LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : In support of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, I point out that the legislation meets obligations agreed to by this Parliament just over a decade ago. In 1993 this Parliament debated the Human Rights Bill, which introduced significant changes to our human rights framework. I was extremely proud to be a member of this House on the day that bill was passed. I am the first to acknowledge it was a National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the bill that made it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital status, and another National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the Supplementary Order Paper that extended the grounds of unlawful discrimination to include sexual orientation. I take my hat off to both those members and other members of the National Government of the day. The human rights legislation did a lot more than that, of course, but it is very relevant to the bill that is before us today.

My pride in being an MP that day came, in part, from the fact that MPs from different sides of the political spectrum joined across that spectrum in order to do the right thing. Now, by enabling a free vote on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, individual MPs across the political spectrum can again provide real meaning to the decision that took effect 10 years ago, this year.

The Human Rights Act contained a sunset clause. A period of 5 years was allowed to the Government of the day to assess the variety of statutes that contained discriminatory provisions, and to make a decision about each—namely, to repeal the provision, to amend the provision, or, indeed, to continue the discrimination, if there was good cause to do so. If I were to express disappointment in the former National Government it would be that it failed to meet the time frame set by the legislation, which is why two separate amending bills had to be introduced—one in 1998 and the other in 2001.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill generally provides that the law will be neutral in respect of relationships. As I said before, the prohibited grounds of discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation were decided 10 years ago. We are not revisiting that issue today. We are introducing a bill that will take us through the process of determining how to address our obligations, which we have already entered into as a Parliament. This bill promotes all three options. It contains repeal, it contains amendment, and, by way of omission, it allows for the retention of discriminatory pieces of legislation.

There are other issues that have not been dealt with in this bill, because they are being dealt with in the context of specific law reform measures. An example is the spousal immunity provision contained in the Evidence Act. That measure will be addressed in the reform of evidence law, which the Government will be introducing later this year. For those members who were at my wedding, they will know how distressed I am at knowing that that provision in the Evidence Act may be disappearing from our books.

The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill contains both minor and significant changes. I guess the most significant ones relate to the next-of-kin examples we hear about in the media, where the next of kin has been denied the ability to be part of the most crucial aspect of his or her partner's life—in fact, the ending of someone's life—at the time of death. For example, the Burial and Cremation Act provides only for a husband or wife to be buried with each other. There is no provision for somebody in a de facto relationship, same-sex relationship, or otherwise, to be buried with his or her partner. “Lifelong” does not matter how long a couple has been together; it does not count. This Relationships (Statutory References) Bill says that lifelong does count, it does matter, so the bill resolves that very serious anomaly in the law.

Another really significant change in the bill relates to benefit rules, which, at the moment, recognise opposite-sex de facto relationships but not same-sex de facto relationships. I believe that while the State does not provide a mechanism for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships, then discrimination is justified. How could we say that a lesbian couple or a gay couple were not entitled to treat themselves under the law as separate and individual, when the law does not recognise their relationship, or give them a mechanism for recognising their relationship in any legal sense? So the provision of this civil union legislation resolves that issue. It does not matter whether individuals take up the option of civil union. The fact that the State has provided recognition for same-sex relationships, addresses that matter.

The laws to be amended by this bill largely proceed the obligation to make the law neutral on the question of marital status and sexual orientation. I do pay tribute to those who were in Parliament in 1993 and who voted to enable the law to be changed in order that this human rights measure could be put in place. It is time to face up to our responsibility to meet the obligations that were passed by this Parliament just over a decade ago.

LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) : I appreciate this opportunity to explain my personal concerns regarding this bill, which United Future is treating as a conscience vote. The Prime Minister was quoted in the 11 February issue of Express magazine as saying: “The omnibus bill will take out any discrimination, so the Marriage Act will not have any practical effect. In essence, we are carrying on the work started in the Property Relations Bill.” The omnibus bill she was referring to is now called the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, and she is right—this bill will make the Marriage Act have no practical effect.

My first question in relation to this legislation is where the Government’s mandate is to make marriage have no practical effect. Did the Labour Party campaign in 2002 with a promise that if it were elected, it would remove any distinction in law for marriage, so that it would have no practical effect? Was that one of its credit-card promises? No. Was that in its printed manifesto that I have here? No. All that Labour can claim is that it was on its website under “Rainbow Policy”. How will a dear, sweet old lady know about this sinister plot if she has to get a computer and learn about websites to find out what the Government’s plans are? Even on that website, there is no mention of making marriage having no practical effect. Something with no practical effect has become useless in anyone’s interpretation, and I for one will not support this legislation.

It is clear that a Government does have a responsibility to provide laws to enable the just and equitable outworking of many relationships in society. These vary from the relationship of marriage to employer versus employee, client versus customer, teacher versus student, male versus female, child versus parent, Māori versus Pākehā, new immigrant versus established Kiwi, young versus old, able versus disabled, and a host of other relationships that we tend to take for granted. Many of those relationships require different treatment by law within the context of an equality of human rights. This bill seeks to treat marriage, de facto, and same-sex relationships as equivalent for the purposes of pensions, social security, taxation, next of kin, and other entitlements and responsibilities, supposedly on the basis that we are removing discrimination on the basis of marriage. Yet in the Prime Minister’s own words we are in fact making marriage have no practical effect.

The main problem this bill is supposed to address has to do with the need for people in relationships other than marriage to be able to make decisions on behalf of their partner in situations we refer to as next-of-kin issues—that is, the right to give approval to cremate a deceased person’s body, the right to visit a partner in hospital, etc. There clearly are some issues that cannot be adequately covered by the enduring power of attorney legislation currently provided in law. We should address those concerns, but we do not need two bills to address those issues. This response is like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut.

Let me first talk about de facto heterosexual couples. They are people who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to marry, despite the fact they could legally recognise their relationship without any religious connotations at all. A civil celebrant could conduct a completely non-religious ceremony, and then all the rights of next of kin would be theirs. The solution to any legal difficulties is entirely in their hands—that is, get married or live with the consequences of a relationship that is de facto. The Webster dictionary definition of de facto is it means “without legal recognition.” That is the choice people make if they do not want to marry. And people should be free to make their own choices with minimal Government interference. This bill is not about choice; it is about removing choice. I have not had one single email from a de facto couple urging me to support this bill.

The Government should be looking for all means possible to support and improve marriage relationships, and to encourage more people to commit to marriage, for the benefit of society—not elevating de facto relationships to the same status. Do the female members of this Government not know that all sociological research indicates that women in de facto relationships are many, many more times at risk from violence than those in marriages? Their children are worse off by far statistically, and in danger of abuse. Of course there are de facto relationships that are exceptions, and not every marriage is a good one, but it is still absolutely true that married couples are healthier, live longer, are richer and happier, and have better sex lives than de facto couples, by any means or measure by which sociological researchers look at it. The children of married couples do better, as well. Why give support to legislation that would make marriage have no practical effect, and treat de facto relationships as equal to those of married couples, who have had the courage to front up before their families and friends to state and pledge their commitment to one another in a lifelong covenant of marriage?

Whenever Parliament has sought to address problems in marriage by altering the law, society has had to cope with many unintended consequences—no-fault divorce, the domestic purposes benefit, the Property (Relationships) Act, and now this. Again, I say that if de facto couples want the rights of married couples, then let them marry. It is that simple.

However, when it comes to people in same-sex relationships the solution is not so simple, because we know that they cannot marry. I have always said that I am concerned about their right to fair and just treatment by the law. It would have been a simple matter for the Government to make it possible for these couples to assign next-of-kin rights to each other, under an extension of the enduring power of attorney provisions or some other, similar legal action. I would not have opposed that, and I do not believe that many who oppose civil unions would have any problem with it, at all.

However, these next-of-kin dilemmas may arise not just for gay and lesbian partners but also for other single adults living together in relationships of care and support that are not sexual relationships in any form at all. Focusing the debate around sexual relationships and preferences, in my opinion, is far too narrow. As we suffer increasingly from family breakdown across society, and as more and more never married, separated, or divorced adults grow older, they often form relationships for companionship and support. These adults may share the same house, but not necessarily the same bed, and their needs in law deserve consideration by Parliament, as well. Some may want the opportunity of transferring next-of-kin status to someone they trust, rather than having to rely on their closest relative, whom they may not know well at all. But to offer them a civil union as an option, or recognition as a de facto couple, is not likely to be an offer they would consider. This bill ignores their needs, even though these issues are just as relevant to them as they are to gays and lesbians.

These problems of inequality in law could be resolved by Parliament without civil unions and without this massive bill—this sledgehammer to crack a peanut of a problem. But it is clear from statements made by the Prime Minister and Tim Barnett that the real intent is to make civil unions equal with marriage, and ultimately render marriage as a relic of the past with no practical effect. New Zealanders are tolerant, and the majority are prepared to tolerate same-sex relationships and to give people in them the rights and respect every human being deserves, but no Government can force me or the majority of New Zealanders to give our approval to those relationships. To do so would be to deny our rights of freedom of thought, and speech, and conscience. While many gays and lesbians cannot wait to run down the aisle to formalise their relationship, I suggest that this desire is born out of not so much a legal need but, rather, the desire to gain approval from society.

Under the disguise of addressing simple next-of-kin legal issues, the Government is imposing on Parliament not one but two bills whose real intent is to legislate for the morality of same-sex relationships. People say that a Government cannot legislate morality; I say that a Government does it every time it passes a law, and on this occasion it is clearly attempting to change society’s morality by law. Without learning the lessons from history, we are now intent on moving towards a society that will no longer make any distinction between marriage and de facto relationships of people of the same or opposite sex. In the midst of appalling social statistics that portray New Zealand as one of the worst countries in the OECD on a whole range of issues, the best that our leadership offers is to make laws to approve of the lowest common moral denominator, treating all relationships as equal with an anything-goes philosophy. That is not leadership.

Our children and young people deserve better. In my opinion, discrimination in favour of marriage is justifiable. In fact, it is essential in the interests of the public good and the health of our communities as a whole. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes, when the State—

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member, but his time has expired.

LARRY BALDOCK: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have actually had my stopwatch running during my speech because I was concerned about the amount of time. The 8-minute bell actually rang after 7 minutes, and I ask that you look into the timekeeping during that speech.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member thinks that, I will give him another 20 seconds to finish off.

LARRY BALDOCK: Thank you very much; I have one more paragraph. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes, when the State is supporting 100,000 single-parent families, and when we spend an estimated $6.5 billion on the cost of family breakdown, this bill does nothing to address the real issues confronting us as a nation, but is a very dangerous social experiment for the benefit of a small minority at the expense of our future as a society, and I shall vote against it.

GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) : I rise to make a brief contribution to the first reading of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. May I remark on the previous speaker’s speech. I have a great deal of respect for the views that are shared by Larry Baldock, and I pay due heed to what he has to say. He thinks about matters from his perspective sensibly and clearly, and articulates them well. However, I do disagree with many of the points that he made.

In the first reading of the Civil Union Bill I mentioned the perpetuation of discrimination and prejudice that occurs, particularly in relation to the particular matters dealt with in the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We cannot continue that discrimination. Albeit that some may consider that those who will benefit the most are in the minority, that is no excuse to deny rights when they are sought. I am also quite often amused at the hysterical argument that is put out about the undermining of marriage, due to both the bills that I have referred to in this speech. I do not think the situation is as dire as some people would make out. Quite simply, I do not think this bill or the Civil Union Bill affect technically the powers of the Marriage Act. That Act, of course, currently holds the power of excluding people such as same-sex and de facto couples from being involved in marriage. The choice that I hear being talked about is, for some, no choice.

This bill will support the Civil Union Bill in rectifying the discriminations that occur under the Marriage Act towards de facto couples and same-sex couples. I certainly hope the House will support this bill being scrutinised by a select committee. That referral will appropriately be done at the end of this first reading, I hope.

BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) : Mr Speaker, I do not have my stopwatch running, so I ask you to feel free to ring the bell when you decide it is appropriate.

Hon Brian Donnelly: Take your time.

BRIAN CONNELL: Five minutes will do fine. Of all the moral issues that this Parliament will involve itself in, I do not think that many will generate more controversy and bitterness than those concerned with homosexual marriage, or, as the Government would have us believe, with the Civil Union Bill. I understand that this is a debate on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, but I cannot talk about that bill without at least referring to the Civil Union Bill, because one is dependent on the other. I accept that the discussion around de facto relationships will generate less controversy, but I put it to the House that this debate will continue to rage, because any attack on the institution of marriage—a marriage between a man and a woman, and, by definition, children—will, for those who believe that minority groups are trying to re-engineer society in their own image, simply not be tolerated.

I am surprised—nay, concerned—that until recently the churches have been spectacularly silent on this issue. I would not have thought they would be silent, because the institution of marriage is core to their business. Notwithstanding that observation, Cardinal Williams has now had the courage to speak out. What he has received for having had the courage to put a carefully considered position is criticism from the Prime Minister, who said that his contribution was sad. This came from the Prime Minister who called for tolerance in the debate. I will not use the word “hypocritical”, because I know it is not parliamentary, but I would ask listeners to consider the veracity of the Prime Minister’s position.

After voicing strong views on the Civil Union Bill, I have been vilified by some sectors of society as being homophobic. I say to those people that that is simply not the case at all. I have no antipathy whatsoever towards homosexuals, of either sex. Throughout a long business career I have known a good number of homosexuals, and a good number I call friends. In the main, I find these people to be deeply sensitive. So, I pose the question: why am I opposed to this bill? It is simply an old-fashioned concept I hold: I believe it is morally wrong. There is nothing new about erotic attractions between members of the same sex. It has been happening for centuries. Although it may be tolerated, maybe even accepted by some, there has never been any suggestion over the centuries that it would be given the same parity as marriage within the State. That is why I believe that this bill and the Civil Union Bill have to be strongly opposed.

I believe that the talk about de facto relationships is simply a smokescreen. The gay movement is seeking acceptance that its lifestyle is a satisfactory alternative to traditional heterosexual marriage. It is, in my view, the subject of a highly organised campaign, with its protagonists deeply embedded in the Labour Party caucus. They do not seek understanding or fairness; they seek converts. It is the hard sell of the homosexual lifestyle. I will not buy it, and I do not believe that mainstream New Zealand will buy it, either. We were asked for tolerance regarding the Prostitution Reform Bill. Those of us who had the courage to rise and argue that it was evil legislation were told that we were intolerant, and that if we legalised prostitution, prostitution would be taken off the streets. One has only to go down the main streets of any city in this country to see prostitutes as young as 11 and 12 years of age plying their trade, and that is a disgrace. I take no comfort whatsoever from those who say to us that we need to be more tolerant in our views on this issue.

Let me turn specifically to some of the issues that have been raised in this bill. I have heard all sorts of self-indulgent drivel about marriage and its religious associations. I know of many—and there are probably many thousands of such Kiwis—who have been married in non-religious ceremonies, and I have never heard any of them raise any concerns about their human rights having been breached. Another excuse that is often put forward by the gay movement is that their people’s rights are being impinged on in respect of property. I say to the House that in this country people can name their dog as the main beneficiary in their will. My advice to these parties is that they should go to their lawyer and sort it out, just like the rest of us have to do. They should not ask the country to legislate to use—as Mr Baldock said—a sledgehammer to smash a legal nut. It is simply not necessary.

Different-sex individuals living together have the same property rights under existing law. I accept that there are some situations where they will not have all their rights recognised, but I say to them, and particularly to those in de facto relationships, that if they want what marriage can offer, they should simply make the commitment and get married. That, in my view, is what marriage is all about—love and commitment. I will not tolerate those who want to argue that putting in place all sorts of alternatives to marriage is not an attack on the institution of marriage itself. It is, and, as I said, I will not stand for it.

The reason I am strongly opposed to what has been suggested under this legislation is that it is just a continuation of the slippery slope of casualising relationships. That trend has been in vogue in New Zealand for nigh-on 30 years, and the consequences for some of our kids in this country have been disastrous. We see the damage everywhere we look. Every day we see dysfunctional families, high crime rates, welfare dependency, women with four, five, or six kids, fathers who do not know how many kids they have, and all sorts of terrible abuse. I will not say that marriage is a perfect solution. I am not arguing that at all. I am saying it is a standard-bearer that says that at least this is a stake in the ground—that these are the minimum standards that society stands for and stands up for. Anything that erodes those standards just does not make sense.

Why would we want to legislate to accelerate the trend of a breakdown in relationships? I do not believe, when we think this through, that this is really what society wants. Certainly, where there are some anomalies that cannot be sorted out through attorney or client relationships, then maybe we should look at changing those things, but we should not change the standards that underpin a civilised society.

I call on members of the House to reflect on some of these views and comments, and to have the courage to stand up and articulate those views. I am not suggesting that people who oppose this legislation do not have the high moral ground; they do. But I want them to have the courage of their convictions to stand up and make a stand. If anyone feels very strongly that those who argue against this legislation are right, then they should stand up as well, because we cannot do it by ourselves.

Hon JOHN TAMIHERE (Minister of Youth Affairs) : I stand to commend the bill to the House on its first reading so that it may be referred to a select committee, for no other reason than that rates of social security payments are sometimes higher and the ability to engage in beneficial tax arrangements is sometimes greater for non-married couples. There are over 300,000 Kiwis in de facto relationships. The Human Rights Amendment Act 2001 requires Government activities to comply with the anti-discrimination standards set out in section 19 of that legislation. This bill has nothing to do with the range of matters raised by the member who has just resumed his seat.

I commend the bill to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where we can have a meaningful and fruitful conversation.