Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17490] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Here we are in urgency passing a piece of social engineering from this Labour Government. I want to object to three particular elements of the process in respect of this debate. The first thing is to ask why on earth we need to deal under urgency with an issue as important as the very structure of the families of our society. What is the great rush? I would like to know from George Hawkins or any other Labour member how they justify rushing this sort of provision through the House prior to Christmas. 
The second point I wish to make is this: why will Labour members not be honest and say that this is the “Gay Marriage Bill”? In every single element of law whether education law health law or superannuation law—in every single one of the 1034 areas affected—marriage and civil union are to be absolutely identical. I say to the members opposite that if they really have the courage of their convictions why do they not say they are legislating for gay marriage? 
The third part of the process of this bill that is appalling is that its associated bill the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill has been deferred. Why is Parliament under urgency being asked to pass this bill when the Government has acknowledged that there are problems and complications with the second bill? 
 The further point I want to make is that Government members have repeatedly said that this bill does not undermine marriage. What this bill and its associated bill propose to do is to say that it makes absolutely no difference in terms of the law of the land whether one is in a same-sex civil union married or in a de facto relationship. I ask members opposite why on earth anybody would get married. If people can shack up get the same rights and what is more walk out the next day with none of the hassles of getting a divorce—if they can get straight out of the relationship—why would anyone bother getting married? Members opposite say this bill does not undermine marriage. Of course it does. 
Darren Hughes 
: How? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I shall explain for the member for Otaki who said that it does not undermine marriage. Without any obligations without any requirement to do anything in the form of a marriage people can enter into a de facto relationship and pick up via the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill all 1034 of the legal rights that go with being married. So why bother marrying? 
Darren Hughes 
: But this is the Civil Union Bill. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Hughes is interjecting that this is the Civil Union Bill but the Government introduced the two bills together and I have had absolutely no indication from the Government that it will make any change in that second part of the process. Will Darren Hughes support me in saying that it is a nonsense for Parliament to debate this bill without the other bill? I heard another member say it was like being asked to buy the door of a house without knowing the structure of it and he is right. But only the Government can take responsibility for the weird way in which we are being forced to debate this issue. I tell Mr Hughes that the only thing we can take from that is what is always set aside and that is that civil union and marriage will be identical and that is wrong.