Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17475] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 At this stage in nominally at least debating Part 1 of the bill I am trying to review the arguments that I have heard on the other side. One of the arguments I want to go back to is the international precedents and in particular that in France which has been mentioned. But before I do I want to think a little bit about what the Labour Party Government said when this bill came before the House. 
In its opening propaganda before anyone was allowed to see the bill we had the sentence: “Establishing civil unions in legislation means that Parliament rather than the judiciary determines the basis of relationship law for New Zealand by maintaining the initiative … rather than letting the Courts take control.” Well this afternoon in the House the Prime Minister repeated what I think was a rueful observation that we might have to start making our law clear that we might have to start putting into the law exactly what we mean because of what the Supreme Court has been doing in seizing opportunities to make the law itself. We had that from the Prime Minister as she was advising us that she was not going to do anything on a matter of national security—Mr Zaoui’s case. But we have not heard from the Prime Minister at all in this debate as to why she has allowed a bill to go before this House that has an utterly hollow core—a bill that sets up a registration relationship. Ostensibly to use the Government’s own terms a new legal relationship will be established recognising the diversity of relationships and enabling loving and committed couples to formalise their relationship without getting married. Well this bill does absolutely nothing to define any kind of loving and committed relationship. This bill says nothing about long-term commitment. This bill says nothing about stability. This bill does not prescribe a single thing about this so vital contract. 
We have been told that we have to catch up with the rest of the world; and that perhaps we should follow the example of France which successfully introduced the Pacte Civil de Solidarité in 1999. Well I decided as I usually do to go and find a little bit behind the rhetoric. Well the Pacte Civil de Solidarité does require a contract. It is actually much like Richard Worth’s proposal. It requires the individuals to sign a contract that covers things such as their intentions on inheritance and their intention that the relationship be long term. It has to be a voluntary contract. The couples set out what they will do about superannuation and benefit entitlements and inheritance—it is a proper contract—then register it. 
But that is not what this Government wants; this Government wants to leave it to the courts and I will tell members why it wants to leave it to the courts. This has absolutely nothing to do with defining the relationship between loving and committed couples. This is a vehicle with which to beat people who refuse to respect same-sex relationships. Well let me say that I do not respect marriage. I respect some married people. There are people who have honoured their commitments and there are people who have broken them reconvened and got through. There are people who genuinely mean to stay together forever and there are people who do not. We can go through an infinite variety of relationships and we respect those who despite all the vicissitudes of life end up making a reasonable bash of living together and rearing their children. So I respect some marriages. I do not respect the institution of marriage. 
The plea of all those couples who came before the select committee and said: “I want the State to bless my union so that you’ll respect me.” is absolutely vain. I respect my neighbours—a wonderful gay couple who have been together for many years. They are absolute pillars of the community. I respect them because of who they are what they are what they offer to each other and the way they live as neighbours. I do not respect their relationship and no one and no law should demand that I do. I respect them and I respect what they achieve. The most that the law should do is provide a framework that makes it easier for them to commit and makes it—and this is the nub—easier for the breach.