Connell Brian: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17589] 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been waiting to get a call for some time—in fact ever since Mr Peck took a call and challenged members of the Committee to identify those who are homosexual. I said that Mr Barnett is homosexual. Mr Barnett has acknowledged that fact—it is a matter of public record. But Mr Peck said that that is the only way we can know—because someone tells us. That is not so. I went to  
Express 
 magazine and on the first page I opened there are a couple of men engaged in a homosexual act. So I would say that they are probably homosexual and that is how we can tell. I say to Mr Peck that there is one answer to his question. 
The second question that I want to refer to concerns something Mr Barnett said. He came to the Chamber and read letters to the Committee from all the nasty people who have said nasty things about the people who want this law. I say to Mr Barnett that he has the advantage over me because the letters the hate mail I have received are so vile that I cannot read them to the Committee. They have come from people whom the member says do not engage in hate or hate language. I think that Mr Barnett should have a hard think about that. I think there are people on both sides of this debate who engage in hate mail. I do not think he should single out one side of the debate unfairly. 
Let us turn to the referendum issue. Mr Peters took a call. I can say to him that there are at least 13 plus one at least members in this Chamber whom I now know support the call for a binding referendum. I feel that there is deep hypocrisy amongst those who argue against a binding referendum particularly members of the Green Party. Those members have said that they absolutely will not touch this yet they are in this House by virtue of a binding referendum. They might want to reflect on that; so might Mr Barnett. 
Let me address some of the other issues that were raised. Mr Barnett’s defence as to why there should not be a binding referendum is weak because he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that when all the smoke is cleared away the reason this Government will not put this issue to the vote and let the general public have a say on it is that it would be lost and lost resoundingly. That is why he is objecting to it. He knows that when the question is put as to whether the New Zealand public want gay marriage they will say no. He knows that if this issue goes out into the public domain the spin doctors of the Labour Government will not be able to disguise the ultimate truth of what this legislation is all about and that is gay marriage. That is why he will not allow this question to be put into the public domain. He and his Government would lose the ability to manipulate the argument. They know that in this Chamber they can get the result they want. 
The idea of a conscience vote to the Labour Party is laughable. That member knows it I know it and members of this Chamber know it. What is even worse is that he knows that the general public of this country know it as well. So it is a bit of a sham that he is putting forward. Part of the reason that people are arguing for civil unions is that people should have the opportunity to protect their long-term loving relationships. What Government members do is roll out Chris Carter as the example of a long stable relationship. Mr Carter is in a long stable relationship but he is the exception to the rule.