”

I say to this House that if there were to be a referendum at the end of this, and if New Zealanders had the final say, then I think there are MPs in this House who would think differently about our opposition. If we knew that New Zealanders were to have a say in the final process, we might be a little bit accommodating in supporting such legislation. But we were given a firm no. I put a question to the Minister only this afternoon and he admitted that this was a contentious issue, but he said the process would be decided by select committee. That is not good enough on this sort of thing. This is not good enough, at all. If we really wanted to improve things in this country, we would be educating parents, because parenting is becoming an increasingly challenging task in this day and age. We would be providing assistance to parents and giving them some guidance in bringing up children.

Children are the future of this country. Young people represent what this country will be in years to come. We should be putting maximum emphasis on educating parents so they can bring up their children in a safe and fair manner. This sort of Civil Union Bill should be thrown where it belongs, on the scrap heap.

BILL GUDGEON (NZ First): Kia ora tātou e huihui mai nei i roto i tēnei Whare. Greetings to all who are gathered here this afternoon. I will be straight; this bill is an abomination to all mankind. What is the percentage of New Zealand’s population that is against this bill, and how many are for the bill? Has it ever dawned on the perpetrators of this bill that there is a right and a wrong in this world? Does it ever dawn in the minds of those who wish to pass this bill that the family is made up of mother, father, and the children whom they have through the sacred ordinance of marriage? This is not about rights. This is about marriage between husband and wife, man and woman, and not those of the same gender. The word “despicable” is mild in comparison with other descriptions that have come to my notice.

When will this Parliament realise that in this bill the beginning of a very deep decaying process is being set in place for future generations? If this bill is passed, today is a day that will dawn in our history as a day that in conjunction with the prostitution reform legislation is an indictment on the people who wish to lower our standards.

In conclusion, I honour the members of this House who will vote against this bill, and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, because they are all part and parcel of the same deal. We will be recipients of good social management, and likewise recipients of those that are negative, if the bill goes ahead.

We can talk about the rights of those who desire that lifestyle, but to make it into law will have serious repercussions for future generations of families. I recommend very, very strongly that this bill not be recommended to the House. I look at the concept of whānau and the social structure of Māoridom, the collective, made up of mother, father, children, and grandchildren, and then listen to all the Acts that have been passed, or were supposed to have been passed. Does that still make this bill right? In the eyes of the majority of New Zealanders it is wrong—simple. It is spelt “w r o n g”.

We seem to have fiddled around with Acts and laws to cover up those things that are wrong. Now, what do we have today? One in five New Zealanders wants this bill, according to the statistics, and the majority is being ignored. This will be remembered by the people when the next election comes around. This is what will happen. If we want to live in a society that will have this kind of standard, I think we will have to uproot and move to Australia. It might be a little better there. But let me remind us as parliamentarians that there is no place in family society for a bill such as this. In case members have forgotten, the family is made up of mother and father, and the children they produce through that marriage, in all sanctity.

METIRIA TUREI (Green): The Green Party is very proud to support the Civil Union Bill at its first reading. The Greens have had a longstanding sexual orientation policy that gay, lesbian, and heterosexual partnerships are equally entitled to respect and support, and therefore we support the extension of legal partnership arrangements and rights to same-sex couples. The Civil Union Bill is merely one form by which that extension can occur.

The Civil Union Bill sets out the process by which different-sex and same-sex couples can formally solemnise their relationship in law and be entitled to the same legal rights and obligations as those who are married. It reduces any discrimination against couples because of their sexual orientation.

Marriage as understood in our society, and as formalised in law, is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. Contrary to the beliefs of some, this institution is not universal but stems out of a particular Christian tradition. That is nothing to be ashamed of. I encourage those who try to claim that marriage is universal to embrace the particular historical and cultural tradition from which marriage was born.

Prior to the colonisation of this country, marriage in this tradition was not the institution that existed here in our country, Aotearoa. Rather, personal loving relationships between adults were formalised and validated in other ways, by other processes culturally appropriate to the whānau and hapū. Legislation made some changes to that process. The Native Land Act 1909 declared Māori customary marriages to be valid for some purposes only, and required Māori to undergo legal marriage ceremonies. Prior to 1911, only marriages between Māori and Europeans were required to be officially registered. Among Māori, customary marriage practices continued and were common, and were to some extent recognised by the State until 1952, but thereafter only marriages registered and conducted by a State-licensed marriage celebrant were deemed legitimate.

In New Zealand, as a result of colonisation, the institution of a Western system of marriage was introduced and other traditional forms of validating and recognising relationships were sadly lost. Since that time the institution of marriage has become the sole means by which this society recognises these kinds of personal relationships. But not everyone in our community wants to participate in that institution. Couples who choose not to marry have developed other means to solemnise their relationships, to make public declarations of their love and commitment to each other. None the less, law has built up over time around the institution of marriage, and we are now in a legal situation where only those who are married can access a significant body of legal rights and responsibilities. But what is the important value here—the institution that derives from a particular culture and history, or the validation of stable and committed personal relationships to which the law applies equally?

Over time, legislation has developed to recognise, in some circumstances, different kinds of relationships—most commonly de facto relationships, and more recently there has been some recognition of same-sex relationships. But this development has been piecemeal and has not addressed the principle that the law should apply equally to those who choose to formalise their personal relationship, whether by the institution of marriage or in some other form. We finally have in the House legislation that enables couples who are in a committed, stable, and exclusive relationship to have a choice as to the means by which they formalise their relationship, so that they can have access to the law. It is a mark of a mature and tolerant community. The Greens are very pleased that the civil union process will be accessible by both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples. For both these groups, exclusion from some legal rights causes considerable distress and difficulty, for no good reason.

One example is that de facto couples cannot ensure they are able to be buried together, because the Burial and Cremation Act overrides any personal agreement or contract between de facto people. This causes extraordinary hardship in times of crisis, for no reason other than a historical discriminatory anomaly that has no application in a modern, tolerant, and diverse society.

For same-sex couples there is the very serious problem that a person’s partner is not considered in law as the next of kin. Where, for example, significant medical issues arise for this couple, often in very stressful situations, the same-sex partner, no matter how long the couple have been together or how stable their relationship, is not entitled to make the very serious decisions necessary in those circumstances.

The issue of next of kin is not, however, a problem simply for same-sex couples. Many unmarried people would welcome the opportunity to identify a particular trusted person to exercise that special responsibility. The Greens would support an additional simple next of kin register that would enable any person to identify a particular person as his or her next of kin.

I have received some terribly violent and vicious mail from those who oppose this bill. There has been some extraordinary vitriol levelled at gay and lesbian people and couples, and I am sad that much of this has come from a minority of Christians. Where is the compassion of Christ?

Others have tried to explain how the bill will undermine the institution of marriage. I have not found any single compelling argument as to how allowing some to solemnise their relationship through a civil union, which then entitles them to recognition under the law, will undermine the institution of marriage. This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure, the validity, of the institution of marriage. Those who consider marriage a divine responsibility of God will know that human law cannot disturb divine law, so therefore nothing that we do in this Chamber will undermine the divinity of marriage.

Those who argue that stable and committed relationships form the fundamental basis of a good society should welcome this bill as supporting and identifying in law an even greater number of stable, committed, and exclusive relationships with legal rights and responsibilities. It is miraculous that there are so many stable, committed, same-sex relationships when our law provides such little support for them.

The news is not all bad. I have received some fantastic supportive mail on this issue from people from a variety of relationships. It has been really heartening to know just how tolerant and accepting New Zealanders from all sorts of religious denominations and other sectors in our society really are.

In the end, despite the vitriol that comes out of both the public and this Chamber, it is important that we do not get too precious about this issue. Marriage is an important institution in our country, revered by some and practised by many New Zealanders, including myself, for a variety of practical and at times religious reasons. But despite the technicalities of law and the moral imperatives of religion, relationships, whether marriage, de facto, heterosexual, or homosexual, in the end are matters of the heart, driven at worst by fear or resignation, at best by passion, commitment, respect, and love.

Our personal choices as to whom we will love and commit to should be subject to no judgment but our own. The Civil Union Bill simply applies the law equally to all couples without judgment or favour. It is time that in our country the law recognised how our society is changing, and that our law reflected people’s lives in the 21st century. The Green Party of Aotearoa urges all members of this House to vote for equality before the law for all New Zealand citizens.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT): As the vote on this bill is a so-called conscience vote, I rise to explain my personal reasons for the vote I will cast today. But the time that I am given for this speech is time allocated to the ACT party, so I also owe it to my colleagues, and to the thousands of thoughtful New Zealanders who are worrying today, to set out some of the things that are in the minds of my fellow ACT MPs. We have discussed this bill. Some of us will weigh some issues more than others. But each of us will vote according to what we believe is best for New Zealand.

It has fallen to me to speak because I have done, before any of my colleagues, something that I wager has probably still not been done by most of the members present in the House. That is, I have read the actual words of the law, or of the bill. I did that because it is what I always do. I refuse to come to any conclusion on a bill until I can judge what the words will mean in their practical application. We will see and hear—and we have already seen and heard—slogans, hysterical claims, and noble statements of intention, none of which may have any effect in law. The law is what the words in the legislation state. Until 4 days ago those words had been available to only the tight inner circle of the Prime Minister’s chums, who are indifferent to marriage or do not want it, and to their ineffectual allies in United Future.

What did I find then when I read the bill? I found the Marriage Act. The bill is a copy of the Marriage Act, with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced by the words “civil union”. Of course, there are one or two trivial drafting upgrades—the kinds of parliamentary fashion changes that are no more important than whether trousers will have cuffs on them this year. This bill is a transparent, cute trick. Accordingly, although I will support its referral to the select committee, I confidently expect to vote against it when it re-emerges from the committee. I believe that some of my colleagues who also want to see it go to the select committee will share that pessimism, for similar reasons. We will vote to send it to the select committee because that is also an opportunity—it is a chance to force a thorough review to be undertaken of the law affecting healthy families.

It could be that the bill is a nail in the coffin of our family structure, or it could be that it is simply a reflection of a change whose time is due. But whatever it is, it needs a thorough airing. If there is genuine open-mindedness on the part of the Government promoters of this bill, there is a possibility that I could vote for the bill that will emerge from the select committee. The select committee will have to re-examine the product of three decades of political correctness, clerical cowardliness, left-wing feminism, male selfishness, and widespread opportunism. Together, they have done grave damage to thousands of our families and their children. But if the select committee is willing, we could use this bill to start to rebuild a marriage law that is worthy of the name. If we do not do that, I will not be party to it.

Secrecy was the first ominous sign of legislative dishonesty in this case. A bill that is as simple as this one could have been around months ago. The bill would not have been kept under tight wraps, and preceded by as many months as it has of hints, public relations summaries, and earnest lobbying without any test, had the Government not felt it needed the momentum of a wave of emotion before any non-believer was able to analyse the words objectively. The Government must have wanted to drown the sober questions of people who try to decide on matters on the basis of substance instead of slogans. Marriage is already a civil union as far as New Zealand law is concerned; it has been a civil union throughout our entire living memory. Registry office weddings have been part of our law for so long they are folklore, and for generations the sacramental nature and the social and psychological power of marriage has rested entirely on voluntary ceremonies and sanctions. Those voluntary ceremonies and sanctions have had next to nothing to do with our law.

Why, then, does this bill repeat the Marriage Act but with a different label? The reason is very simple: to avoid passing an amendment of three words, which would simply remove the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman. That is why the Prime Minister has said, in effect, “Marriage, ‘schmarraige’; I’d rather have a civil union.”, when she knows she already has one. It is simple. The Prime Minister and her Government are pretending there is a difference between a marriage and a civil union in order to disguise the sole true purpose of this bill—namely, to allow gay marriage. The question is whether admitting gays would mean the death of marriage. I doubt whether it would.

Legally, of course, the bill will not change any rules, benefits, or burdens of marriage. It will just allow more people to share in those benefits. It is not irrelevant that more people would be let into the club. There are lots of important institutions that can be judged only when we know whom they exclude. For example, we know the value of a knighthood only by knowing who is excluded from receiving one, and the value of a general’s baton by knowing how many batons are dished out.

But I am not going to dwell on or prejudge the issue. I want to do what any thoughtful Government, any responsible Minister of social development, any caring cleric, or any earnest reformer should have done. I want to explore what this bill should be doing. It should be rebuilding marriage. Marriage cannot be destroyed by this bill, because in legal terms it has already been trashed. The argument over this bill is like kids fighting over the silver chocolate wrapping after the chocolate is gone. It is choice that lies at the core of marriage—the choice to make a set of promises. But marriage has been trashed because the State has emptied it of all meaning. It has done that by making those promises empty. There are no consequences for a breach of those promises, even for the most cold-blooded breach.

The legal destruction came in four stages—five, I think. The first was no-fault divorce. Of course, that was well meaning; I thought it was a great idea. Secondly, we have a welfare system that makes it financially better to seem single than married. That makes mugs out of honest couples who believe they should only incur responsibilities when they are prepared to meet them themselves. Thirdly, the Matrimonial Property Act—replaced by the Property (Relationships) Act—insisted on no-fault property sharing, and I think that was far more important than we ever imagined at the time. Fourthly, when anti-discrimination law prevented any preference for or practical honouring of marriage, it eliminated the normal social and cultural reinforcements that penalise those who spurn marriage obligations and favour those who do not. Fifthly, 2 years ago the Hon Margaret Wilson made the distinctiveness of marriage into a mockery by imposing its property-sharing consequences on any couple who live together, even when they have explicitly chosen not to marry.

The failure to respect marriage, that ideological pride in simply decreeing changes in our fundamental social contract, is not confined to one party. I do not even lay the blame entirely at the feet of politicians. Those who should have guarded the institution of marriage have been caught up in fashion. We have all seen that at select committee hearings. We have probably been faintly embarrassed on behalf of the representatives of the decaying churches, who come along with their obsequious moral relativism, being so terribly non-judgemental, and who are clothed with the cant of “inclusiveness”, “reaching out”, and so forth. Meanwhile, the treasures that they should be guarding are washing away. I look at them as I would at Jane Austen’s Mr Collins. Members may remember that he praised Lady Catherine de Bourgh all the time, in the hope that he would be included and not thought of as a fuddy-duddy. At least we know what the Bible Christians are trying to say, and at least they stand for something.

Similarly, I respect the candour of the gay activists, who make no secret of what they want. They want civil union or marriage as a sign that the State, on behalf of the people, approves of their way of life, and the honest ones do not clothe that in an unctuous pretence that registration will somehow transform a liaison into a secure partnership. They welcome a debate that is honest—a debate over gay marriage, not this “civil union” euphemism. I believe we will have that more honest debate in the select committee. I believe that there is a prospect that we will come out of it with strengthened institutions.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): Today is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when the decision we make is the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole, and not just of the Government of the day. Every single one of us will make a judgment at the end of this debate about the way we will vote and the reasons for that vote. For my part, my colleagues in United Future have treated this issue as one on which we have made individual decisions. We happen to have decided individually that we will vote against the bill, probably for eight different sets of reasons. In the time available to me this afternoon, I want to outline my reasons for opposing this bill, and why I for one do not believe it ought to proceed any further. For me, this is not a moral or a religious issue but is an issue about what is in the best interests of our society as a whole.

I start, personally, from the premise that the nature of people’s relationships is actually their own business, and that relationships are not strengthened or weakened by the possession of a certificate or a piece of paper. The only reason that we have a Marriage Act as a civil institution is the so-called consanguinity—in this bill we use the phrase “prohibited degrees”—option. In other words, as an earlier speaker said, we recognise that one of the products of the union we know as marriage is often children, and that we need to put in place protections for those children in terms of their genetic strength, to put it bluntly. That is the only reason I can see why the State ought to be involved in sanctioning a person’s choice. I start from the position that where there are discriminations or limitations on people’s ability to live their lives freely and openly, we ought to deal with those. I have heard and dealt with many sad and tragic cases over the years, where issues such as next-of-kin status have arisen, and the rights to be with a loved one in his or her last stages of life in a hospital, to be buried together, to make other financial and insurance arrangements, and so on and so forth have been denied people. I am strongly in favour of the elimination of those discriminations.

But here is where, for me, the rub comes: I do not believe that the Civil Union Bill is either honest or necessary. It is not honest because it purports to import into people’s lives a state that cannot be achieved. I have listened to various advocates of the bill over recent times say that it confers rights and entitlements upon people. The bill—and Mr Franks was quite right when he said it is the Marriage Act with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced with the words “civil union”—merely sets up a process by which a civil union can be entered into and established. It does not confer any new or additional rights on anybody. We have even had confirmation that if this bill does not go any further, then the issue of the rights that are the cause of concern is dealt with in the second bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, which we will debate after this one. So I say this bill is dishonest because it purports to create something that is, in fact, not there. The rights that people clamour for and seek to have recognised are not adjusted in any way by this legislation, and that is why it is unnecessary.

The bill is unnecessary because if one thinks about the types of people who are likely to benefit from it, one draws some very quick conclusions. According to the last census in New Zealand, there are approximately 1.3 million New Zealanders who are married. Just over 300,000 New Zealanders are living together in a relationship akin to marriage, but are not married to each other, and about 10,000 New Zealanders are in same-sex relationships. If one then starts to think about what is in it for each of those groups, the following conclusions can be drawn. There is not much in it for married couples. The 300,000 people who have chosen not to enter into a civil form of marriage, as they can today, are probably in the main unlikely to choose to enter into a civil union. After all, if they had wanted to have their relationship recognised, codified, and solemnised without the religious overtones, they could have done so already. So then we come back to the question of the 10,000 or so New Zealanders in same-sex relationships. We have been told by the proponents of the bill that it is not about same-sex marriage, and that marriage will continue to be available only for a man and a woman. Yet we have a bill that legislates for something that looks like marriage, walks like marriage, talks like marriage, and sounds like marriage, but is called a civil union. I think that that is far too clever, by half.

What we are doing is establishing a parallel form of marriage, even though the proponents of the bill say that is not what is intended and that marriage will be only available for a man and a woman in the future. If that is so, let them answer this question: if we are talking about two completely distinct and separate institutions, where ne’er the twain shall meet, why is there a provision in this bill that states a civil union can be traded in for a marriage, and a marriage can be traded in for a civil union? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are setting up a separate, distinct institution that is completely different from marriage, while at the same time saying that people can go along to the registrar and have that separate and completely distinct institution that is not related to marriage turned into a marriage—and then say that we are keeping the two separate. That is a logical inconsistency, to put it at its most charitable.

Over the last few months many New Zealanders have expressed their views on this matter. They have been divided right down the middle between those who favour the idea of a civil union because they want to see the rights issues resolved, and those who oppose it. If this bill goes no further and the second bill—which I give notice I will be voting for—does proceed, then those matters will be resolved to their satisfaction. Nothing will change as a consequence of the proceeding forward or the defeat of the Civil Unions Bill. It is therefore irrelevant, which brings me back to my point about the fundamental lack of necessity for it and its dishonesty. I think we owe it to our people to be honest, to be straightforward, and to make decisions that we consider to be in their best interest and to deal with the issues of concern. This bill, because of its limited nature and the inconsistencies within it, will not achieve that objective, and that is why I will vote against it.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): I rise to support the Civil Union Bill before the House this afternoon. I care deeply about this bill. My colleagues and I have fought long and hard for it to appear in this Parliament, and I am delighted that after decades of trying it is finally here. This bill and its companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, will give my partner, Peter—who is here today in the gallery—and I, alongside thousands of other New Zealanders, gay and straight, an opportunity publicly to register our relationship and to obtain proper legal protection for our rights.

For Peter and I that opportunity comes for the first time after 31 years together. My partner and I met in 1973 when we were both students. At the end of that year we travelled to Europe together and we have not been separated since. Everything we have done in life we have shared together, from farming to involvement in politics. Peter has been my support and my motivation. He is currently secretary of the Parliamentary Spouses Association. Many members of this House know him well, including a number who will be voting against this bill this afternoon. We share the parenting of three children. He has a son aged 13, and I have a 14-year-old daughter and a 9-year-old son. We love our children very much. We watch over them, nurture them, and educate them in the same way that good parents try to do all over New Zealand.

In every respect our relationship is fundamentally the same as the many thousands of long-standing marriages shared by New Zealanders everywhere, with one critical difference: one of us is the wrong gender. That fact has required us to fight for every shred of validity that our relationship now has. That fact has required us to be wary of prejudice all our lives. That fact has prevented us from ever being able to swear a commitment to each other that is recognised by the State.

Some in this House have questioned how much this issue really matters. After all, we can still have our relationship. I ask them whether they remember their wedding day. Do they hang a photo of the event on the wall? Do they celebrate each anniversary? Perhaps a person understands how much those small opportunities mean only when they do not exist—when everyone else has them but not oneself.

The irony is that this bill does not allow couples like Peter and I to marry. I am often asked whether I am comfortable with this—and, actually, I am. I accept that marriage has a traditional and religious heritage, which is why our churches are so protective of it. I recognise that those churches often cannot include same-sex couples in their world view. Therefore, I accept that it could be difficult for the State to apply the institution of marriage to same-sex couples until the majority of our religions have done so. Having said that, I utterly reject the idea that the State cannot create an alternative way of recognising couples—be they straight or gay—like Peter and I who wish to make a different, public, legal expression of their relationship.

That is what the Civil Union Bill does. It does it in such a way that it gives same-sex couples like us a fair go for the first time, and gives opposite-sex couples a choice for the first time. The bill will not undermine marriage. I do not believe the institution of marriage is so fragile that it cannot withstand justice for some and choice for others. It seems to me that a couple that actively choose marriage over a civil union as the legal expression of their relationship has enhanced the institution of marriage, not devalued it.

Over the past couple of months I have been bombarded by people claiming that marriage between a man and a woman is the only appropriate environment for children to grow up in. I utterly reject the notion that my family is less valid than anyone else’s. My children have two fathers and two mothers. I utterly reject the suggestion that the State should discriminate against my relationship, my family, and my children, because it suits someone else’s personal morality for it to do so. How do I explain that situation to my children, or to anyone else’s children? Do I explain to them that we live in a country where the law says that it does not matter whether one has a good or bad relationship, and it does not matter whether one is a good or bad parent—it just matters that one marries someone of the opposite sex? I could never do that, and I never will. My children know, by personal experience, that it does not matter what gender the people in a relationship are. What matters is that those people are truthful and loyal, and love and care for their children and for each other. That is the foundation of a just, compassionate, and mature society. That is the kind of New Zealand I am working for.

This bill takes us a little closer to it, so it has my full support. I urge members to put aside the politics of this, to consider the justice of this issue, and to support the Civil Union Bill.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): First of all, I would like to acknowledge that members in this House are showing each other a great deal of respect in this debate. It is a debate that people feel very emotional and passionate about, and I hope that this approach continues for as long as this bill continues through the House.

I will be voting for this bill out of the strength of my convictions, and for that reason I am voting for the first reading of the Civil Union Bill. This bill harms no one, but because it is so important to a large number of people in our community I think it should progress.

Some people have claimed that this bill demeans marriage, and I invite those people to tell me how this manifests in a tangible way; how, in their marriages and in their everyday lives, the passage of this bill will affect their relationships with their partner, their husband, their wife, and their children. The strength of my relationship with my partner is not determined by the status of other people’s relationships. When I consider pledging my trust, my commitment, my loyalty, and my love to my partner, I do not consider other people’s relationships with their partners as part of that. This bill, if it goes through, will not make a blind bit of difference to my family. Our lives will go on as per usual. Again, I challenge opponents of this bill to tell me exactly how this bill, if it becomes an Act, will adversely affect their families, other than in their own minds.

People have written to me to ask what they should tell their children. If they tell their children that marriage is now demeaned, and if they tell their children that the Civil Union Bill means their marriage is less important or has less status, then that will be a self-fulfilling prophesy. I suggest that opponents of this bill go back to their families and remind them that they love them, and that whatever other people do in New Zealand—whatever other kinds of relationships they have—has no bearing on the importance of their relationship or their relationship within their families and with their children.

This raises an interesting point. According to the Maxim Institute, which, frankly, I think ranks somewhere below the Flat Earth Society, marriage is not about whether one loves somebody. Well, I do not think that statement will enhance anyone’s view of marriage. Marriage is not an employment contract. If that is the vision of opponents of this bill, then I tell them to look no further than their own backyard if they are worried that marriage will become less popular. In light of this view that marriage has always been just about duty and tradition, and not primarily about love, I would say that marriage probably has changed. I think that if we asked New Zealanders, if we asked married couples, what is the fundamental basis for marriage—what is the most important thing—they would say love. If marriage has changed because it is now based on love, then I believe that is a positive thing. Marriage is more than a package of legal rights. If we just had to fill out a form and send it off, and we got back in the mail a certificate that said we were now married, I do not think as many people would marry. It is about a celebration: a celebration of one’s relationship, and a celebration of love.

Like Mr Carter, I appreciate that some churches may not want, or may not feel ready, to include that as part of their services, and that is why I support the Civil Union Bill. A lot of my friends are in de facto relationships. Most expect to marry, but some absolutely do not want to. Their reasons are many and varied, and I suggest that they go far further than what this House and past Parliaments have done. But some have indicated to me that they would consider a civil union. I have received correspondence from many in the same position.

I believe that this bill is a positive step. Monogamy is important. Marriage is important, but only if it involves commitment and only if it is monogamous. I believe extramarital affairs to be far more demeaning to marriage and far more destructive to families than our allowing people who love each other to engage in a civil union.

Opponents of this bill are asking me to look one of my best friends in the face—a friend who is like a brother to me, who came out in his 20s, and who has been in a committed and loving relationship with a fantastic guy for nearly 6 years—and tell him that his relationship is not worthy of legal and social recognition, and that it is less valid than my own relationship with my partner. I will not do that. Marriage and civil union are not the same. One has behind it thousands of years of interesting tradition and history; the other’s history begins here today. In that light, I record my support for the Civil Union Bill.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon): I rise to speak against the Civil Union Bill—not because of any sort of homophobic views, not because I do not recognise the relationship that Mr Carter and his spouse have, and not because I do not wish to see gay marriage, but because I believe that the bill as presented to us today is a travesty of the truth. We have been told by supporters of the bill that it is not about creating marriage, but everything in it is about creating a parallel form of marriage. Civil unions will be registered under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act—not the “Births, Deaths, Marriages and Civil Unions Act”. It is marriage by another name. People who want to join in a civil union will have to get a licence from the Births, Deaths and Marriages registry.

We have been told that it will not be a marriage, because it does not use the word “marriage”. If the proponents of the bill think marriage is simply a word, then they do not know a thing about marriage. The previous speaker said that marriage is about love. It is actually about a lot more than love; it is about commitment. That commitment goes through years and years, even stages when couples do not love each other very much at all, but they are there because of a commitment. What often happens is that they come back to loving each other because of that commitment.

We have been told that civil union will not be a religious ceremony, yet in the last few days we have seen that there are churches that will be quite happy to have civil unions celebrated within them. We have been told that marriage has a religious connotation. My husband and I were married in a non-religious civil service almost 20 years ago. My parents were married in a non-religious civil service in 1941, and the marriage dissolved only on the death of my father 52 years later. Marriage is not a religious ceremony or a religious institution; in this country, it is a civil institution, and we are quite happy for people who wish to have that civil institution recognised in a church to do so. Many religious organisations will help them do that in places other than churches.

The argument against marriage, or for civil union, on the basis of religion is fallacious—in fact, it is downright wrong. The statement the Green member made about marriage being a Christian institution is quite wrong and culturally insensitive in the extreme—which is surprising for the Greens. I am sure that people of the Muslim persuasion would be shocked to hear that their marriages are simply Christian relationships.

Who would we be passing the Civil Union Bill for? I had a look at the census statistics for 2001, because I know it is not for heterosexual couples. That is one of the things I want to say about the bill—it is the “Gay Marriage Bill”, and it is about time we acknowledged that. I personally am not particularly opposed to or for gay marriage. I am happy to debate it, and I am happy to do so from a position of honesty that that is what we are talking about. I have said to the proposers of the bill that if they want to talk about gay marriage, I am happy to talk to them about it, and happy to listen, but the civil union nonsense that is being dreamed up as some sort of de facto marriage for gay couples is wrong.

If this bill is passed in its current form, we will be back in the House in 2 or 3 years’ time looking at the “Gay Marriage Bill”, because this bill is a sop to gay couples, in which they are being told that they can have second best. That is not good enough. Either people are entitled to look at themselves as married, and to get married, or they are not—not some halfway house, which in the meantime demeans marriage for those people who do believe in it.

Is this a human rights issue? I looked at it, because I wondered how many people we would be looking at here. The census figures stated that 0.3 percent of adults in New Zealand say they live in a same-sex relationship—not a very large portion of the population—as opposed to the more than 45 percent of adult New Zealanders who are married. So why would we be looking at this as a human rights issue? Look, if civil union were a human rights issue, I would be the first one in there championing the cause, but I do not think it is. Nor do I think that marriage is a human rights issue, because the moment it is, then so is polygamy. Why is the House not pushing a bill along to the select committee today celebrating polygamy?

We have heard from a speaker before who said that a marriage should be between two people. Well, why? We know that in our culture marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been defined and used over many, many years—well before there was a State, a Crown, or the Christian religion. So why do we not have polygamy? The Ministry of Women’s Affairs put out a discussion paper last year—and one knows how its discussion papers end up in Government policy—suggesting that we should be recognising polygamy on the basis of cultural sensitivity. Well, what about the cultural sensitivity of New Zealanders?

Marriage is an institution that requires a great deal of commitment and, with the no-fault divorce laws we have these days, far more commitment than ever before. There is also a public policy issue here. While I am on the issue of human rights, why is it not a human rights issue that so many Māori women are not allowed to speak on marae in this country? What has happened in this country is that anything that is flavour of the month becomes a human rights issue.

What about the harm to marriage? We are told by some people that this bill will not affect marriage. If two lots of currency are put into a country, there will be a change or some effect. When the euro went into Italy, the lira suddenly became unpopular with young people. If this bill goes through, civil union will become the new thing for young people. It will replace marriage. In 20 years’ time, the only people who will be married will be old fogies like myself and my husband. Members have already heard from the young Labour member who said that some of her friends were thinking about a civil union. That is what will happen.

I do not think there is a tremendous amount wrong with marriage, and that is one of the reasons I would be willing to look at how marriage could be extended to other than heterosexual couples. I am not saying that I necessarily support it, but I am happy to look at it. But I cannot support this bill. It is a dishonest bill. It is not about truth; it is about the manipulation of words, and the people of New Zealand will not be fooled by this nonsense.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I am who I am, as we all are in this House. Each of the 120 members of Parliament here is heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. I did not choose my sexuality; no one does. It was in me from when the genetic strands started to gather in my mother’s womb. I spent my teenage-hood in trauma, not understanding why I was not driven by what drove and excited most of the boys I knew. I was 21 before I met someone who described himself as gay. I was 24 before I came out to myself. As the mist lifted, I told person after person about my new discovery, with what Paul Adams might recognise as evangelical zeal.

Back in 1986, this House recognised that homosexuality was a reality when it decriminalised gay sex. In 1993 it banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But laws can do only so much. Some in society see homosexuals as a threat to be resisted. If they are physically rather than mentally strong, they attack us. In hate crimes, they target our mouths, our genitals, and our anuses—symbols, they believe, of our sexuality. Those who have the power freeze us out of jobs. Many tell lies about us: that we attack young boys, that we are poor parents, and that we are incapable of a monogamous, one-to-one relationship. Anyone who denies the reality among New Zealanders of hatred based on homosexuality need only read a handful of the emails that we have all received in the past few days. That hate hurts. It costs lives. And what else explains the suicide attempt rate among young lesbians and gay men—six times that of other young people?

So how is the Civil Union Bill relevant to all of this? Of course, many more heterosexuals than homosexuals will benefit from this bill, but I will speak from the perspective of this nation’s thousands of lesbian and gay people living in same-sex relationships and seeking a name for, and an acceptance of, those relationships.

There are three reasons why voting for this bill is as important as voting for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. First, there is discrimination in the Marriage Act. That is why the Court of Appeal decided in 1996 that although lesbian and gay people could marry—someone of the opposite sex, of course—Parliament should address the issue of the status of same-sex relationships. That is why 20 Parliaments worldwide have given legal recognition to same-sex relationships. That is why complaints that our Marriage Act breaches the Human Rights Act on the grounds of sexual orientation are weaving their way through our legal system. Discrimination can be removed, or broadly equally alternatives can be provided. The Civil Union Bill is an acceptable alternative; marriage can remain untouched.

Second, the difference between me and a heterosexual member of Parliament is pretty tiny. It lies in our sex life, in who and how we love, and in our life experience. As the UK law lord Baroness Hale said this week: “Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy, stability and interdependence that heterosexual relationships do.” So why should the State, which has, since the start of this nation, chosen to offer a self-funding legal status to heterosexual couples, not do the same for homosexuals? No reason, I suggest.

Thirdly, a civil union gives status. It makes it easier to prove a relationship. It provides a start point and an end point. It provides a chance for a great party! It protects children of rainbow families, and it harms no one.

Finally, I give one personal reflection. In a conscience vote we identify what is right and we support it. I congratulate the British Conservative leader, Michael Howard, and most of his Tory colleagues for backing legislation in the British Parliament very similar to our bill. What insight do they have that so many National MPs here seem not to have? Both the bills before us today are acts of acceptance that we are here and we are citizens worthy of what comes with citizenship.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): I regard it a privilege to take a brief call in this first reading of the Civil Union Bill. I stand to ask members please to give dignity to this bill by sending it through to the select committee for its due process, for that is where, I believe, the debate really needs to occur, in order to scrutinise the merits of both sides of the argument. It is a very good way of being able to engage with the public more fully, and for them to have their proper say, and I hope all members will consider voting in favour of this bill going through to the committee.

I am a taxpaying citizen of New Zealand. I was very lucky to be born into a country that, at this time, affords human rights, liberty, and dignity to people such as me—a transsexual. Members who have been in this House for some time may recall that, thankfully, in 1996, due to an amendment to the Birth, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act, people such as me—post-operative transsexuals—were able to be made legally female, and therefore enjoy all the legal rights of being female, including marriage. So at this point, if I so chose, I could get married.

I put that view to a well-known pastor of a church called Destiny Church New Zealand, Pastor Brian Tāmaki, and he was horrified. He was horrified that that was allowed, and believed that it should end straight away. The kind of opinion held by people such as Pastor Brian Tāmaki and churches of that ilk is not, I would say, reflective of all churches and religions in New Zealand. In fact, I would say that only a glaring minority in this country would share their hateful opinions towards people like myself, and gay and lesbian people. This bill will give, once and for all, solemnised recognition of a civil union. It does not, as previous speakers have said, affect marriage in any way.

Although some opponents of this bill will argue that it undermines the very fabric of the family in this country, I say that is absolutely wrong. It does not. If anything, it will enhance the cornerstone of our society, the building block we call the family. We have marginalised people who are taxpaying citizens of this country, and law-abiding for the most part. They should also be able to enjoy the same rights and status in this country that every other member in this Parliament and every other citizen of New Zealand enjoys. Why do we continue to perpetuate discrimination and prejudice against—admittedly, as somebody said—a relatively small proportion of this population? That is no excuse to have negative discrimination against them—certainly, when we are talking about the very foundation of love and commitment. We want to enhance our society, I would have thought, by allowing children to grow up—whether in different-sex or same-sex relationships—being nurtured by the nurturers. If we undermine those nurturers who happen to be in same-sex relationships, it does not aid or help at all those young people whom we are trying to give the best start in life.

New Zealand is a fantastic country. It is a world leader in some human rights issues it takes on. So we should stand proud, and we also should endorse this bill by, at least, sending it through to the select committee for it to have the scrutiny it so richly deserves. That is acknowledged by many, whether for or against this bill. The committee could flesh out the whole story, so to speak.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that many thousands of New Zealanders would become greatly happy—very happy—if this bill were passed. I do not believe that many thousands of New Zealanders—as spoken by those who oppose this bill—will be horrified if that happens, because they are unaffected. Let us give ordinary New Zealanders a chance with this bill.

Mr SPEAKER: The 11th call goes to New Zealand First, which is splitting its speech.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First): I used to often tell my students: “You don’t make your own candle shine more brightly by blowing out somebody else’s.”, and the converse of that adage is: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I should light somebody else’s.” Therefore, I ask this question: how will my own marriage be diminished by the passage of this legislation? The answer, and I am convinced it is the correct answer, is it will not make one iota of difference. If that is the case, what is so dreadfully wrong in allowing other New Zealanders of a different disposition to make a long-term, public commitment to someone they love?

During the debate on the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill I argued there were three categories of sexual relationships: the forbidden such as incest and paedophilia; the accepted, tolerated, and legal such as casual, de facto, or same-sex relationships; and the preferred—in other words, marriage. My opposition to the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill was based on the fact that all legal relationships, including marriage, were being brought down to the same denominator. I felt that those different relationships should have been treated separately. The Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill is an example of what happens when we deny a group of people who are in legal relationships any way of publicly expressing that relationship. I believe that this Civil Union Bill, rather than diminish the law’s recognition of marriage as a special relationship between a man and a woman, will serve to protect that relationship as the preferred form of relationship. The alternative is to have marriage morph into other relationships to the stage where it is legally considered to be no more preferable than a one-night stand. That would be hugely detrimental to the well-being of our society.

I want to approach this issue from another angle. I say to those who would have us believe that the passage of this legislation would lead to the destruction of our society that the real issue about which we need to be concerned is not whether the exclusive relationships of couples who either do not wish, or are presently unable, to express publicly a long-term relationship can be recognised; the real issue is whether this legislation would affect levels of promiscuity. It is levels of promiscuity that public policy should be concerned with. By the way, the institution of marriage has not eradicated promiscuity completely, but there is no doubt that it has reduced it. Within the homosexual population there are no such incentives. Without a public recognition process, the incentives towards exclusive relationships are lessened. My contention is that this legislation will, over time, reduce multiple relationships within the gay community, with concomitant health and social benefits, because it incentivises long-term, exclusive relationships.

There is no doubt that this legislation will change the social fabric of our society—I believe for the better, but others may disagree. This being a conscience vote, the result should reflect the conscience of the nation. However, there can be no denying the political agendas that will determine many people’s decisions. Political consideration, in many cases, will override principles. The question I ask is whether, with legislation such as this, the final determination should be made by the people of the country. Even if it is the will of this House to proceed with this legislation, should not such a decision be ratified by the public of New Zealand? I believe so. Therefore, I give notice that I will be seeking an amendment later on in the process, to add to the legislation a clause like the one Peter Brown had in his voluntary euthanasia bill that will require a referendum to be held at the next election, and only if that referendum were passed would this legislation become law.

What is not being told to the public is that, at present, the law discriminates in some cases against married couples, in favour of same-sex partners. This comes about because gay couples are treated as individuals when it comes to benefits, superannuation, student allowances, etc. The two unemployed owners of the dog that savaged young Carolina Anderson, for example, receive from the State much more than a married couple does. This Civil Union Bill is the precursor of the bill that will eradicate some of those circumstances that discriminate, believe it or not—and it has been mentioned—against marriage and married couples, in favour of same-sex relationships. Therefore, I argue that many of the things that have been said in this House do not make any sense.

To finalise, I will be voting for this legislation. In doing so, I hope I will be able to light the candles of many New Zealanders who, for so long, have been forced to live in the dark.

DAIL JONES (NZ First): I oppose this bill, as do 11 members of New Zealand First, including the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I am a simple sort of person. I have listened to some of the speeches here today from members about how this legislation would affect their marriages, and whether they should take their marriages into account. If I were really concerned about my marriage, and if all of us married people were really concerned about our marriages, we would not be members of Parliament, because it puts the greatest strain on marriage of anything. I believe that members talking about their marriages is absolutely irrelevant to this legislation. We show how much at risk we place our marriages by being here in the first place.

As I say, I am a simple sort of person. I looked in The Concise Oxford Dictionary to see what a marriage is meant to be. It stated it is the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together, and, often, to have children. I just happen to regard that that is what marriage is meant to be. If people do not want to get married today—and many people do not—they can live in a de facto relationship. If people want to have a civil union, they can go to the registry office, sign up, and be married, because that is all that this bill does—it takes away the reference to the Marriage Act, and refers to a civil union. There is no difference between entering into a de facto civil union and getting married in a registry office. So there is a lot of camouflage behind this bill and behind some of the statements that have been made today.

Of course, I was concerned that members are saying that marriage is purely a Christian concept. We know that it is a Hindu concept and a Muslim concept. I was disappointed that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs did not make that point, as well, and that the Greens suggested that marriage was somehow only a Christian matter. I will be very interested to see how the Muslim member of this House votes on this issue, knowing what the Koran has to say about the concept of marriage.

Quite simply, I believe that marriage, the living together of a man and a woman, sets some sort of standard in society. I think this type of legislation reduces standards in society. I think that our role as members of Parliament is to try to set standards in society, not to reduce standards in society.

Over the years I have been very concerned about the way in which homosexual legislation has been introduced into this House. I have been concerned about the relationship property legislation. I have been concerned about the way in which immigration regulations have been specifically changed by the Labour Party Government to encourage and permit, by definition and reference to lesbians and homosexuals, lesbians and homosexuals specifically to come into New Zealand. That is clearly Labour Party policy. This bill is another part of the agenda. The Civil Union Bill is supporting homosexuals and lesbians. I do not call them “gays”, because I can see nothing “gay”, or happy, about a homosexual or lesbian relationship. In my view, it is another distortion of the English language. I am a simple sort of bloke, and, for me, “gay” is being happy, not being homosexual or lesbian. That is my way of looking at “gay”. I would say that “distortion” aptly describes the situation and the use of the word.

That is really all I want to say about the matter. I support family life being that of a man and a woman. I cannot believe that two males, or two females, can have the same degree of enjoyment of life as a man and a woman can. Two males, or two females, will never know, but as a man living with a woman in a heterosexual relationship I am sure that my way of life is infinitely better than the others.

Hon MATT ROBSON (Deputy Leader—Progressive): The Progressive caucus—Jim Anderton and myself—had no problems in supporting this bill from the beginning, once we knew the details of it. It is quite a simple measure for us, as our policy is to oppose all forms of oppressive discrimination; that is what both this bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill do, and that is why we support them.

I have heard a number of comments today on the nature of marriage being the same for thousands of years. That is absolute nonsense. I direct those people to read a book like The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State by Friedrich Engels, and have a look at how the shape and form of marriage have changed over thousands of years. From primitive communism through to slave society, through to feudal society, through to capitalism, it has changed its shape at a number of times and in a number of ways. In fact, the big role of this Parliament in terms of women’s rights has been to turn marriage from an oppressive institution that treated women as second-class citizens, as property, into one as close to equality as we can get—and there is still a long way to go.

On the question of homosexual rights, it has been the role of this Parliament finally to recognise thousands of years of persecution, oppression, and downright discrimination in every form that one can find it. When we have risen to the occasion and recognised discrimination for what it is we have been a noble Parliament. But when we clothe our opposition in sanctimonious talk about the joys of all forms of marriage, then we are purely ignoring our history. To New Zealanders in same-sex relationships or different-sex relationships who have the closest and most intimate relations but have often been legal strangers, these bills will bring justice. They also complete the obligations that Parliament set itself in the Human Rights Act and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to remove discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status. We also meet our obligations in international law to remove oppressive discrimination wherever we find it.

This legislation is in the tradition of a long line of measures to lift social, economic, and political discrimination. Whether Parliament was looking at universal suffrage, in terms of the right of everybody in New Zealand over a certain age to vote, whether it was looking at providing votes for women, or whether it was repealing the Blasphemy Act, which was used to suppress freedom of speech, Parliament acted nobly. When we brought in legislation such as the Public Safety Conservation Act of 1932 we brought in repressive legislation that took away people’s rights. When we brought in the Employment Contracts Act of 1990 we brought in repressive legislation against workers rightly organising to promote the needs of their own members. What this Parliament is doing is in the tradition of Parliaments that look to remove discrimination.

I would also ask all members in this Parliament who are running a ruler over legislation or practices to see whether they are discriminatory to have a look at other legislation that we are bringing in. I remind members that a bill has been tabled called the Identity (Citizenship and Travel Documents) Bill. That bill hits at the rights of migrants in New Zealand. The Security Intelligence Service of New Zealand will be able to go to a Minister and say that New Zealanders who have travel documents and passports are a threat. When we look at anti-discriminatory legislation, at legal rights, let us have some consistency in our legislation.

Finally, what actually strengthens relationships, whether relationships under the Civil Union Bill or those in the nature of marriage, whether originating in a civil registration ceremony or in a religious ceremony, is the support that society gives them. Therefore, legislation like the 4 weeks’ leave provision and the Families Commission Act, and practices, policies, and Budgets such as we have had that aim at ending poverty and lifting up everybody in New Zealand to a situation where they are independent and able to protect and help their families, are truly the types of legislation and policies that mean that we remove discrimination in New Zealand.

Hon MARGARET WILSON (Associate Minister of Justice): Listening to the arguments in the House today certainly reminds one that this really is the House of Representatives. It also reminds one that we are capable of conducting a debate of substance on matters of importance. This is a House in which all citizens are to be represented. The bills that are before the House this afternoon—the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill—are an important step in giving full legal recognition, and thus full citizenship rights, to a sector in our community that has experienced harassment and discrimination for far too long: the gay and lesbian community. Since 1993 the Human Rights Act has recognised that family status, marital status, and sexual orientation were grounds of discrimination. That placed an obligation on this House and on the Government to reform the law in order to remove discrimination on those grounds, which are unjustifiable in terms of section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. This Civil Union Bill is part of the fulfilment of that obligation. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the other part of that fulfilment.

What does the Civil Union Bill do? The purpose clause states that it enables two people to formalise their relationship by entering into a civil union. That means any two people who are not already married can publicly and formally affirm their commitment to each other. I support this bill, because I believe every citizen has the right to express his or her commitment to another person in a formal and public way. I also respect those who want to express that commitment in the form of a marriage as defined in the Marriage Act. I do not, however, believe that respect for marriage should prevent those who do not choose to marry, or who are legally barred from marrying because of their sexual orientation, from expressing their commitment to each other publicly. The question for the House is how to respect the rights of all citizens to formally make that commitment, without causing harm or detriment to others. The Civil Union Bill, lying alongside, as it does, the Marriage Act, provides the legal way in which all citizens can affirm their commitment to each other. It is the inclusive way to address a real, heartfelt need of those people who have for too long been excluded from formalising publicly their commitment to one other.

Opponents of the bill ask what the difference is between this legislation and the Marriage Act. The difference is obvious: the Marriage Act applies only to heterosexual couples. The opponents of the Civil Union Bill feel strongly that that should remain so. The Government respects that view, which is why there is no proposal to change that Act. Respect for the view of those New Zealanders who want to keep marriage as defined in the Marriage Act should not, however, be used to prevent gay and lesbian couples, and heterosexual couples who choose to do so, from being able to make their own public, formal commitment to each other. The Civil Union Bill is about this House being a place all people can come to for just laws. It is the only place, in fact, to which people can come. Gay and lesbian couples have been to the courts, and to the international institutions. They have been told to come to this House.

The Civil Union Bill is an expression of how we as a House of Parliament can, through the advocacy of representatives in this House, enact just laws. When the argument and plea is made for laws that will recognise and promote loving relationships, this House is under an obligation to listen and to act in a way that enables the best of human aspirations, love and commitment, to be supported and promoted. That is why I support this bill.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Civil Union Bill be now read a first time.

Ayes 66

Noes 50

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a first time, and referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.

Points of Order

Lobby Doors—Ringing of the Bell

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (Whip—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the ringing of the bells for the vote that we have just had, the magnetic locks on the door into the lobbies were engaged. My understanding, when we installed those magnetic locks, was that during the ringing of the bells the locks would not be applied. Could we have that point clarified, please?

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly do that, and I will report to the House about it. I thank the member for raising that.

Bills

Relationships (Statutory References) Bill

First Reading

Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice): I move, That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I will propose that this bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. At present, the laws of New Zealand differentiate between couples in committed, exclusive, and stable relationships, depending on their marital status, with a large number of legal rights and responsibilities accessible only to married couples. However, one in every five New Zealanders living in a relationship—some 300,000 people—has chosen not to get married. The law does not currently support that choice, and furthermore, same-sex couples are unable to marry, and therefore their relationship is neither formally nor legally recognised.

The lack of legal recognition for de facto relationships has led to significant difficulties for many couples, and there is a genuine and understood sense of injustice. For instance, following the death of a person in a de facto relationship, the surviving partner is not treated in the same way as those in a married relationship. The wishes of certain de facto partners about a post-mortem examination or inquest, unlike those of married partners, do not need to be considered. Furthermore, if a coroner wants to say something negative about a deceased person, the protections provided to married partners do not apply to the de facto partner. Surviving de facto partners are also unable to apply for cremation of their deceased partner’s body, and are prohibited, when they subsequently die, from being buried in the same plot of ground as their deceased partner.

I am sure that most New Zealanders will agree that the distress felt by surviving de facto partners is unnecessarily compounded by the law’s failure to recognise this form of relationship. There are over 100 other ways in which de facto couples are treated differently by the law. The purpose of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is to address that different treatment of couples. Contrary to some reported views, the Government’s motivation is not to undermine marriage—far from it. Marriage will remain protected, and continue to be solely available to a man and a woman. But we are working to support all committed, exclusive, and stable relationships.

Addressing the different treatment of couples, and providing for legal recognition of all committed, exclusive, and stable relationships is important for a number of reasons. The first pressing reason is about relationship discrimination. An examination of New Zealand law has identified a large number of statutes that are potentially discriminatory on the grounds of marital status or sexual orientation. This relationship discrimination is not justified in a free and democratic society and therefore runs contrary to our human rights legislation, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the Human Rights Act 1993.

Under the Human Rights Act, it is illegal to discriminate against any person on the basis of his or her sexual orientation in a range of private sector activities, such as employment, housing, education, and the provision of goods and services. By consequential amendment, it is also unlawful for the Government to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation in all its activities, except in some very exceptional circumstances.

I believe that discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation runs contrary to that innate sense of fairness that characterises us as a nation. New Zealanders believe in giving each other a fair go, and New Zealand is a country where diversity is valued by most and reflected strongly in our national identity. Legally recognising other forms of relationships is a way of acknowledging society’s diversity and people’s personal choices about their relationships, while respecting the exclusiveness that some feel about marriage. This encourages a society where diverse, stable family arrangements and loving personal relationship commitments can be recognised.

The third reason for the proposed legislation centres on the possibility of legal challenge to current New Zealand law on the basis of discrimination. The Human Rights Act provides that an individual who alleges that he or she has been discriminated against on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation has recourse to an independent, publicly funded complaints mechanism whereby the complaint may be heard and redress provided. This exposes the Government to risks of complaints to the Human Rights Commission, cases before the Human Rights Review Tribunal, and litigation in the courts. Several complaints have recently been laid with the Human Rights Commission about specific laws that discriminate between married and de facto couples.

The Government’s current proposals build on several important changes to our domestic laws in the past few years. Since 2000, a number of laws have extended legal recognition to de facto couples, including the Property (Relationships) Amendment Act 2002, the Administration Act 2001, the Family Protection Amendment Act 2001, and the Family Proceedings Act, also of 2001. These changes have had a positive impact for people and New Zealand society. Government proposals for recognising relationships will add to those positive changes.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will ensure that neutral laws on relationships—whether married, civil union, or de facto—are applied across the statute book, and this will be done in three ways. The bill will amend a large number of provisions so that they no longer unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of relationship status. For example, regulation 7 of the Cremation Regulations 1973 specifies that only near relatives may apply for the cremation of a body. However, the definition of near relative is limited to the wife or husband of the deceased as well as the deceased’s family members. This provision will be amended to include the deceased’s civil union or de facto partner.

Secondly, the bill will repeal some existing discriminatory provisions—for example, section 194(3) of the Education Act 1964, which authorises the payment of a boarding allowance to a married man who is obliged to live away from home while holding a temporary teaching position. This provision will be repealed rather than extended to civil union and de facto couples.

In a few instances, the bill will retain some apparently discriminatory provisions that are none the less justified. For example, section 7 of the Births, Deaths, and Marriages Registration (Prescribed Information and Forms) Regulations of 1995 requires the register to record a deceased person’s marital status, but not whether he or she was in a de facto relationship. The purpose of this provision is to enable surviving spouses to prove that they are legally free to remarry. Entering a de facto relationship does not require proof that a former partner is dead or has legally terminated the relationship through divorce. The provision will therefore be amended to recognise civil union, but not de facto couples.

Our domestic laws have progressed from decriminalisation to the protection of individuals from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status, and now look forward to promoting the broader recognition of the diversity of relationships in law. By encouraging tolerance and understanding, the bill respects the diversity of individuals from all backgrounds, and enables New Zealand to continue its fine tradition of leading the world in domestic human rights protections.

So what will the bill mean for New Zealand law? Firstly, a greater level of consistency in the way New Zealand laws treat people in different forms of relationships will be achieved with, as I said earlier, over 1,000 potential instances of relationship discrimination being removed. Also, the risk of legal challenge on the basis of discrimination under the Human Rights Act 1993 will be reduced. The sense of social injustice experienced by couples who are treated as legal strangers will be addressed, and New Zealand will join other national and regional States that have legislated for the recognition of same-sex and de facto relationships. I am pleased to recommend this bill to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate interrupted.

The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.