Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17586] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I start off by registering my respect for the very consistent position of New Zealand First in support of the concept of holding referenda on issues such as this. That does contrast somewhat with the position of some other parties and individuals in this Parliament who suddenly have leapt on the bandwagon of referenda because they think that is another way to try to defeat this legislation. I thank New Zealand First and its speakers to date on this issue for that. 
As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the Civil Union Bill I can report that we looked at the issue of holding a referendum very seriously. In doing that we looked at a number of criteria because we are a nation with some history—a bit of a ragged history—of having referenda. The first issue is the legal responsibility of the Government. Back in 1993 this Parliament made a series of crucial decisions to add a number of grounds to our Human Rights Act. I think on looking back that those decisions were of constitutional importance. Our Human Rights Act sits absolutely crucially side by side with our electoral legislation our Bill of Rights legislation and other key laws as being New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. That decision was made and although the enforcement of that law on the Government was delayed for a few years—and the previous National Government tried to delay it a bit longer—it is now actually taking effect. So that law applies to the whole nation—to the voluntary sector the private sector and also the Government. Once that decision was made the duty of the Government was to implement it. It does not mean to say that we will have same-sex marriage. What it does mean to say is that since the State provides marriage as effectively a service to the people of the country it should provide a form of legal recognition to people who are unable to marry. So I think that the first key point in terms of referenda is that the State has the legal responsibility to address the issues that this bill addresses. Any referendum should have taken place at the time that the grounds of the Human Rights Act were extended. 
Second the point of minority rights and majority votes is very real since this legislation has an effect only on those people who are likely to access it. The question is then who should be voting in a referendum? If there is any legislation that will benefit a certain group of people in heterosexual de facto or same-sex relationships who is to decide who should vote in a referendum on it? The third point is that when we look around the world where about 20 or 25 countries have agreed on similar legislation—and many of those are countries with a much more significant tradition of referenda than we have—we see not one of those countries has held a referendum on the issue of introducing civil unions. Fourth on the issue of the mandate for this legislation three parties in this Parliament—namely Labour the Progressives and the Greens—indicated at the last election that they would support the introduction of such legislation to the House and allow a free vote for their MPs. They considered it was a mandate for the debate that is happening this evening and over these days. Fifth there was the issue of public opinion. A series of public opinion polls have shown quite significant majority support for the legislation. 
Lastly and maybe this is the most fundamental point I think that if we are to move to a situation of holding regular referenda there is a debate to be had about what kind of model of democracy we operate in this country. I looked through the lobbying I have received on controversial issues over the last 2 years and saw that people have called for referenda on about 20 issues as varied as tolls on roads and the docking of dogs’ tails. Where do we draw the line between what is a significant issue and what is a small issue? I tell Mr Connell that some people do want referenda on those issues because to them they are big issues. So the last point I want to make is that if we go to a situation of having regular referenda on a whole range of issues that some regard as controversial but as a new model of democracy we need to redesign our current parliamentary system in order to fit that.