English Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
English Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17480] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I say to the last speaker that whatever gay couples are asking for what they are getting is the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. I do not think that what they are getting in those bills is what many of them think they are getting. As I said to the Committee earlier what they are getting is the rights and obligations of married people. Because of the definitions of “de facto” all relationships will have one legal framework if the second bill is passed. And that is a big question. 
This is a question for the Minister in the chair Mr David Benson-Pope who is playing solitaire on his computer. I want him to tell me that if the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill does not pass what is a civil union? I think the ACT member Stephen Franks rightly drew attention to this. This bill does not tell us what a civil union is. What it tells us is how to get into a civil union— 
Dail Jones 
: How to be unionised. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: How to be civil unionised. But the Civil Union Bill does not tell us the rights and obligations that flow from it. It was meant to have a partner piece of legislation the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill that amends a hundred other statutes. We do not have that legislation. Apparently it will turn up in March. I do not think it will turn up by the end of next year. The issues in that bill are so complex that the select committee will be unable to resolve them. 
So I feel like I have been invited by a real estate agent to buy a house only to be told: “Well I’ve got the front door but the rest of it has been taken away.” Because I have no idea now what this actually means. I know what the Government intends it to mean. As I said before it intends one set of rights and obligations for every adult relationship in New Zealand regardless of the level of commitment chosen. That is what the Government intends. I am absolutely opposed to that intention and I hope the Committee will be too eventually. When it debates the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill it will be able to express its opposition. 
But as for voting for the Civil Union Bill I ask the Minister what it is that we are voting for. What rights and obligations does any individual take on when he or she becomes a partner in a civil union under this legislation? How can this Parliament vote on this bill if it does not know the answer to that question? 
I saw the item on TV3 tonight I have read through some of the material and I have done some of my own research into the international comparisons. This one is pretty much unique because it does not say. In France they do. In Sweden it is marriage. In other countries there are different sets of rights and obligations. For instance in some countries couples can adopt children and in some they cannot. But we have no idea. We are being sold the front door without the house. The reason is that they have found that the structure of the house is fundamentally flawed. So in the debate tonight we are getting these emotional outpourings about homophobia. 
I want the Minister to answer some legal questions which any legislator has the right to ask on behalf of his or her constituents. I say to the Minister that I have constituents who want to join in civil union but I cannot tell them what it means by reading this bill. The Minister has failed to deliver the rest of the package. It is politically convenient because the rest of the package is much worse than this. This bill is the more acceptable piece in my view than the rest of it but he cannot tell us. So why are we going to be voting on this in the next couple of days when we do not know what it is? The reason is simply political symbolism. This bill is a political push not an attempt to create a set of rights and obligations. 
My colleague Richard Worth on his own has done a much better job of that than the Government. If people want to have civil union then his proposition is clear it is tidy it is well defined the parameters are known one can either vote for it or against it. It does not pretend to be anything other than what it is whereas this bill pretended to be marriage and then lost the “marriage” bit so it remains undefined. I ask the Minister to answer those questions.