Tanczos Nandor: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Tanczos Nandor: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18989] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I must say that in listening to the debate at times I felt I was in an extended déjà vu. Then I realised that many of the opponents of the bill had simply dug out their  
Hansard 
 record of the debate on the Civil Union Bill and were rereading their speeches. Listening to Mr Dail Jones felt in a way like taking a trip back into history to a simpler day when everyone knew his or her place and if one was gay then that place was firmly in the closet. 
Dail Jones 
: That’s untrue. I did not say that. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: Well that was the implication of Mr Jones’ statement. He cited Australia as being the golden paradise we should aspire to with its fantastic record in terms of social tolerance and of course race relations! 
Nick Smith said that the law counts all relationships as being the same. I think he was incorrect in that. As Moana Mackey pointed out it is about treating people equally. That does not necessarily mean that all relationships are the same. Of course all relationships are different; they are unique to the people who have them. Nick Smith referred to men and women being equal but different. That is instructive and is exactly what I think this bill tries to acknowledge. It states that relationships should be treated equally but that they are different. We accept that the law should not discriminate between men and women but we also accept that men and women are different and that each sex is better at some things than the other. Breastfeeding is the most obvious example of that. 
 Murray Smith recited a list of studies—the same studies I think that he referred to during the debate on the Civil Union Bill. A lot of the statistics he referred to are questionable I believe and the proto-anthropological studies he referred to are as likely to reveal the assumptions of their authors as to reveal any historical or sociological facts. By Mr Smith’s use of those studies he showed obscure reasoning. If we took the same line we would say that because bilingual children do better in school over the long term compared with monolingual children we should just ban monolingual children from school. 
That is the implication of that form of reasoning and I do not think that it stacks up. In fact what we are about here is the creation of protections and of a regime that will support long-term committed relationships regardless of whether they are between same-sex or opposite-sex couples. 
Of course this bill has not drawn the kind of attention that its companion bill the Civil Union Bill did because it does not have the kind of symbolic value for both supporters and opponents that that bill had which made it so contested and so important for this country. But this bill makes a number of very real changes in the lives of ordinary people because it extends rights to couples in civil unions. The Civil Union Bill simply created the framework for civil unions but this bill is the legislation that extends rights to those couples. It also clarifies significant sections of the law that relate to de facto partners. Like much of the business of this House it is the relatively unremarked legislation that can often have the most profound impact on the day-to-day lives of ordinary people. 
I would like to echo the remarks made by Lianne Dalziel about the Justice and Electoral Committee. As committee members we did a lot of work. We did a substantial amount in working through amendments to almost a hundred Acts. We listened to the concerns of submitters and we responded to those concerns. One of the specific concerns expressed by submitters—and to be fair raised also by various committee members independently; I think in particular of Stephen Franks—was that of the issues around de facto relationships. I myself was also concerned about that issue and other members raised concerns. To be fair to the committee I think that the whole committee when those concerns were pointed out saw the need to address them. 
In the past in the absence of civil unions same-sex marriages or something of that nature we have seen legislation enacted to provide protection for same-sex couples in a roundabout way. For example the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill which came before our select committee in the previous term of Parliament was at least partly about recognising same-sex relationships when they broke up even if Parliament at that stage could not bring itself to recognise those relationships when the people were still together. That same approach was continued in this bill as it was introduced. So we saw an overly intrusive approach to de facto couples extending to them many of the rights and obligations that properly applied to married couples—and apply now to civil union couples—but in a context where they did not necessarily fit. Marriage and civil union of course have an explicit declaration of commitment and interdependence that may be missing in a de facto relationship. Many people choose to remain in de facto relationships rather than to be married or now to enter a civil union because they do not want the State’s intervention in their business. There are a whole range of reasons why people stay in de facto relationships. It is not for us to assume what those reasons are nor is it for us to place obligations on relationships where the participants have not indicated that they want those obligations. 
The committee looked carefully at the actual effects of the bill; we went through it quite thoroughly. We supported a number of basic approaches and we tried to develop clear criteria by which to evaluate those things. One of the first things was around ensuring that the laws covering married couples will be extended to cover couples in civil unions. That is probably the area that so incenses members and other people who think that same-sex couples should not be recognised in law—that they should be punished for their love or if not punished then at least ignored in the hope that they will go away. As with the Civil Union Bill that is a basic point of principled difference. We can debate those things but we are unlikely to convince each other of our point of view. So it just comes down to what the majority will say in this House and to what the majority of New Zealanders also think. Mr Franks referred to the fact that civil union ceremonies do not require an explicit long-term commitment or exclusivity but I note that those things do not apply to marriage either. As marriage does not require them I think it is quite right that civil union relationships should have similar provisions in the law. 
One of the things the select committee did in order to address some of the concerns and to keep some distinction between marriage and civil union was to use different language. Words like spouse husband wife widow and widower are used only in the context of marriage and other language is used to describe other kinds of relationships. As I said we looked at the de facto provisions quite carefully. Lianne Dalziel has already referred to the social security definition amendment that we removed from the bill. I think that that was the right action. It was an attempt to codify the Ruka case but the Green Party in particular was especially concerned about the submissions from beneficiary rights groups who indicated the very real problems that that amendment could create. I think it was quite right for the committee to leave the status quo in place—to leave the case law there to be the measure—and to allow that issue to be addressed later. As the honourable Lianne Dalziel said it should be addressed by a committee with the requisite expertise to deal with those questions. 
We looked at things like the laws relating to minors and that is outlined in the commentary on the bill. There is the issue of what happens when guardianship ceases so we had to look at how we could ensure protection for such people particularly for those in a de facto situation. A young person can enter a de facto relationship fairly easily and move out of it again easily leaving himself or herself in a vulnerable position with regard to the law so we looked at that. We looked at the issues around bestowing property on another party when people die intestate. I referred earlier to the principle behind our decision there. We looked at the laws to do with evidence. 
After long hours of hearing submissions of committee consideration and of discussion outside the House I am more convinced than ever that this bill is needed.