Ardern Shane: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ardern Shane: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17525] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I listened to the last speaker as I have done throughout the debate with some interest. That person brings a diversity to the Parliament and I congratulate him on that. I think that that is a good thing in an open compassionate society. But the very strength of his argument demonstrates the reason why I am opposing this legislation. He said he has pulled out via this process the worst aspects of society through the email he has received. I have received email of a similar kind because I have been opposing the legislation. That is one of the strongest reasons why we—120 individuals—should not be making this decision under this process. It is one of the strongest arguments why this decision should be taken via referendum in society. 
I say to the Parliament today that I oppose this legislation for a number of reasons. The first is that it can be described as nothing more than social engineering. Quite frankly New Zealanders as a general rule are opposed to that. They have had enough of it. They have seen it for 6 years now and they are certainly not in favour of it. It is championed by the Prime Minister; there is no question about that. In fact I suspect that this legislation would not have the numbers it has if it had not been for some on the other side despite the fact that this is supposed to be a conscience vote being fairly heavily spoken to by the leadership of their party. 
Also I ask what we are trying to fix if nothing is broken. I would like to know where the problem is in the legal sense. Certainly no problem was identified through the select committee process as I understand it. Certainly no legal problems could be identified clearly through that process. I say to members opposite that I have been in what I guess one could describe for all intents and purposes as civil unions such as a business partnership. I ask what is wrong with that mechanism and what is wrong with the power of attorney. I have heard no strong argument yet that I can hang my hat on that justifies the process we are going through and the need for this legislation. 
The reason I oppose it is that it actually does attack what has been a cultural tradition in the Western developed world and around the world of marriage. People say that it does not. I have heard the arguments that it does not threaten marriage. Well I ask what the legislation does do in terms of marriage. Does it enhance marriage? Is the relationship of those who are married today changed in any way by it? The relationship is changed only to the extent that the legislation offers another option. I ask the people out there who believe that that is a good idea or a good option what is wrong with a traditional marriage between a man and a woman as we have seen it for thousands of years. Therefore why should those who choose to live in de facto relationships—those who choose to stay outside marriage—be swept up by this social engineering Government into a legally binding situation that they may not want to enter? 
I see members on the other side shaking their heads as though that is not going to happen. I ask those members then to take a call and tell me that when a de facto relationship that exists today breaks up and is contested before the courts for whatever reason in no way under no circumstances will that situation be influenced by the passing of this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ve already got law on that. We did that 2 years ago. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well here is the reality. If we already have law on it then what is the purpose of this legislation? I ask the member over there who is chipping in to take a call and absolutely unequivocally rule out the possibility that any lawyer anywhere in New Zealand will be able to use the Civil Union Bill—or the Civil Union Act when it becomes an Act by a slim majority in this Parliament—in any kind of court case or civil hearing against a de facto partner in a relationship that has failed. I ask the member to tell me whether lawyers will be able to use it—yes or no. I ask because a large number of people with legal backgrounds in this area have said to me that inevitably that situation will be swept up in this legislation because it takes precedent. I ask the member to rule that out for those out there who have some uncertainty about it.