Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice), on behalf of the Hon David Benson-Pope (Associate Minister of Justice): I move. That 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, the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill, the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4), the Income Tax Amendment Bill, the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4), the Interpretation Amendment Bill, the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2), the Marriage Amendment Bill, the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill, the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2), the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2), the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill, the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill, the Social Security Amendment Bill, the Tax Administration Amendment Bill, the Trustee Amendment Bill, the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3), and the Wills Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Today we reach the end of a journey—a journey that began with the National Government passing the Human Rights Act in 1993 and now ends with the opportunity to pass into law the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and 22 other bills that recognise relationships. It is a journey where much of the ministerial work was done by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. We owe her a debt of thanks. She led a team of hard-working officials from a wide range of Government departments. My thanks go to them for their clarity, for their attention to detail, and for their hard work.

For many New Zealanders the journey has been a long one, involving much debate. But this Parliament has already faced up to New Zealand’s human rights obligations and decided that all New Zealanders deserve the right to formalise their relationship, whether it be through marriage or through civil union. Now we can have the opportunity to pass legislation that will give legal status to civil unions, that will legally recognise de facto couples, and that will free New Zealanders from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status.

Some people object to the purpose of this legislation, arguing that it removes choice for de facto couples who have chosen to avoid the legal consequences associated with marriage. I disagree, for two reasons. First, there are many reasons why people choose to be in a de facto relationship, not simply because they wish to avoid the rights and obligations associated with marriage. Many are just as committed as married couples and would welcome the removal of laws that treat them differently. Secondly, this legislation does not remove choice but, in fact, does quite the contrary by providing more choice for de facto couples and by confirming choices that already exist.

This legislation will extend available choices by allowing people in de facto relationships to choose who may be involved in certain decision-making processes. For example, in the event of a partner’s death, the other person of the relationship will be able to have his or her partner’s name removed from the electoral roll, or have the ability to be involved in making important decisions about funeral arrangements, if that person so wishes. Like so many of the changes in this legislation, it does not create an obligation; rather, it provides an opportunity that people can choose to take up. It will also ensure that the particular form of relationship will no longer mean that some couples have unfair advantages over others. An important example of this will be the way in which people are treated for Government superannuation purposes.

What is really significant about these bills is that they will recognise social realities and ensure that our legislation reflects the diversity of committed, exclusive, and stable relationships that exist in New Zealand. One in five New Zealanders—some 300,000 people—who are living in a relationship have chosen not to marry. The law should not discriminate against persons in such committed, exclusive, loving, and stable relationships. No fair-minded person could disagree with that. Already, approximately 90 laws recognise de facto relationships—that is almost half of all the laws that contain rights and responsibilities for persons in a relationship. More important, a number of significant relationship laws, such as the Property (Relationships) Act and the Care of Children Act, already recognise de facto relationships. This legislation is about finishing the job that has been piecemeal to date, and making the remaining amendments, which are mostly of a technical and administrative nature.

This legislation is also about providing a legal framework for civil unions. At the end of last year Parliament decided to give effect to human rights law by giving all New Zealanders the option of formalising their relationships through a civil union. Today’s passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, and the bills formerly part of that bill, is a simple consequence of Parliament’s decision, making the necessary amendments to legislation to provide legal recognition of civil unions.

I would like to take the opportunity to refer to some comments made by submitters on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Some noted that both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples have faced discrimination in areas such as finance, student loans and allowances, childcare, insurance, superannuation, social security, and legal access to children. One submitter was refused both bereavement and unpaid leave from work to attend the tangi of his partner’s mother. Another was unable to sign a consent-for-procedure form for her critically ill child because she was a non-biological mother and the biological mother was unavailable. Many more recounted discriminatory situations where same-sex and different-sex de facto partners had been denied the right to have any involvement in, or even attend, their partner’s funeral. A number of submitters told the Justice and Electoral Committee that there is less respect for the commitment and quality of relationships that many de facto couples have. They argued that the State should support de facto relationships as they share the same characteristics valued in marriage: love, trust, intimacy, loyalty, and commitment.

What we should take from those comments is that in today’s New Zealand there are a variety of relationships that are vitally important to those who are in them and that require legal support and protection. It is important to treat these committed, exclusive, and stable relationships fairly while still upholding the institution of marriage. By recognising and showing respect for civil unions and same-sex and different-sex de facto relationships, this legislation will improve people’s lives by encouraging stable and strong relationships. The effects of discrimination on children will be reduced and the family unit will be protected. It may also create a more tolerant and open-minded society that values human rights.

Two issues were raised when the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was considered by the Committee of the whole House. The first issue concerned the way in which same-sex de facto partners are treated in social security legislation. On 1 April 2007 same-sex de facto partners will be treated in the same manner as married people and different-sex de facto partners. The delay for this particular group is out of consideration for those in such relationships who know nothing of these changes and who might, in 6 weeks’ time, suddenly find themselves up to $126 a week lighter. The delay gives people in such relationships time to make considered decisions. People who enter into a civil union have not been given the same lead-in time on the basis that they will have consciously made the choice to enter the relationship knowing the consequences.

The second issue concerned human rights. Mr Franks had stated that a church could be held liable for refusing to make its church premises available for civil union ceremonies. That is not so. Under section 97 of the Human Rights Act, a discriminatory practice will not be considered unlawful if the practice constitutes a genuine justification. It is likely that the decision of a church to refuse to make its premises available for civil union ceremonies would constitute a genuine justification, as it would also be justified for a church to refuse to hire its premises to satanists. Matters that could be taken into account include that it may be contrary to the religious teachings of the church and may lead to tension within that church community.

By passing this legislation New Zealand will be following an international trend of giving effect to human rights obligations. Many other countries and States have extended, or are considering extending, the same rights in law to different and same-sex de facto couples as are available for married couples. New Zealand is justifiably proud of its international reputation for recognising human rights. This legislation is another opportunity for us as a nation to not only talk tough but follow through with actions that will be real and meaningful to people’s lives. Most important, this legislation will end the injustice and distress that many people have suffered in being discriminated against. It will recognise the different choices people make about their relationships, and it will support those choices. I commend these bills to the House.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) : This legislation is the latest chapter in the attack by this Government on the family. It is yet another example of a complete lack of respect by Labour for the family unit, which has underpinned society for hundreds of years. First, this Government brought in a bill that said, in respect of matrimonial property, that de facto relationships and marriage are the same. Then Government members came into this Parliament and said that prostitution would be legalised.

Lianne Dalziel: National introduced that bill.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I tell Lianne Dalziel not to fib. That was a Government bill. It is another—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member knows that he cannot use that term to accuse a member of not telling the truth. The member will withdraw that remark and apologise.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I withdraw and apologise. But for the record, I point out that Labour decriminalised prostitution. Labour passed laws, in respect of matrimonial property, that said there is no difference between de facto relationships and marriage, and this same Government is now passing legislation that says there is no difference at all between people who are in a gay relationship, in a married relationship, or in a de facto relationship. They are wrong for two very—[Interruption] Is it not interesting with the Labour Party? I listened respectfully to Marian Hobbs’ speech, but the moment I try to make a contribution those Labour members shout us down because they know that what they are doing to this country of ours is wrong. What they are doing to families in New Zealand is wrong, and they do not like it when people on this side of the House—[]

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member will not barrage with interjections like that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This legislation is based on two quite flawed premises. The first of those is that, regardless of how long one is in a relationship, whether it is a de facto relationship or a relationship that is committed for life, Labour says it makes no difference at all. Yet all the social research shows that a long-term committed relationship is one of the most important things that we can do for children and for the future of our country. The second premise that is flawed about this legislation is the view that men and women are just the same; that it makes no difference whether a relationship is one of two men or two women. Well, it does make a difference. I believe, to the heart of my soul, that men and women are equal but they are different. This Parliament can pass all the laws it likes, but it cannot—[Interruption] Oh, Lianne Dalziel is not a mother; she would not understand. I know that. I say to members opposite—[] If Lianne Dalziel takes a big deep breath and listens for a moment she may learn something. It is the future of our society, the way in which children will be brought up, and the historic reason why Parliament has given protection to marriage that is at stake in this law. Members opposite say that this bill does not erode away anything from marriage.

Hon Parekura Horomia: That’s right.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I say it is a bit like saying: “Let’s just give everybody School Certificate. That will not erode anything from the people who pass it.” Of course it does. In terms of every single area of law—and today we are proposing to change 186 laws—we are saying that they are all just the same. It is a bit like the National Certificate of Educational Achievement—educationally, this Government has thrown standards out the window, and now the Government is doing the same with relationships. It is saying: “It doesn’t matter, they are all the same.” I say that those members are wrong. Then the Prime Minister said to the nation: “This is not a gay marriage bill.” But is it not interesting? In every single law in this legislation—on superannuation, education, children’s rights, and welfare—Labour says that a civil union and a marriage are absolutely identical in law. This is putting the substance into it—it is gay marriage. Government members do not have the courage to tell the people of New Zealand that this legislation is about gay marriage, but it is.

I challenge Lianne Dalziel to tell me one law in which gay marriage, gay civil unions, will be different from marriage. There is not one area. What we will have in this bill—

Lianne Dalziel: The Courts Martial Appeals Act, the Wills Amendment Act—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Does the member want to make a speech? She can make a speech, but she should at least give me—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a robust debate. There have been interjections. I ask members to give the speaker a fair go and limit their interjections.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Minister said that all those people in de facto relationships are dumb; that, really, they want to get married, and she, in some sort of a Reverend Moon exercise, through the passing of this law, will automatically marry 280,000 people—and somehow that is fair and just and right. I say that those 280,000 people who live in de facto relationships probably made a choice not to be married, and that is their right. It is wrong of this Parliament to come along and, in some sort of Reverend Moon exercise, automatically clock those people into marriage and say that it is all the same.

I worry about what this sort of anti-family legislation will do for our country. We get weasel words from the Government about its concern for children. We have debates on how kids can do better in life, how we can avoid them getting entrapped with drugs, how we can ensure that they do better educationally, how we can ensure that they do not get involved in crime—all those things. All the social research shows that children who have committed mums and dads in long-term relationships do best, but this Labour Party rejects all that research because it wants to be involved in another exercise in social engineering. That is wrong. It will take New Zealand backwards and this country deserves better.

I also refer to claims by this Government that it will protect the terms “husband” and “wife”. Has it not done a great job of that! If we look through this legislation, we see, in every one of those 186 statutes, that the terms “civil union partner”, “wife”, and “husband”, are, Labour says, all just the same. I say to Lianne Dalziel and her social-engineering colleagues that they are wrong. De facto relationships, civil unions, and marriage are different, and they should be recognised as different in the law of our land.

I also predict that this law, just like the prostitution law, will have unintended consequences for New Zealand. The police last week spoke of all the problems that the prostitution law is starting to cause. It is feeding the gangs; feeding the seediest parts of New Zealand—that is Labour’s agenda for New Zealand. This relationships law will also cause all sorts of unintended consequences. I fear for the doctor who, in one of our hospitals, tries to make a decision in an awfully stressful situation, such as whether the life-support machine will be turned off, and what that will mean in terms of trying to determine whether there is some gay, de facto, or some pseudo de facto relationship, when the legislation provides absolutely no definition of a de facto relationship. It is circular. [Interruption] Well, it has taken it out. During the select committee stage, the Government took out any concrete definition.

Lianne Dalziel: What does it say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have read the bill, and I challenge Lianne Dalziel to get to her feet to explain for us exactly what a de facto relationship is. Any common-sense New Zealander who reads the definition that is provided will be absolutely none the wiser, despite the legislation.

Lianne Dalziel: What does it say?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It says “in the nature of marriage”.

Lianne Dalziel: Or?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And goes on, and that is about it.

Lianne Dalziel: Or?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is about it. I simply ask that member opposite how that provides any certainty for the doctor who is trying to make a decision in that sort of emotional situation. This is flawed law. Relationships are different. [Interruption] I say to Mr Parekura Horomia that de facto relationships, gay relations, and marriage are different. The Māori people of New Zealand are different. One of the reasons there will be a change of Government in September of this year is that New Zealanders have had enough of anti-family, politically correct legislation.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : Speaking as a New Zealand First member of Parliament, I must say this is a rather sad day for New Zealand when we see this type of legislation being passed into law. This is a very bad bill, and in looking through all of it I can only say that I will be working hard to bring in a member’s bill to repeal the law. This type of legislation is an affront to decent standards in society and we should not be giving parliamentary recognition to this type of behaviour. So I will be putting together a member’s bill to put an end to this civil union structure, which is really just a form of lesbian-lesbian marriage and homosexual-homosexual marriage.

If this Labour Party Government is remembered for anything in its 6-year term it will be for this type of legislation. When it is defeated at the next election, it will be as a result of its social engineering policies. These types of measures are an affront to our society. The Government will be remembered for this bill and, to fill in the picture given by the previous speaker, Dr Nick Smith, it will be remembered for legislation like the Property (Relationships) Act. Once again, in a nanny State way, the Government decided that people living in a de facto relationship should come under part of the matrimonial property legislation, even though those people had decided, by their own actions, that that was not what they wanted.

The Labour Party Government introduced immigration regulations that specified quite clearly that it wanted homosexuals and lesbians to come and live in New Zealand. The law previously did not specify that fact, and, indeed, there was no reason why homosexuals and lesbians could not come and live in New Zealand. But no, it just shows that this Labour Party encourages that type of behaviour and wants those people to come to New Zealand.

Then along came the prostitution legislation, where the Labour Party decided that it would make certain that prostitution was legal, it would be a standard form of employment, and the Resource Management Act and all the other relevant Acts would apply. So if a prostitute was off work, he or she would get the unemployment benefit, accident compensation, and suchlike. That is the thinking of this Labour Party.

The next bill it brought in was the Care of Children Bill, which it trumpeted as applying specifically to homosexuals and lesbians in terms of custody issues. But of course, as we know, the courts were already granting custody orders in favour of lesbians and homosexuals. Those lesbians and homosexuals who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee thinking they would get something special were surprised to learn that that was the law, anyway. Of course, what the Labour Party is trying to do is tell the judges that it would like them to do that more often, because it believes that that type of behaviour is normal and decent, and that is the way New Zealand should be.

Then we had the Civil Union Act in its two steps. That legislation was based on the Marriage Act in the first place, and really was the Marriage Act, but instead, the word “marriage” was omitted and the words “civil union” substituted. That is the only difference between the two pieces of legislation. Of course, this statutory references bill, the sixth item on the Government’s agenda, gives statutory effect and practice to many of the ways in which people who are living together may not come within a normal marriage situation. Of course, as far as de factos are concerned, people want to be in a de facto so that they were not part of a marriage. They wanted to be different. But people cannot be different in New Zealand under a Labour Party Government. Its socialist origins are just too much. It likes everybody to be the same. We all have to work on the same farm, in the same way, be taught the same things, behave in the same way, marry in the same way, and have the law apply to them all in the same way, whether or not we like it.People do not dare to be different in this Labour Party—being different and having a different way of behaving is too much for them. The nanny State comes in again in the shape of Helen Clark and her other Ministers and suchlike and says: “No, you all have to be the same whether or not you like it.” Of course, as an aside, we saw that happen with the smoke-free legislation. I am an asthmatic and do not smoke, but I do not mind whether bars do have cigarette smoke. I will not go to those bars. I am capable of making up my own mind, but, no, nanny State and the Labour Party say: “This is the way it has to be done. You all have to be the same. No one can be different.”

However, to move on, shortly we will have another bill from a Labour Party member—Georgina Beyer. She will introduce the “Trans-sexual Bill” or the “Cross-dressing Bill”. If girls are members of the Girl Guides they will be able to wear a Scouts uniform, and boys who are Scouts will be able to wear a Girl Guide uniform, and if people complain it will be a breach of their human rights and mum and dad can be prosecuted. That is the type of legislation that someone in the Labour Party will bring to this House. I say: “Good on her.” She has every right to do that, and we have every right to be critical of the type of thing we have come to expect from Labour Party members of Parliament.

The final action that the Labour Party will want to take—I think it is final, but one never knows with the Labour Party—is to bring in a new Adoption Act to state formally that homosexuals and lesbians can adopt children. I think in law they can probably do that even now, but that is too much of a shock for Labour members. They have to pass some legislation and to have it legislated for somewhere or other so that they can go back to all those wonderful European Union places, the United Nations, and say: “Aren’t we wonderful; we’ve got this great record in human rights.” I heard the speech made by the Minister who led off this debate, the Hon Marian Hobbs, and I have rarely heard so much humbug. She read the speech very well, but I do not think her heart was actually in it. She was given the speech, and she read it well, but it was a lot of humbug and she knew, as well as anybody else in this House, that her talk about New Zealand leading the world and how all the other countries were catching up on New Zealand was an absolute load of humbug.

One of the problems we have in New Zealand today is that so many New Zealanders are leaving. We would like New Zealanders to come back, but what sort of a country do they have to come back to when we constantly have this type of legislation rammed down our throats by a nanny State—the Labour Party? It is obviously unacceptable to people, and it is one of the reasons why they do not come back. The fact that house prices have gone up 65 percent in Auckland in the last 5 years and in the rest of the country by about 45 percent, and wages are low under this Labour Government is another reason—amongst many other reasons—why people will not come back. This type of legislation clearly shows to everybody overseas where this minority Labour Government’s preferences lie.

We have had two bills—the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Each of those bills would have cost this country $10 million. That is about $20 million that this minority Labour Government has spent on this legislation. Who is this legislation for? Only 0.2 percent of the adult population are affected by this legislation, and I would say that 0.175 percent of them will not take advantage of it. They are grown-up adults, they know what they are doing, and they have their own lifestyle. So we are passing legislation for about 0.0025 percent of New Zealand’s population just to make Helen Clark, and that coterie of lesbians and homosexuals who surround her, happy. That is about the only reason for this legislation. Less than 0.1 percent of this population will get anything out of this legislation in so far as lesbians and homosexuals are concerned. De facto couples do not want this legislation; it has been rammed down their throats. That is as good a reason I know for bringing in a member’s bill to get rid of it. That is what I will be working on.

The $20 million could have been spent much better on helping some solo mother to buy her children some clothes and shoes, do something for the local schools, and things like that. Any New Zealander could work out many, many hundreds of ways that we could have better spent $20 million, which is what this legislation is all about. It is an absolute disgrace. This bill should not be passed, and I will working hard on a member’s bill to try to repeal it.

LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I want to speak only briefly on the third readings of this legislation, largely to clarify the misunderstanding that has arisen as a result of a change made by the Justice and Electoral Committee to the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and a recommendation it made to the Government in its report back. I am disappointed that a member of the select committee who opposed the bill misunderstood what the committee did with the bill—and the member knows to whom I refer. The select committee did not put off a hard decision on the definition of de facto relationship and refer it to the Law Commission to decide; it made a very clear decision about defining de facto relationships in the Interpretation Act so that it applied to all relevant legislation. We made references to the Law Commission, but I will come to those in a minute. The select committee added the words “civil union” to the most frequently used definition of de facto relationship in any number of statutes, if the member would like to add them up. It now reads that a de facto relationship is a “relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union”—something that completely escaped the notice of the National Party, as well.

The so-called definition that we removed from the bill as introduced was not a definition at all; it was a set of characteristics that a court could use to define whether somebody was living in a de facto relationship. The irony was that the set of characteristics in itself did not determine anything. The presence or absence of any one, or all of them, was not in itself to be determinant of whether the de facto relationship existed.

Stephen Franks: A pseudo-definition.

LIANNE DALZIEL: It was a pseudo-definition. Stephen Franks and I actually found some points of agreement at the select committee. I know I am ruining his reputation by mentioning it in the House, but there were a lot of points on which we felt we reached some agreement.

The difficulty with the list for me was that it came straight from court cases that were focused on determining property rights on the break-up of a de facto relationship that had existed in fact—and it was often a question of whether it existed in law—and whether it existed at a particular time in the law, because, as we know, property cases are dependent on people living in a relationship in the nature of marriage for 3 years.

The second series of court cases were about benefit entitlements. In fact, they were about people trying to prove they were not living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage because of the benefit arrangements they had entered into. We did not think that that was appropriate for every single definition of a de facto relationship in every single law where de facto relationships were referred to. We have asked the courts—and I lay full credit at the feet of Stephen Franks for this—to focus on the purpose of the individual legislation when they make the decision about whether a de facto relationship exists. I think Stephen Franks made an important contribution to the definition in the Interpretation Act that will help courts make the right decision in cases where they are called upon to do so.

The legislation as introduced extended social security laws to same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007—and, for the benefit Mr Dail Jones, I repeat that it does exactly the same thing as reported back. The legislation as introduced covered same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007, and the legislation we are passing today covers same-sex de facto couples on 1 April 2007. That is not the advice the member was reported in the media as giving. I am glad I have had the opportunity to clarify that, and I am very glad that the member now admits that the coverage in the media was an inaccurate—

Dail Jones: Don’t lie! Tell the truth!

LIANNE DALZIEL: I beg the member’s—

Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member cannot say that. He will stand, withdraw, and apologise.

Dail Jones: I withdraw and apologise.

LIANNE DALZIEL: I simply said that that was how it was reported in the media. It was certainly reported in the Christchurch Press in that way, because we had to ensure that a full retraction was printed the following day to make up for the mess that that member caused.

The last point I want to make relates to our references to the Law Commission, but I do want to clarify one point. A friend rang me the other day to ask: “Why has the select committee taken de facto couples out of the property relationships legislation, so now I have to enter into a civil union or get married, or enter into a property agreement with my long-term de facto partner with whom I have children? Why has this happened?”. I had to explain that there has been no change to the law. The property relationships law simply covers civil unions. It continues to cover de facto couples, same-sex and otherwise, and that has always been the case since the property relationships legislation was passed.

We told the Government that it would be really good to send some issues back to the Law Commission to reconsider, in the light of legislation having been passed to cover civil unions. We have asked the Government to look at whether it would make terms of reference to the Law Commission to report on a number of matters, including the Property (Relationships) Act. We have also asked the Government to consider people related by next of kin status and also to report on other domestic relationships where people are not accorded next of kin status because they are not married or in a civil union. We think those issues should be explored by the Law Commission and we commend those recommendations to the House.

STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) : I am pleased to follow the honourable Lianne Dalziel, because at least she tries to address some of the issues with intellectual integrity. We end up with pretty substantial disagreement, but at least we agree that the questions are important. I am pleased to say that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to the House, that there is a whole lot of unfinished business in this legislation, owes quite a lot to the fact that Lianne Dalziel was willing to look with fresh eyes at what the legislation ended up doing to our family law.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is the legislation that should have been debated and worked on before the Civil Union Bill, the legislation that defined civil unions. Instead, in this House in December we had a debate that was completely vacant in terms of the subject. We had a debate about passing a prescription for a pantomime imitation of marriage, without knowing what legal effect it would have. When the select committee got around to looking at the legal effect, the Government was embarrassed—and rightly so, because it was quite plain that the legislation made a complete mockery not only of marriage but also of the civil union it was promoting. The legislation went through, took nearly 100 Acts and a multitude of regulations, and said: “Everywhere the word ‘marriage’ appears, and where the words ‘civil union’ will appear, let’s put in the words ‘de facto’ as well. And for good measure let’s make sure that ‘de facto’ covers just about any couple who shack up, whether such people mean it to be long term or short term, whether they respect each other, whether they have a relationship of mutual trust, whether the relationship is stable and committed or caring, and whether it is exclusive.”—all was irrelevant.

Yet this House was full of rhetoric about the Government wanting to endorse and strengthen what it calls “stable committed relationships”. Recognition of the problem is not enough, because we have come back with legislation that still does absolutely nothing about stable committed relationships. There is no requirement in any of the law we have debated over the last 6 months for anything that expresses stability or commitment, or requires caring. We have made a nonsense of one of the great inheritances of English law—the idea that marriage was not simply a token of dynastic connection, that women were not tradable goods to be passed over and forced into servitude, that it required competency, and that it required people to know their own mind and to be of an age at which they could make an uncoerced decision. What does this legislation do? It reduces the age at which people can come into relationships, where the consequence can be a serious commitment.

What does this legislation do about consent, the open ceremony in front of people where no door may be barred so that people can witness uncoerced agreement without duress? It is irrelevant. When de facto relationships that may be forged in drunken brutality qualify as being the same as marriage, or civil union, this Labour Government makes a mockery of the idea of uncoerced consent. There is nothing in the legislation about commitment. There is nothing that restores the enforceability of marriage or civil union. There is nothing that restores what was the most important contract people could enter into, to have the slightest contractual effect. It is easier to recover for breach of a 1-day employment agreement than for a contract that is supposed to be for life. There is nothing about exclusivity. There is a mockery of it.

This legislation goes back and amends the Civil Union Act, even though it is only 2 months old, and sticks into it further elaborations of the list of people one cannot civil unite with because of the blood relationship. Yet it is clearly intended for people for whom blood relationship will matter nothing, because they are not expected to breed. This is gay marriage, whatever the Prime Minister might say. It is gay marriage in the little things that let people down when they set out to deceive. It is gay marriage just by looking at what the Registrar-General of Births, Deaths and Marriages has to do about celebrants.

I have just received a letter from Ted Downing. He is a respected art dealer, a valuer, and a broker who has been a JP and a marriage celebrant for years. He told me that he is not aware of any complaints from anyone. He has no prejudices that would preclude him from becoming a civil union celebrant, so he applied. He was asked to provide references, which he did, including one from probably one of New Zealand’s foremost art dealers and a very respected businessman. He supplied all the criteria he believed was necessary. He said what his civil engagements had been, including councillor of the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts and councillor of the Federation of Voluntary Welfare Organisations. Ted has held a number of positions in local organisations, and he was the regional manager for half the North Island for the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind, yet he found he was not suitable.

The reason was that Ted had not stated the community he would like to serve, defined by geography, interest, belief, or some other factor. He has tried to get to the bottom of this. The community he wants to serve is his community of Eastbourne, or Wellington, but that is not sufficient. He has been told that that is not adequate and if he does not provide more information he will be deemed to have withdrawn his application. He is trying to work out what community it is. He asked me whether, if he joined Rainbow Labour, that would be an adequate community. I think he should try, because it may well be that that will do. Here is an active man who is fully employed. He is not retired, so it is not as though his appointment would be short term.

Apparently, the registrar-general has been told that it is not sufficient that marriage celebrants have an impeccable record, all the references, and an interest in providing civil union services; they must also state what community they want to serve. Why is that? Is it to uphold the remuneration these people are to get? The Government cannot say. I would say that this House can draw the right conclusion. This is a matter of gay marriage, and this man has not put in the code words to say “I’m gay”. That is his problem. If the Government was willing to look at this seriously and reassure the community that this was not simply gay marriage, we would have put the words into the Civil Union Act.

The Civil Union Act is being amended by the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. It is one of the clauses in the bill. We have quite a substantial amendment to the Civil Union Act. We would have something there that would make it plain that this was intended to be neutral. Instead, we have legislation that does nothing of what it should. It should, as the select committee signalled in its report, state what marriage and civil union ought to be about.

Nothing in this legislation protects next of kin rights. Members—especially members of the select committee—will know how many earnest, decent, upset people came before the committee to support this legislation and the civil union legislation because they wanted to be respected when they visited their partners in hospital. They wanted to be respected when they tried to go to a mortuary to identify someone they loved who had died. This Government allowed this legislation to be peddled as though it would increase respect for those kinds of problems. There is nothing in it about next of kin rights. Nothing in it states that they must be recognised by a hospital or anyone else. Those things were not covered by law, anyway. Yet Government members made speech after speech about it. I think we had one from the honourable Georgina Beyer, who spoke with tear-jerking intensity about what the legislation would do in that area, and, of course, it was not even covered by the legislation.

The solution put into the legislation regarding the nature of marriage and sexual connection is only temporary. We got away from that pseudo-definition of a relationship, as Lianne Dalziel said, but by replacing it with the general statement that a relationship should be “in the nature of marriage”, the courts are still left with an impossible task. How much affection is required? How much mutual reliance? Is sexual connection an important element of it? Courts will struggle with that, because in most of the areas in which we have tinkered with the law, that is actually irrelevant.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : I stand today to support this legislation, as without it the Civil Union Act means nothing. All nine Green MPs will be voting for this legislation, as we have throughout its passage through the House. Our policy calls for equal treatment of people and couples, irrespective of their sexual orientation. We believe that, as a society, we should celebrate diversity and encourage the appreciation of each other’s differences, rather than condemn those who have a sexual orientation or gender identity different from our own. How dare we do that? Amongst other things, the Greens are pleased that this legislation addresses some important issues, such as giving a civil union partner rights to compensation for the death of a partner, or the right to determine whether a partner can be cremated. We want the Government to continue to progress equity, despite the hateful and vitriolic speeches made by some of the conservative moralists, who cannot support, it seems, loving relationships.

The Justice and Electoral Committee has made some sensible amendments to the legislation. I know that it has done a lot of work on it, and I acknowledge them for that. Some of those amendments will ensure that we avoid unintended consequences for de facto couples. We hope that the Law Commission reports on the matters relating to next of kin, which have already been talked about here this afternoon. The Greens are supportive of a type of next of kin register, and hope that the commission will progress that issue positively. The Greens support the very different ways that we all establish our own families and relationships, including what happens in that very difficult and sensitive period after a partner dies.

The Green Party lives in the 21st century and recognises that the concept of a family with a mother, father, and 2.4 children is not necessarily the norm for many, many people these days. People form different relationships for a whole variety of reasons. In fact, many people never marry at all, or never have a de facto relationship, but instead have a very strong, long-term bond with a sister, brother, or friend who fills that role of next of kin. It is ludicrous that independent adults cannot choose their next of kin, who can make decisions for them if they are incapable, without fear that distant or long-lost family members will seek a court ruling to overturn that.

As I mentioned during the Committee stage, I have a particular interest in the aspects that deal with the removal of some of the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. The Greens were pleased to see that the select committee took out some amendments that would have changed the situation in relation to how de facto relationships are dealt with by the Ministry of Social Development. We were pleased to see that the checklist, or tick-box, approach—which would have in effect overturned aspects of the Ruka Court of Appeal judgment—was done away with. Likewise, we are pleased to see the removal from the legislation of attempts to codify court judgments on relationships in the nature of marriage. Those clauses in the original legislation were subject to widespread criticism from beneficiary advocacy groups and others, and we are glad that the Government has taken a common-sense approach to that and has put off doing anything about it in this particular legislation.

During the Committee stage, the Green Party put up two amendments. I will mention them just briefly. The first was to do with citizenship. We believe that this legislation should extend the rights of citizenship to civil union partners of New Zealand citizens. We could not understand why the Government, given the enormous progress it has made with this legislation, could not take the next step in relation to citizenship, so that those entering a civil partnership would have the same legal rights as married couples do now. Secondly, we put forward an amendment to the Adoption Act, so that same-sex couples could adopt children. I am aware of the uproar that that caused in the House but, again, I simply cannot understand, in the context of this law, why we cannot go that next step and confer on same-sex couples the same rights to adopt as other couples have in this country. This legislation is about ending discrimination. We are not quite there yet, and we are disappointed that the Government did not see fit to allow our amendments to go forward.

I would now like to address some of the issues that have been raised by church people, Christians, who have been writing to MPs—probably to all of us—and encouraging us to oppose this legislation. I acknowledge some of those people, who are in the House tonight. I respect the beliefs, and the sincerity of the beliefs, of the people who have been canvassing us on this matter, but I say first of all that we do not live in a theocracy. We are not in a State in which Christianity, any one form of Christianity, or any other religion is our State religion. Therefore, I do not understand how any group of people from any particular faith can think that they have a right to determine, through Parliament, that somehow their belief must govern all or any of the laws we pass here. In fact, many Christians and people of other faiths support the recognition of civil unions, everything that goes with them in this legislation, and non-discriminatory practices. They recognise that gay and lesbian people are part of the glorious diversity of creation. At the time the Bible was written, its writers did not understand the very nature of homosexuality—that it is part of us; that it is as natural as being straight. It is nothing new. It is as old as the history of the human race—in fact, a whole lot older, because homosexuality exists throughout creation; throughout all animal species, including our own.

Our understanding of science has moved on enormously in the last 2,000 years or more, from the Old Testament days. Just as we know that the Earth is not flat and now understand millions of other things, so do those of us who are aware of scientific and biological reality realise that homosexuality, in all its wondrous diversity, is part of nature. I believe that whatever our religious faith, or lack of it, this legislation is about nurturing expressions of love and commitment between people, and is part of the compassionate message of Christ and other religious leaders; nothing else.

Finally, I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by MPs in this debate. Firstly, Paul Adams made some comments that stunned me. He talked about the need for every child to have grandparents and great-grandparents. I absolutely agree with Mr Adams, but how on earth could he imply, as he did the other day, that somehow the children of gay and lesbian couples do not have grandparents or great-grandparents? It is simply a biological impossibility.

Paul Adams: How do they?

SUE BRADFORD: No human being can be born without parents. If the member would really like me to show him pictures later, I will. Mr Adams also said, among other things, that he does not believe that there are any young ladies who do not dream of the day they will be married. That is, likewise, a rather quaint notion. I wonder how many young ladies he actually knows.

Other members, like Mr Adams’ colleague Murray Smith and New Zealand First’s Bill Gudgeon, continue with that old canard that somehow, because one group of people will no longer be discriminated against, other people in society will be harmed or diminished as a consequence and that civil unions will impact negatively on those who are married now. Mr Gudgeon talks in particular of this law destroying families and destroying the love and cherishing that goes on within families. Obviously, in his mind, that means conventional families. That is simply incredible nonsense. This bill is not about damaging or destroying families—anybody’s family. It is about fostering a legal environment in which all families, and all the children within them, have the same rights as all others. Those rights and the increased sense of belonging to our society that this legislation will bring will actually help nurture good relationships within families, and surely that is a wonderful thing for all of us.

Mr Dail Jones keeps talking about Labour’s coterie of lesbians and homosexuals. I find that quite objectionable, but I would like to assure him that the Green Party also has some quite fine coteries of lesbians and homosexuals. To conclude, I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s firm commitment to both the Civil Union Act and this raft of legislation that goes with it. I congratulate the Labour Government on sticking to its guns on this legislation, despite the massive campaign that has been waged against it over the last few years. Like most Labour Party members, the Green Party believes that the future of our nation lies in the celebration of diversity, not in stagnation and ancient prejudice. [Interruption]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I remind people in the gallery that this debate is within Parliament. I urge members on the cross benches to be mindful that they do not interject on each other, because it muffles the microphones—Speaker’s ruling 57/5. And there will be no more noise from the gallery.

PAUL ADAMS (United Future) : It is always a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, who gave a very confused speech. It was a religious speech from a religion known as secular humanism, which she follows. I will start with the point about bringing up grandchildren. I love my grandchildren, and they are absolutely fantastic. Like all young children, they always ask “Why?”, and that is a very good question. So being a grandfather, I will often tease them. I asked my grandson: “Why do you ask ‘Why?’ ”, and he stopped for a minute, looked me straight in the eye, and said: “Because that’s how I learn, Grandpa.” I thought what a very good answer that was from a 3-year-old. However, why do we not ask ourselves why we are bringing in this sort of legislation? I think that is a very relevant question to ask. Why are we going against the trend of the rest of the world?

I heard one speaker—I think that it was the honourable Lianne Dalziel—say that we are only following the trend of the world. Well, no, we are not following the trend of the world. I would remind the House today that the Doha Declaration on the Family was passed by 139 nations—

Dail Jones: How many?

PAUL ADAMS: I tell Mr Jones that it was 139 nations. They passed it on 6 September 2004. The Doha declaration calls on nations to uphold, preserve, and defend the institution of marriage. One thing we need to understand very clearly is that this legislation is in the process of destroying marriage, because if the Government does not build something, promote it, lift it up high, and say that it is the preferred institution, it will be destroyed.

I believe that the Government has a special responsibility, especially when we consider the generations to come. I have heard many speeches about children, but if we do not have the generations coming through, then we will all disappear within a hundred years, we can be assured of that—and looking around this House, it may happen far sooner than even in that period of time.

So we should promote an institution such as marriage, where parents are committed to each other and a vast majority of them will choose to have children and to bring them up. I have heard many statistics quoted about marriage. I heard the honourable Lianne Dalziel yell out about adultery, but this is the most adulterous legislation that I have ever come across in regard to the marriage laws. If we do not uphold marriage, and promote it and esteem it above other sorts of relationships, what message are we sending to the children—the young children?

We have to stake a young tree for it to grow, and we can even look at the gangs in our country for an example of that now. Many gang members joined gangs as young teenaged boys. They were looking for security that they perhaps did not find in their homes, and they were looking for the companionship that perhaps was missing. Yet there is something within the hearts of men and women that makes us want to be loved, be esteemed, and be recognised for what we can contribute to society. There would not be one person listening today who would not have that wish. Yet, sadly, in today’s world that encouragement is missing.

But those men in the gangs have all of a sudden recognised that they, too, have children. They do not want their children to follow the same pathway that they have had to follow. They want them to follow a better pathway, because they realise, on looking back, that the thing that they thought was good and that would build has actually been destructive. We stand in this House today and we are destroying something that is vital to society—we are destroying the institution of marriage.

I have heard much spoken about human rights, and this bill is always and in every way about individual rights, but a family is not about individual rights, it is about responsibility. As a father, I have responsibilities; I also have the responsibility to love and to look after my wife. I have the responsibility to guide my children in the best way that I can—and people can be assured that they will say that I am not perfect. Marriage is not a perfect institution. It has its problems and its challenges—just ask anybody who has been married for more than 12 months, and he or she will confirm that—yet, despite its imperfections, it is still better than any other institution that we have had. I have heard statistics on divorce, and nobody wants to see anybody go through the pain of divorce. Sadly, in this country, yes, the divorce rate has been increasing and, yes, that has affected children. But let me also assure people that most people who get married—most people—firstly get married and then they may plan on having a family, and their children bring challenges in their own measure.

Likewise, many couples who choose to live together have done so at first because a child was on the way, although that is not always the case. Therefore, those couples have to go through the challenges not only of learning to live with each other, but also of how to bring up children. The statistics on the rate of those relationships breaking up and of those parents parting to the detriment of their children is double that of the rate of marriages breaking up.

When we start to bring in things that bring confusion to young people, who are now given a multitude of different relationships to choose from, any young person will experiment. We know that; we were young once ourselves. However, does the Government not have a responsibility as the Government—instead of passing this type of legislation—to pass legislation that states that we have discovered, that history has shown, and that the evidence is overwhelming that the best type of relationship to bring children up in is marriage.

Is it not time, for once, that the Government brought in laws that actually built marriage up and that helped people in their relationships, instead of saying: “Well, if that sort of relationship did not work, that is fine. Give it away. You chose the wrong sort of relationship. Go off and have another sort of relationship.”

I have had to counsel wives who have had the heartache of having a husband go off with another man. I ask members what they think that does to the self-esteem of such women. To be a homosexual or lesbian is to choose a lifestyle. I have dealt with many who have chosen to come out of that lifestyle and, sadly, we see that the pattern of why they entered those types of relationships, which has probably been well debated and well discussed, is a sad indictment on society. It is another reason why we need to promote and build marriages, and not to pull them apart. We need children to grow up in households where mum respects dad, and dad respects mum, and where they love each other and show good principles to their children—show them a preferred pathway.

No Government can ever legislate against people’s choices, and neither do we, but I believe we have a responsibility to make a clear pathway if we again want this nation to be the great nation I want it to be. I have always said that I entered politics because I want to be a generational politician. I see the potential in the young people of our nation, yet with the lowering of the drinking age and the legalisation of prostitution I ask what choices we are putting before them. They are not choices that I know as a father are the right choices. We are asking them to make decisions when we should really be guiding them. We should not be giving them a free-range choice, because one thing about young people is that they love to know what the boundaries are.

When we start to break down the boundaries in society, as we have been doing in recent times, we will have a disrupted society—which we have now. As a United Future MP, I stand as one who is proud to be a father, and as one who wants to build marriage. I will be voting against this bill.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Māori Affairs) : In listening to that member waxing lyrical about values and potential in children, we need to be reminded that this legislation is certainly about expanding and creating choices. It is about creating choices that do not discriminate. Children cannot choose the union they come from. They cannot choose that, and there has been a raft of partnerships and unions over the years. Taking a purist stance, that being married—and married in the Church—is the only way people can strengthen their families and guide them, I think begs the question.

In relation to the point made by the previous speaker about the generations coming through, we all want to encourage that. But things change. My parents came from families of 14 to 16 members, on average, and I came from a generation of families that had eight to 10 members. Māori families today have 2.5 kids. I do not know how we get the 0.5, but we have it.

Darren Hughes: The intention, Minister!

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA:The intention, no matter how it is foisted on us or practised, is certainly embellished in the union. This legislation certainly recognises that. It is about strengthening relationships and about managing and respecting peoples’ choices.

In Māoridom one of the big debates over several generations has been about whāngai children—children who did not belong to the legal union but who were picked up by grandparents, aunts, and uncles and given space in their houses. They were accepted, even though they were not blood relations, as part of those unions. That, in my mind, makes me very clear about why I will support this bill.

There are a whole lot of issues around this legislation. I am always fascinated when people talk about not discriminating, yet the essence of their delivery, as we heard just before, is about discrimination. We all want to cherish our families. We all want to ensure that our children and our mokopuna—our grandchildren—have a good journey forward. In Māoridom that has been practised for a long, long time. Nearly 50 to 60 percent of its couples are not married in the Church, so we need to ensure that those people—who do care for their kids—are not discriminated against on the premise that children are cared for only if their parents are married. I do wonder at that. I respect parents who are married, but respect also needs to be shown to people who are outside marriage. I will support this bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the next member, I advise the House that New Zealand First wishes to split its call. There will be two 5-minute calls, and the bell will go with 1 minute remaining for each call.

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) : I am very grateful for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading, largely because it gives me an opportunity to remedy some statements I made during the Committee stage that I later found to be incorrect, and that influenced the way I voted at that stage. They led, for example, to a nice little press release, which stated that Donnelly had done a flip-flop. I have to tell the person who wrote it that physically that would be impossible these days! Lianne Dalziel was not very clear on how I came to be misled on the issue, or how I got on the wrong track. It really started with a Government staffer who made a statement that all the social welfare stuff had been shelved. That led me to believe certain things. I have to say that that Government staffer was not being categorical. He told me to read the report in order to find out for myself, so I cannot put the blame on him. Dail Jones, when I went to him, thought I was right but, once again, he advised me to read the Justice and Electoral Committee report. I did not read it, because I thought that a person like Dail Jones, being such a good legal man, would know the situation exactly. Unfortunately, I should have taken his advice, and I take the responsibility for getting it wrong.

The issue I got wrong was around the treatment of same-sex de facto relationships when it comes to benefits. I have always been of the belief that if we are going to make a level playing field, then it has to be a level playing field across the board. The issue, which I ask those people who are voting against this legislation and who say we have to support marriage to consider, is that at present—under the present law—we actually discriminate against heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits, because we treat homosexual couples as individuals but heterosexuals as couples. Let us face it: homosexuality is not illegal. Female homosexuality has never been illegal, and male homosexuality has been legal for quite some time. I have not seen any member of Parliament put up a member’s bill to recriminalise homosexuality. It is a legal relationship, so therefore there should be a mechanism whereby people can register a homosexual relationship. But that is not the issue. I believed that the bill was going to state that we would park de facto homosexual couples, and the way we treated them in relation to benefits, for a future time, and that we would perhaps fix up the legislation later on.

The reality is that the bill—and Tim Barnett, who was quick to get to me and point out the error of my ways, has just walked in—states that de facto same-sex relationships will be treated in exactly the same ways as heterosexual relationships within 2 years’ time. I personally—

Peter Brown:Why 2 years?

Hon BRIAN DONNELLY: Let us hang on a second—I have no difficulty with that 2 years’ grace, where people can get themselves organised around that particular fact. Now, my understanding of the bill is that that is the way things will be for benefits into the future. If that is the case, this bill will save the Government money—save taxpayers money. I have not worked out just how much the saving will actually be, but there must be some members in the gay community who are not very happy with this Government, because this measure will hit them in the pocket. But that is the test of whether the Government is committed to its principles, or whether the supporters of this bill are committed to those principles. As far as I can see, what we have now come up with is a consistently level playing field, regardless of the form of a relationship—whether it is a marriage, a civil union, a de facto heterosexual relationship, or a de facto homosexual relationship.

I was asked during the debate on the Civil Union Bill what the difference was between a civil union and a gay marriage. The guy, who was giving me a hard time, said that a civil union was just a gay marriage. My response had to be that, for starters, one started with an “m” and the other with a “c”. In reality, one would expect that the responsibilities and rights that flow from any of those relationships—a civil union, a marriage, or a de facto relationship—would be fairly similar, and that is what we have.

I want to finish off by making a remark I made in my first reading speech on the Civil Union Bill, which is that my own candle will not shine any less brightly by allowing someone else to light a candle for himself or herself. I do not believe that the passage of this legislation will affect the quality of my marriage one jot.

CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) : In speaking to the third reading of this legislation, I just want to share my concerns with the House. One of my many concerns is that it is possible—and we talked about this in the Committee stage debate on Part 1 and Part 2—for example, that if a church were to decline the use of its church hall for a civil union ceremony, it could get into legal trouble in that regard. The same is relevant to, for example, a taxi driver who is uncomfortable with a civil union ceremony because it goes against his or her religious or other beliefs. He or she would have to drive a couple to such a ceremony. Even under the law we have right now, taxi drivers are not allowed to turn down passengers unless they appear to be intoxicated. Under the current law taxi drivers have to accept passengers, whether they are going to a civil union ceremony, to a marriage ceremony, or even just to a normal commitment ceremony without any legal ties. Taxi drivers have to accept those couples and allow them to ride with them in their taxis.

Here we are impinging on people’s rights—on the rights of average, ordinary New Zealanders—to choose to say: “The law is the law, but personally I am unable to do this.” They will get into legal hassles if they do say that, because when a taxi driver says—[Interruption] I am speaking very specifically to the legislation, Mr Speaker. If a taxi driver says that he or she is uneasy about this legislation and does not want to carry a couple, some of the civil union couples whom we are talking about in this legislation will get upset, there will be complaints, and matters will spiral from there.

I believe that that will become even more possible if this Government includes hate-speech provisions in the law. I suspect that the Government does not want to make its own hate-speech law. I suspect that it is more crafty and deceptive than that, and that it will probably try to insert hate-speech provisions into laws such as the Human Rights Act—into section 61 or section 131. It may even slip those hate-speech provisions into our law through tightening up the Broadcasting Act or other pieces of legislation—rafts of it—to further restrict New Zealanders’ rights to have their say and to say no, they disagree with a civil union ceremony. From the hate-speech investigation that is going on right now, and from what we have seen with regard to the Civil Union Act, the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, and laws such as the Prostitution Reform Act, we can see that this Government is slowly, day by day, eroding the laws and values that are contained in legislation.

The Greens spokesperson, Sue Bradford, said that this country is not a theocracy. She is probably right, but the fact is that New Zealand has had a broad stroke of Christian humanity running through its laws for the last 150 years, ever since it became a democracy. That is an undisputed fact. The fact is—whether members want to get away from it or not—that those laws have stood New Zealand in good stead in the past and should do so in the future. But this Labour Government is doing everything in its power to change that, and I think it is disgraceful.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I am very pleased to take a short call on the third reading of this companion legislation to the Civil Union Act. This is a great day of celebration for many New Zealanders. They will be able to choose to have a civil union if they so desire, and it will have some punch—for want of a better term—behind it as a result of the various amendments that the legislation to which we are giving a third reading today will make in order to bring things into line and provide equity and equality.

It has been interesting to listen to the contributions of some members to the debate this afternoon. I cannot help but detect a pessimistic sort of attitude—a fear and loathing, for want of a better term—in some quarters about the state of relationships, and particularly marriage, in this country. Marriage is celebrated within this legislation. It is celebrated along with the civil union that it will help to endorse. In my opinion, marriage is enhanced by this legislation, and so is the state of relationships in this country. They will be enhanced by offering all New Zealanders the opportunity to have their relationships valued by our society so that we can continue to maintain the cornerstone that many in this House purport to uphold: family values. When I hear some of the pessimistic talk and the “fear and loathing” language of some members, it concerns me. I have heard some members refer to my own member’s bill, the Human Rights (Gender Identity) Amendment Bill, which I am currently proposing for consideration by this Parliament. I have heard Mr Dail Jones make the most misleading comments about what that bill is about. It is about one simple inclusion in section 21 of the Human Rights Act to provide that gender identity is a ground upon which one cannot be discriminated against.

The way this country has taken a lead in the world on legislation like this makes us admired and envied by many nations, because we get it right and we give all people in this country a fair chance. That is represented in this Parliament. I respect the views that are expressed in their diversity. I support this legislation and celebrate its passing.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : There are only a few votes to go, and we will finally be there. Only 28 years after this Parliament agreed that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of marital status or the status of being in a de facto relationship, and only 11 years after this Parliament agreed to add sexual orientation to the grounds of the Human Rights Act, we are finally following the rules we set those generations ago. In passing the Civil Union Act and now this legislation, we are playing catch-up with the rest of society. How ironic it is that from its birth the Maxim Institute, as a voluntary organisation, has had to avoid discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status, yet only now has the Government set the same rules for itself—not, I hasten to add, that any self-respecting homosexual would seek to go to the Maxim Institute as a job choice. How ironic it is that Dail Jones and Nick Smith have for many years been obliged in their behaviour as private citizens to avoid discriminating against people, and yet they want the Government to carry on doing the opposite of that.

It is certainly true that civil unions form part of the initiative that is being completed today. The civil union legislation exists because the Marriage Act as it was—the only basis to formalise the legal status of relationships—was vulnerable to human rights complaints. Out of the debate on that, we have achieved a unique double. Firstly, marriage has been untouched. Indeed, its clarity has been increased by the amendments made in this legislation to laws previously passed by this Parliament that refer to de facto partners as “spouses”. Secondly, a new institution of civil unions, compatible with human rights, has been launched.This relationships bill gives context and practical meaning to civil unions now that Parliament has agreed to them.

Of course, Parliament plays catch-up in any number of areas. Scientific progress, the latest youth craze, and the latest attempt to evade tax are all examples of circumstances where the public and society have moved ahead of our ability to make laws. And so it is here. Many different-sex couples have lived, and do live, open lives without marrying and face minimal or no discrimination. Many same-sex couples will live together without civil unionising and face minimal or no discrimination. However, the risk is there. At the moment, before this legislation goes through, mortuary administrators have to administer regulations on access to bodies that treat the spouse of a deceased person differently from a de facto partner. Members of company boards can avoid registering the interests of their same-sex or heterosexual de facto partner, thereby increasing the possibility of corruption. Compared with the rights of married spouses, the unmarried partners of people who have severe drug or alcohol dependence face immense problems in getting their partners committed for treatment. It is those and innumerable other unfairnesses that this relationships legislation addresses.

The combination of the Civil Union Act and this legislation increases the options of, and reduces the risk for, de facto couples who have actively or passively decided not to formalise their relationships. But they still have the remaining risks. Their relationships have to be proved—they could be in multiple relationships, or one party in a couple could consider himself or herself to be in a de facto relationship while the other party does not. So the law quite rightly has a continuing bias in favour of marriages and civil unions.

The 9-month parliamentary process for these bills has been a memorable one. I am tempted to thank the Destiny Church for clarifying the issues for many people, but I would not want to give it such false credit. How good it is that many New Zealanders understood the history of black shirts, even if the Destiny Church did not. Only three generations ago, men in black shirts gassed homosexuals, people from racial minorities, people from religious minorities, and priests. How ironic! One of the extraordinary sideshows of this debate has been the position taken by the Māori Party. Tariana Turia has voted against equal guardianship rights for same-sex couples, against civil unions, and against equal relationship rights, and she apparently opposes equal rights for the transgender community. She supports a referendum on civil unions—a majority vote on minority rights. And some of us thought that the human rights agenda was universal! So in the midst of such eccentricities I thank the Campaign for Civil Unions—particularly Cameron Law and Margaret Mayman, and poster boys Des Smith and John Jolliff—for coming up with calm and reasonable reasons for law-change. I thank Stuart Beresford and his Ministry of Justice team for providing outstanding advice to the Justice and Electoral Committee, and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for its complex work on this massive legislation.

Some people saw immense doom accompanying the passing of these laws: volcanoes erupting, pestilence hitting the land, homosexuals dying in their early 40s, the institution of marriage collapsing, and the rise of an irresistible lobby for the formalisation of relationships between people and their horses. I most confidently predict that none of that will happen, and equally confidently I predict that more loving couples will seek to protect their relationship and make a public statement of their unique commitment to each other. What is wrong with that?

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) : The debate on what was originally the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is moving to a close. It has certainly been a marathon effort, and the previous speaker, Tim Barnett, dwelt on that issue to some extent.

I am intrigued that he has seen much more clearly than most of us—which is code for my saying that perhaps he has not seen—that there is a necessary linkage between the Civil Union Act and this legislation. The Civil Union Act is now part of the law of the land. How long it continues to exist as part of the law of the land will no doubt depend upon what happens after the next election. I sense that there is a growing mood of concern in the land, and it is well reflected in the increasing number of groups that take up the challenge of family values. I look at the Māori Party—I would like to say that I look at United Future, but I am not wholly sure where United Future stands on many issues—

Darren Hughes: Unlike the National Party.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is always helpful to have an interjection from a very young member of Parliament. I know where National stands. I look at where the new Samoan party—which I think might be called New Zealand Family Values—stands, and I look at the Destiny Church and the views that it expounds, and I see so clearly that family values have suddenly become of critical importance. This legislation is not about family values in any way at all.

There are anomalies in this legislation, and that is not surprising because it is incredibly complicated. We saw that complexity in one of the Supplementary Order Papers, which proposed to divide the original bill into 23 separate Acts. In addition to that, there are changes that make substantial amendments to a number of regulations. There is nothing that is straightforward about this legislation. In an earlier part of these proceedings in Parliament I made the comment that it is unsurprising that errors have occurred, and, doubtless, further errors will be discovered.

I gave an illustration that I think establishes well how foolish this legislation is. Take the case of a male aged 16 who is in a civil union, which is quite possible under this legislation. It could occur in one of two ways. It could occur as a result of his parents consenting to the young man being in a civil union, or it could occur by way of a court order. The illustration I am talking about is of a male aged 16 in a civil union with another male aged 40.

Georgina Beyer: It could be a marriage.

Dr RICHARD WORTH: It could be a marriage, but I am talking about the situation of a civil union; it is the better example, because of what I will go on to say. What could happen under this legislation is that the younger male could be the stepfather of the children of the older male’s first marriage. How ludicrous is that? But the issue is more important than simply the fact it seems absurd, because significant property issues could arise if the younger male had substantial assets. We are talking about legislation that should protect children, but the reality is that this legislation may give rise to the exploitation of younger people.

The bill does two things. Firstly, it gives legal effect to civil unions. I am not sure whether it was really necessary to do that, because the Civil Union Act already gave legal expression to that possibility. The second thing it does, which I deeply reject, is that it takes the view that all relationships should be protected. When I say all relationships I am talking about the proposition that relationships should be protected to a broadly similar extent. I do not have any problem, now that the Civil Union Act has passed, with the relationships of marriage and civil union being protected—although I voted against the Civil Union Act for what I thought were well-deserved reasons. But I and, I think, many members in this House who support family values have a real problem with giving de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that affix to married couples.

There is a good reason for that: people enter into de facto relationships—or, I would say, often drift into them—for reasons that are quite different from the reasons why people enter into marriage. Marriage has a very clear starting point; there are, at the lowest, vows in the registry office, or, at the highest, vows in church. There is an established starting point. It is possible to say the marriage started on 3 July 1961, but that is not so with de facto relationships. I have previously offered in Parliament this challenge: when does a de facto relationship start? Does it start with the first furtive kiss in the dark in a picture theatre, or does it start with the first act of coitus?

These are quite tricky issues that have implications for property, and they may well have implications for the care of children. The Government has decided to fudge that, or, to be more correct—but the Government has endorsed it—the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee decided they did not want to establish any tests as to what a de facto relationship was. Instead, they came to the view that a de facto relationship is a relationship between a man and a woman, a man and a man, or a woman and a woman who live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union. I think that, for those who are strong on family values, to contemplate a man and a man or a woman and a woman living together as a couple as being in a relationship in the nature of marriage is foolishness in the extreme. It is just not consonant with the values that an increasing number of people in civil society would like to see as the paradigm case. Yet the Government is determined to establish that the paradigm case may well include such relationships.

It is really important that we value diversity in our community. I believe that it is really important that we are tolerant of relationships that are other than in the nature of marriage, but this is a Government that is certainly not prepared to do that. That is why, for my money, if we had become involved in the whole issue of “When did the de facto relationship start?” or “What is a de facto relationship?”, the indicators, or indicia, that the original draftspeople—I myself am in danger of falling into political correctness—proposed in drawing up this legislation might have been retained. What they wanted to do was to say that a de facto relationship is evidenced by these particular hallmarks, which might include the duration of the relationship; the nature and extent of common residence; whether a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support between the people; the ownership, use, and acquisition of property; the care and support of children; or the performance of household duties.

But all of that has been abandoned, and we are now being invited to accept a test that is simply this: the relationship between a man and a man is a de facto relationship if they are living together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage. To me that strains incredibly the statutory language that has been established in the past. To me it is not consonant with family values. I make the point that although we must be tolerant of other relationships, we should prefer those relationships that offer stability to society.

JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) : I would just like to draw attention to the fact that on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill voting, there was an error on the part of the tellers in that we omitted to include Winnie Laban’s name. She had given us her proxy to vote in favour of the bill. I seek leave for that to be corrected.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There appears to be none.