Hutchison Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9044. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chair for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of this highly controversial and important bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill which I continue to support. I want to start by acknowledging the incredible energy effort and thought put into submissions from both sides of the discussion. I also want to acknowledge the very high-quality report of the Government Administration Committee. I believe that this sort of report shows our Parliament at its very best when dealing with views that are passionately held and are about human rights and beliefs. 
I also want to acknowledge the huge number of letters and emails I have received and the discussions I have had in the electorate that I am so honoured to represent Hunua. I have got great respect for the sincerity of all those comments. On many occasions I have referred people who have written to me to the select committee’s comments as highly worthy of reading and I do note that the commentary on the bill mentioned that in some European jurisdictions a marriage is authorised and registered by the State first and a couple is then free to choose to have a religious or cultural ceremony appropriate to them. Perhaps that is the ideal in terms of solving human rights. 
Here in New Zealand from both sides of the issue there was a very strong message that marriage celebrants church or independent should not be compelled to carry out a ceremony if it was against their wishes to do so. Hence the amendment that I have tabled which is in line with several other amendments but in my case is simple and conforms with the second option that parliamentary counsel put before the select committee. 
I am absolutely aware that the select committee spent significant time with parliamentary counsel and others discussing the options for amending section 2 of the Marriage Act. During the superb second reading speech of my colleague Chris Auchinvole he mentioned that of the over 9000 marriage celebrants in New Zealand only two—only two as he put it—submissions were sent to the select committee. But I have since contacted the clerk of the committee and others and no one seems able to identify those two or remember exactly what they said even my esteemed friend and colleague Chris Auchinvole. However I have read carefully through the Celebrants Association of New Zealand submission and although it supports the bill it has two major concerns. One was: “The continued ability of celebrants to officiate only at ceremonies of their own choosing.” 
It is accepted that any law is challengeable through the courts or subject to change by Parliament as we are seeing in the United States as we debate here in Parliament in New Zealand today. What we write into this bill will surely give a signal as to the intention of Parliament for any future court challenges. Hopefully however court challenges will not happen. This amendment is not just about triple protection for a specific group—churches or independent marriage celebrants. It seeks to extend that protection to all celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness that underpins this bill. I do note that schedule 1 of this bill includes only Christian churches and would not protect other religions such as practised by my colleague Kanwaljit Bakshi. 
All marriage celebrants either independent or church are in fact facilitating the State’s requirements in terms of the marriage certification. Although it is accepted that a key purpose of religious bodies and most approved organisations is to promote religious beliefs surely that should not override the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of independent marriage celebrants or other significant religious bodies. 
Some have argued that my amendment will lead to independent marriage celebrants saying no for all sorts of spurious reasons. Exactly the same could be said of the churches. Surely the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should apply in an even-handed way. At some peril to open a can of worms a powerful corollary to providing individual choice in perhaps an even more contentious area is the Contraception Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 where the conscientious objection clause provides explicit and clear exemption overriding any rule of law terms of any oath or any contract. 
Many may say such a degree of protection is quite inappropriate today and needs to be reviewed. In reality in a country such as New Zealand where there is not entirely clear separation between church and State—and a lot has been written about that—I suggest that these protections remain necessary and practical. So I call upon all members to carefully reconsider their proxies to support my amendment instead which is designed to protect choice for all marriage celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness which is what this bill is about.