[Volume:618;Page:13936] 
It has fallen to me to speak because I have done before any of my colleagues something that I wager has probably still not been done by most of the members present in the House. That is I have read the actual words of the law or of the bill. I did that because it is what I always do. I refuse to come to any conclusion on a bill until I can judge what the words will mean in their practical application. We will see and hear—and we have already seen and heard—slogans hysterical claims and noble statements of intention none of which may have any effect in law. The law is what the words in the legislation state. Until 4 days ago those words had been available to only the tight inner circle of the Prime Minister’s chums who are indifferent to marriage or do not want it and to their ineffectual allies in United Future. 
What did I find then when I read the bill? I found the Marriage Act. The bill is a copy of the Marriage Act with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced by the words “civil union”. Of course there are one or two trivial drafting upgrades—the kinds of parliamentary fashion changes that are no more important than whether trousers will have cuffs on them this year. This bill is a transparent cute trick. Accordingly although I will support its referral to the select committee I confidently expect to vote against it when it re-emerges from the committee. I believe that some of my colleagues who also want to see it go to the select committee will share that pessimism for similar reasons. We will vote to send it to the select committee because that is also an opportunity—it is a chance to force a thorough review to be undertaken of the law affecting healthy families. 
It could be that the bill is a nail in the coffin of our family structure or it could be that it is simply a reflection of a change whose time is due. But whatever it is it needs a thorough airing. If there is genuine open-mindedness on the part of the Government promoters of this bill there is a possibility that I could vote for the bill that will emerge from the select committee. The select committee will have to re-examine the product of three decades of political correctness clerical cowardliness left-wing feminism male selfishness and widespread opportunism. Together they have done grave damage to thousands of our families and their children. But if the select committee is willing we could use this bill to start to rebuild a marriage law that is worthy of the name. If we do not do that I will not be party to it. 
Secrecy was the first ominous sign of legislative dishonesty in this case. A bill that is as simple as this one could have been around months ago. The bill would not have been kept under tight wraps and preceded by as many months as it has of hints public relations summaries and earnest lobbying without any test had the Government not felt it needed the momentum of a wave of emotion before any non-believer was able to analyse the words objectively. The Government must have wanted to drown the sober questions of people who try to decide on matters on the basis of substance instead of slogans. Marriage is already a civil union as far as New Zealand law is concerned; it has been a civil union throughout our entire living memory. Registry office weddings have been part of our law for so long they are folklore and for generations the sacramental nature and the social and psychological power of marriage has rested entirely on voluntary ceremonies and sanctions. Those voluntary ceremonies and sanctions have had next to nothing to do with our law. 
Why then does this bill repeat the Marriage Act but with a different label? The reason is very simple: to avoid passing an amendment of three words which would simply remove the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman. That is why the Prime Minister has said in effect “Marriage ‘schmarraige’; I’d rather have a civil union.” when she knows she already has one. It is simple. The Prime Minister and her Government are pretending there is a difference between a marriage and a civil union in order to disguise the sole true purpose of this bill—namely to allow gay marriage. The question is whether admitting gays would mean the death of marriage. I doubt whether it would. 
Legally of course the bill will not change any rules benefits or burdens of marriage. It will just allow more people to share in those benefits. It is not irrelevant that more people would be let into the club. There are lots of important institutions that can be judged only when we know whom they exclude. For example we know the value of a knighthood only by knowing who is excluded from receiving one and the value of a general’s baton by knowing how many batons are dished out. 
But I am not going to dwell on or prejudge the issue. I want to do what any thoughtful Government any responsible Minister of social development any caring cleric or any earnest reformer should have done. I want to explore what this bill should be doing. It should be rebuilding marriage. Marriage cannot be destroyed by this bill because in legal terms it has already been trashed. The argument over this bill is like kids fighting over the silver chocolate wrapping after the chocolate is gone. It is choice that lies at the core of marriage—the choice to make a set of promises. But marriage has been trashed because the State has emptied it of all meaning. It has done that by making those promises empty. There are no consequences for a breach of those promises even for the most cold-blooded breach. 
The legal destruction came in four stages—five I think. The first was no-fault divorce. Of course that was well meaning; I thought it was a great idea. Secondly we have a welfare system that makes it financially better to seem single than married. That makes mugs out of honest couples who believe they should only incur responsibilities when they are prepared to meet them themselves. Thirdly the Matrimonial Property Act—replaced by the Property (Relationships) Act—insisted on no-fault property sharing and I think that was far more important than we ever imagined at the time. Fourthly when anti-discrimination law prevented any preference for or practical honouring of marriage it eliminated the normal social and cultural reinforcements that penalise those who spurn marriage obligations and favour those who do not. Fifthly 2 years ago the Hon Margaret Wilson made the distinctiveness of marriage into a mockery by imposing its property-sharing consequences on any couple who live together even when they have explicitly chosen not to marry. 
The failure to respect marriage that ideological pride in simply decreeing changes in our fundamental social contract is not confined to one party. I do not even lay the blame entirely at the feet of politicians. Those who should have guarded the institution of marriage have been caught up in fashion. We have all seen that at select committee hearings. We have probably been faintly embarrassed on behalf of the representatives of the decaying churches who come along with their obsequious moral relativism being so terribly non-judgemental and who are clothed with the cant of “inclusiveness” “reaching out” and so forth. Meanwhile the treasures that they should be guarding are washing away. I look at them as I would at Jane Austen’s Mr Collins. Members may remember that he praised Lady Catherine de Bourgh all the time in the hope that he would be included and not thought of as a fuddy-duddy. At least we know what the Bible Christians are trying to say and at least they stand for something. 
Similarly I respect the candour of the gay activists who make no secret of what they want. They want civil union or marriage as a sign that the State on behalf of the people approves of their way of life and the honest ones do not clothe that in an unctuous pretence that registration will somehow transform a liaison into a secure partnership. They welcome a debate that is honest—a debate over gay marriage not this “civil union” euphemism. I believe we will have that more honest debate in the select committee. I believe that there is a prospect that we will come out of it with strengthened institutions.