The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I advise members that, by leave, the Committee agreed that a number of schedules would be grouped together for the purposes of voting.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 333 in the name of the Hon David Benson-Pope to schedule 15 be agreed to.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I want to refer to clause 2 and, in particular, to the commencement date of this bill. We know that the commencement date is a rushed one. It was rushed because the Civil Union Act was coming into force on that date and, even then, that date was rushed. When we talked to advisers and to Labour members at the Justice and Electoral Committee, we heard that they were trying to advocate a date as early as 26 April, and they would have liked it even earlier. There was some consternation among officials because of the amount of work that had to be done after the Civil Union Bill was passed, in order to get regulations, forms, and everything else in place. They would have much preferred a date of 1 July for its commencement, which would have given them a bit more time.

However, the Government was clearly anxious to get the Civil Union Bill through, because of this year’s election. It knew that a 1 July date for the commencement of the Civil Union Act—and for gay marriages, which effectively they are, to come into force—would have been acutely embarrassing. The Government’s fond hope in this regard is that the extra couple of months will help New Zealanders to forget, will give a little more time for things to pass over, will allow the country to become accustomed to this new move, and will not impact on Labour’s chances in the election.

So we have this bill as well with the commencement date of 26 April, because it has to dovetail with the Civil Union Act’s coming into force. That means we have a period of only 6 weeks in which officials have to get their regulations into force, change forms, and get everything prepared for that eventuality. It is a panic time; it is rushed; but that is the reason for it.

However, I think the New Zealand public are much more wary than that, and I think their memories are a little bit longer than a period of just a few months. I have no doubt whatsoever that come this election the passing of the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will be very much in the minds of the voting public. Mark my words: the Civil Union Act and this bill will reverberate all the way to the election, and beyond.

Moreover, the fact that this is happening on 26 April allows 3 days, according to officials, in which to process licence applications for civil unions, so we are looking at Saturday, 30 April as being D-day—the day when there will be a mass of civil unions. We have yet to see how many homosexual marriages there will be on that day, but there will undoubtedly be quite a number.

The fact that 30 April is coming is probably the best insurance we have against an early election. No doubt the Government will want the dust to settle and the date for the election to be prolonged, so that it is as far away as possible from the embarrassing day it will face on 30 April, when Television One and TV3 are present at the ceremonies of a number of homosexual couples getting married. But, mark my words, this bill will reverberate and it will count against the Labour Government.

Senior priests of the Catholic Church talked to us at the select committee and said that the church had traditionally been a strong supporter of Labour. But they said that Labour could now no longer count on its support. That is how serious they saw this move. I talked to an Anglican archdeacon, who said to me—and I was quite taken aback with the strength of his comments—that as far as he and a number of his colleagues were concerned, the Civil Union Act was a direct attack on the sovereignty of God. That is the strength of feeling out there among those church communities, which represent quite large constituencies that in the past have been strong Labour supporters. The evangelical Christian communities, many of whom have been supportive of Labour because of its social justice policies, are also turning against this Labour Government, because of this and other legislation that has been passed, such as the prostitution law reform legislation, and because of other things that Labour has brought about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: None of them will save this member. He’s gone.

MURRAY SMITH: The member for Hutt South may well complain about that. I know that he is a strong supporter of those bills. I look forward to challenging him in Hutt South, because I am sure that we will have some very good debates during the campaign about his track record on this issue and my track record on it. I look forward to strong support in Hutt South as a result of that.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : The most remarkable thing about the speech we have just heard, with its expression of repugnance towards this legislation, is that the member who made it is a member of the United Future party, which supports this Government and keeps it in office. It is quite amazing that such repugnance can be ignored when it comes to things like confidence and supply. However, members will know that I actually voted for the Civil Union Bill, and I am pleased that I did. I believe that it was the right thing to do. I believe that in a nation where we allow certain forms of relationships to be legal, then we should also allow those relationships to be recognised in some sort of civil form. I believe that that was in the best interests of the country and that in future we will see that it will not have had any negative impact upon the institution of marriage whatsoever.

I also supported this particular legislation going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The Government has talked all the way through about level playing fields. The law as it stood, in fact, was not a level playing field; it was discriminatory against those in heterosexual relationships. When it came to benefits, those in heterosexual relationships were treated as a couple and got less than they would have if they were treated as two individuals. Therefore, I saw that this legislation would create a fairer situation. For those people who wish to enter civil unions, it will. There may be a price to pay for that for some of those people, in the sense that they will have reduced benefits—unemployment benefits, sickness benefits, and superannuation—because they will be treated as couples rather than as two individuals.

But here is the rub: the discrimination was to be fixed up in this legislation. It has not been fixed up because the Government has run away from doing so, because of the rainbow vote. De facto homosexual couples are to be privileged under this legislation. They will no longer be treated in the same way as heterosexual de facto couples. Heterosexual de facto couples, in fact, are being discriminated against by this legislation. This Government has said that it would create a level playing field. It said that we should not have any discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Yet this legislation is, in fact, doing just that. Those who are in de facto homosexual relationships will not be treated in the same way as those in any other form of relationship.

I had no difficulty with the notion of having a 2-year period before those sorts of provisions were laid on people. People should have had the time to get their affairs in order. But what this Government has done is to run away from its own principles. It has run away from the set of ideals that it has stated in this Chamber time and time again. It has run away from that set of ideals, because when certain members of the rainbow community realised that this legislation would hit them in the pocket they became angry, and the Government put its principles off the agenda because of the pending election. That is wrong. That shows an unprincipled Government. As a result I have had to change and reverse my vote. As I said, in all honesty I could not vote for this legislation under the circumstances. However, I would have voted for it if the Government had fronted up to do the very things it has said it would do. I remember the Hon Chris Carter, during the debate on the property relationships Act, saying that that was the price people of his sexual persuasion would have to pay.Unfortunately, they will not have to pay that price, because the Government has run away from its clear responsibility to the principles that it has continued to espouse about fairness regardless of sexual preference.

This legislation discriminates against heterosexuals who do not wish to enter into either civil unions or marriages, but who want to have longstanding relationships, in a way that it does not discriminate against homosexuals. I hope that people will understand why my vote has changed as a result of the decisions that were made by the select committee.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : We come to the dying stages of this debate on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. If it is to be the case that this legislation is to pass—and there are some indications that that is likely to be the result—then I say to this Government, the more shame there is. It seems to me, and I offer this view sincerely to members of the Committee, that this Government cares more about pushing its flawed ideology than it cares about real situations, real children, and real families. This is a debate about the title of the bill, and the title is the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, but it is clear from one of the Supplementary Order Papers that is before the Committee that the plan is to divide this bill into a large number of bills as the various statutory changes find their way into the principal Acts that they should be part of, and, similarly, in respect of Part 2 as the various amendments to regulations find their way into their homes.

I was interested in the comments made by the previous speaker, but perhaps for quite different reasons. It has been made very clear what this bill is all about. It does two things: it gives legal effect to civil unions, but it also takes the view that all relationships should be protected—the relationship of marriage, the relationship of civil union, and also de facto relationships. Therein lies the rub. It is very easy to say what a marriage is. There are formal indicators of such a status, and as a result of the passage of the Civil Union Bill it is now very easy to say what a civil union is. There are formal indications of that status. It is much harder to say when a de facto relationship has been established, and also much harder to say when a de facto relationship has foundered. Where I part company from the previous speaker is that I see in this bill the problem that it adds to the mix a whole lot of rights and responsibilities for de facto couples—obligations that they have deliberately not chosen to accept. De facto couples are now to be fixed with a host of rights and responsibilities. People enter or drift into de facto relationships for a wide range of reasons. It is also fair to say that there is a wide range of de facto relationships. When couples enter into those relationships they do not intend that they will be fixed with a set of rights and responsibilities, but that is what the Government has done to them in this particular setting.

I am very much aware, as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, that the majority members of the committee went painstakingly—or they tried to be painstaking—through the task of reviewing the myriad of statutes and regulations that they thought required change, and of making case-by-case judgments as to whether there should be extended in the particular setting of a statute or regulation a set of responsibilities attaching to de facto couples. Some of that work may be well done, some of it is doubtless flawed, and some of it will doubtless throw up anomalies. One thing is for sure: there are a lot of anomalies in this legislation. I believe that the majority members of the committee—and I was not part of that majority—certainly recognised that in the commentary on the bill, because the too-hard issues were parked for reference to the Law Commission. It is relevant to note in the commentary the comments made by the select committee. Page 7 of the commentary states: “As a result of the work of the committee we recommend that terms of reference be developed for referral to the Law Commission to further assess any remaining inequities between de facto couples and couples who are married or in a civil union.”

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I recall when the Prime Minister stated her intention for what was called an omnibus bill, and is now referred to as the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, that it would result in the Marriage Act having no practical effect. She said that in an interview with the gay magazine Express. It is therefore some consolation to the thousands of submitters who have opposed this legislation and the civil union legislation that as a result of the amendments made by the Justice and Electoral Committee, only married couples—men and women in New Zealand—can refer to themselves as husband and wife. While I am sure this is not all that the opponents of the legislation had hoped for, I think it is worth recognising this milestone in the battle that has been going on in New Zealand during the last year.

We are all born male and female, and with the nurture of our parents we grow into men and women and into adulthood. Although some casual encounter and biology can turn us into mothers and fathers, and a loose relationship can turn into a partnership, only a decision to commit ourselves to someone of the opposite sex for a lifelong committed relationship makes us husband and wife.Those words are very important to hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders. A healthy society needs more dedicated husbands and wives—in fact, it depends upon them—and they deserve to maintain that special distinction in New Zealand law.

Although illness, accident, or the breakdown of relationships can leave too many adults on their own, and often parenting on their own, and therefore in need of and deserving of society’s support, all the research I have ever seen states convincingly that husbands and wives in lifelong relationships in good marriages are healthier, happier, have the most fulfilling sexual relationships, are even wealthier, and, most important, provide the best environment to raise happy, well-adjusted children who become tomorrow’s good citizens, which I believe we all welcome.

As I mentioned earlier, I welcome the fact that the select committee and the House have thwarted some of the Prime Minister’s stated intentions to make marriage have no practical effect in New Zealand. I will still, however, be voting against this bill because rather than taking the sensible option of affording all adults the opportunity to register a relationship for the purposes of next of kin rights and responsibilities, as proposed in the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill, the Government has created a dishonest replica of marriage, solely for the benefit of same-sex couples and their desire for recognition and approval by society.

I, along with everyone else in this Chamber I am sure, hope that everyone in this country experiences happiness, fulfilment, and companionship with whomever he or she chooses, but I do not believe the Government should sanction and treat all relationships as being equal and the same, and pass civil union legislation. I have no doubt that at some enlightened time in the not too distant future Parliament will revisit this legislation and amend it considerably. The natural law that leads to the fulfilment of human beings cannot be altered by an Act of Parliament or by the will of a Government, and society will eventually reject this mistake, after experiencing the resulting consequences in our country.

This bill could perhaps be called the “New Zealand Goes Its Own Way (In Contrast with the Rest of the World) Bill”, because on 6 December last year the United Nations passed the Doha Declaration on the Family, which was supported by 139 nations. It called on member States to “uphold, preserve and defend the institution of marriage; take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;” and also to “establish effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family, including the establishment of public agencies to assist men, women, children and families in crisis;”. That sounds like a very good instruction for any Government, but our Government dissociated us from it.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : That was a thoughtful speech made by Mr Baldock from United Future. I was almost tempted to seek leave to give him extra time in case he would have explained why, having mentioned the Doha Declaration on the Family, which New Zealand did not support, he still keeps that Government in office. It is a very strange puzzle!

I was also interested in Mr Donnelly’s explanation of why he is changing his vote. The reasons were sound. This bill was supposed to end discrimination, instead it preserves it. But it is not the Justice and Electoral Committee that preserved this discrimination. It was in this bill from the moment it was introduced to the House. It was always intended that the discrimination remain that entitles an unmarried gay couple to keep the single benefit, whereas the same heterosexual couple gets around $60 a week less. So that discrimination was always there, and it was one of the reasons why I found this bill far more pernicious than the Civil Union Bill. If that bill had not been so blatantly a kick in the teeth to those who see a sacredness in marriage, if it had been what France, Denmark, and so many other European countries, and the New Zealand Law Commission recommended, if it had been a registration for next of kin purposes and for other partnership purposes, it would have been very churlish indeed to have opposed it.

However, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, and the title and commencement that we are now debating, highlight the very odd priorities of the Government. It wanted this anguish. It wanted this feeling of upset by the churches. I believe that one day it may work for good, because it is time people woke up to how casually this Parliament has changed family law. If one goes through the select committee’s report, I think there are five different places where the committee has said that the issues it discovered, in looking at this bill, need further work.

The committee considered that automatic succession might not have been contemplated by people in de facto relationships, and that this would be better dealt with in a specific review of succession law. It recommended that evidential privileges and immunities not be automatically extended to include de facto partners, as a full review of the Evidence Act is being undertaken. It believed that further work should be undertaken in respect of any proposal to include a next of kin register, or to include relationships that were not in the nature of marriage or civil union.

In relation to age, the committee said it had encountered a variety of provisions, and recommended the Government reinstate its consideration of the age of majority and the ages contained in various enactments and regulatory instruments. Under the heading “Issues recommended for reference to the Law Commission” the committee recommended the Law Commission to further assess any remaining inequities between de facto couples and couples who are married or in a civil union.

In other words, this bill is premature. We looked at a whole host of issues raised by the ridiculous notion that we should be eliminating distinctions between a status deliberately and overtly chosen by people, and a status drifted into or deliberately and consciously not chosen—in other words, de facto people not marrying. But instead of the select committee coming back and saying: “Let’s do the work before the bill progresses.”, the bill is being rushed through.

When I say rushed, it is being rushed. If we look at some of the bills on the Order Paper that this bill has taken priority over, they include Mr Goff’s Lawyers and Conveyancers Bill—he started on that legislation in 1997, and it will not be passed in time—the Courts and Criminal Matters Bill, which was reported back in July 2004; the Crimes Amendment Bill (No 2), which was reported back in October 2004; the Police Amendment Bill (No 2), which has not been touched by this Parliament since debate on it was interrupted on 27 November 2001; and the Independent Police Complaints Authority Amendment Bill, which was reported back on 17 November 2003. And we are rushing this bill through. The select committee has expressly identified all the untidy loose ends and all the issues it raises about the way we approach families and relationships, but instead the bill is going through. Why? It is going through so that in the last week of April there can be some high-profile television that will further enrage those who feel that a sacred institution has been hijacked, and it will delight those to whom the Government wants to say “Thank you”.

I believe April was chosen because it is judged by the Government, which has made more use of polling, calculated spin-doctoring, and psychological manipulation of the electorate than any Government before it, that it is about the right distance before the election for the worst of the outrage to fade from the memories of those who are upset, but not too far for the gratitude not to last. We will find that, in fact, the interest will fade. I do not share the confidence of United Future that this will be a burning issue. I do not think it will, at all. I think that the traditional allies of the Labour Government, particularly the establishment Churches, will quickly forget, as they have forgotten so many earlier insults. They were not even aware, for example, that it is illegal to discriminate on the grounds of marital status. It came as a real surprise when I proposed an amendment to this bill that would at least have eliminated that provision, because this bill ignores that provision in the Human Rights Act. This bill patently thinks that was ludicrous, because the select committee went through all the provisions and decided that it was proper to discriminate, and a blanket approach had no foundation in principle; nor does it have any foundation in morality.

By rushing this bill through now and having a commencement date that, in the case of the Government’s friends, is deferred for 2 years to 2007 and, in the case of the other provisions, takes effect by the end of April, the Government makes very plain the cynical calculation that went into this legislation, and how deliberate was the offence it has caused. But I predict that, unless someone with more spine than United Future manages to keep alive the concerns about what is being done to family law, it certainly will not be an election issue. If United Future can suppress all its anxiety enough to vote, day after day, to support this Government—and not just on matters of confidence; it has been supporting the Government on matters that have nothing whatsoever to do with confidence—it will manage, when the time comes, to forget that this legislation generated outrage.

The ACT party has approached this—not because we expect to receive votes out of it, but because we know that this issue will be forgotten—by trying to look at what principles should underlie the law that governs relationships. For example, the bill should not be coming in, as stated in the commencement clause, on a whole series of different dates to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council or specified throughout, it should be coming in at a time when everyone knows that it has started. But the Government cannot do that, because it is not anxious for people to know that the real commencement date of much of this legislation has been postponed long enough to fix it up.

The select committee looked at the way this bill interacts with social security law and with the welfare system, and stated: “There is a two-year lead-in period to the extension of coverage to same-sex de facto couples, so this should enable the government to address the matter.” In other words, this is not even intended to be law. This is a holding pattern. We are voting for a holding pattern, so that the Government can go back to the drawing board and have another think, and what is in this bill is not even likely to be what the law becomes. The Government is trifling with Parliament. It is treating legislation as a mere convenience, a set of slogans. It is something one puts up before the election, knowing that after the election one will come back in before it takes effect and change it. How will the Government change it? We do not know. I put a set of what I thought were coherent principles into the report. I believe that it is appropriate, where a union creates children, that the children have an interest in their parents being obliged to share.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) : As I said last night during the Committee hearing time, I do not want to indulge in arguments or in broad sweeping statements about morality or otherwise. I just want to clarify what is in the law. I did make the comment last night, but knowing that there may be different people listening today, I will repeat it. Stephen Franks has just made a comment about the different dates. There are different commencement dates in this bill. For instance, the amendments to the Care of Children Act will come into effect on 1 July 2005 to coincide with the commencement of that Act. For the same reason, the amendments to the Status of Children Act will come into effect on the same day. That is for clarity for the people who are working in the area. Amendments to the Local Authorities (Members’ Interests) Act will come into effect on 13 October 2007 to coincide with the next local body election. That is about clarity and ease of working. Amendments to the Rates Rebate Act will come into effect on 1 July 2006, because rates are set until that date.

An issue was raised by the New Zealand First member Brian Donnelly. He made the point that he could not vote for this legislation because he said we were making a discrimination between de facto couples of the same sex and other de facto couples. I tell him that on 1 April 2007 same-sex de facto partners will be treated the same as people who are married or in a civil union. We have decided to give them time to adjust up until that time. The reason for that is quite simple. If on 26 April we had imposed that provision, there would have been many couples with little children who would immediately have been faced—and some without warning, because people may not read the newspapers or know that these things are happening—with a loss of $126 a week. This period is giving people time. It is out of sheer kindness and a care for children that we are giving de facto partners time to adjust.

People who enter civil unions were not given the same lead-in period, on the basis that they had consciously made that decision. But this provision is for de facto same-sex people—[Interruption] I am not entering into an argument; I am just trying to clarify what I consider to be some fairly misleading statements.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First I want to make the point, at the closing stages of the Committee stage and with the third reading still to go, that New Zealand First is voting totally, with all 13 members, against this bill. That should not be a surprise, ultimately, because that is what we said we would do before the last election. So it is not as if we were somehow or other block voting or something like that; it is what we said we would do. We gave every indication we would do that, at the last election, and that is what we are doing. It was on our Labour Party debit card, to which I have already referred during the course of the Committee stage.

I have said many things during the course of this debate, and I am fed up with the debate. I am actually sick and tired of the whole thing. This bill should go into the rubbish bin, and we should not have anything more to do with it. I really do not want to say all that yet again and bore myself as much as I might bore everybody else.

DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

MURRAY SMITH (United Future) : I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to the taunts of New Zealand First and ACT members, who asked why we keep this Government in office. I am actually quite astonished at the lack of primary school arithmetic evidenced by those members who try to do the numbers. If they add—as I hope most people would be able—27 plus 9, and 13 plus 8, they would get 57. For a Government, 61 is needed.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to address the bill. That is most important. Otherwise, I will have to terminate his speech.

MURRAY SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Disparaging comments were made by other parties about this issue, and I understand that under the Standing Orders I have the ability to respond to those.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): OK, but would the member now just move on, please.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. Responding to irrelevant remarks has never made the response relevant. The rules are very clear. The member has been in Parliament for only a short time, and he will not be here much longer. That is one Speaker’s ruling he should look up.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I ask the member to move on, please.

MURRAY SMITH: My colleague Larry Baldock was referring to the Doha declaration, and, because of short time constraints, he was not able to finish everything he said. The Doha declaration he mentioned was the Doha Declaration on the Family that was passed in 2004 by 139 nations. That declaration called on nation States to “Uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage;”, to “Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by, among other things, encouraging the full and equal partnership of a husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;”, and to “Establish effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family, including the establishment of public agencies to assist men, women, children and families in crisis;”.

It is worth noting the latter point, point 14 in the declaration, about establishing effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family. That is very relevant, because New Zealand refused to sign the declaration on the ludicrous pretext that it did nothing to stop genital mutilation of African women. Well, not only was that a very narrow line to take but it is in fact quite wrong. The declaration, as I read it, makes it quite clear that abusive relationships within marriage and the family are things that States are encouraged to dissociate from. So the Government did not support it.

The real reason the Government did not support the declaration was that the declaration did not support civil unions, and that is much evidenced in this bill. As made very clear here, and as all New Zealand knows, this legislation and the civil union legislation are all about legitimising same-sex marriage. The Government’s agenda, then, in relation to the declaration, was quite clear in its refusal to support a declaration that said that States should “uphold, preserve, and defend the institution of marriage,”. In terms of this bill, the Government’s intention to try to equate marriage with same-sex relationships—and, as it started, with de facto relationships—is in direct contradiction to the direction in which the 139 nations that signed the declaration are heading.

New Zealand is out of step with the direction the world is going in. There may have been a period—I know there was a period—when the world seemed to be adopting human rights issues and going down the path of greater and greater rights for people. That is now turning round. Particularly with regard to this whole area of marriage, the world has cottoned on to the fact that marriage is the best environment, particularly, in which to nurture the next generation. That is important. Pansy Wong made a comment to the effect that she had not thought in terms of nurturing children when she got married. Well, that is fine from an individual point of view, and nobody is suggesting that people who get married necessarily have to have children. But the reason for the State’s interest in providing stable environments is that the State is looking towards the next generation and has a vested interest in ensuring that our children are raised in the best possible environment.

In that context my speech on the second reading, which outlined the statistics that quite clearly show—as all the social statistics do—that a stable marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for raising children, is entirely relevant. The Government and those who are supporting this bill are moving in the opposite direction.

Hon MARK BURTON (Acting Leader of the House) : I move, That the question be now put.

Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Committee divide the bill into the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2), the Care of Children Amendment Bill, the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3), the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill, the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill,.

LINDSAY TISCH (Junior Whip) : I seek leave for parties voting on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, relating to Supplementary Order Paper 332, to cast votes for the Ayes and the Noes and to record abstentions, notwithstanding Standing Order 144(1)(b).

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): Leave has been sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.