Peters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4919. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand has a proud democratic tradition. The principles of democracy are deeply ingrained in our political culture. We are one of only nine countries worldwide that can claim an unbroken line of democracy—that is holding elections every 3 years since 1854. The concept that every adult is entitled to an equal say is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation and yet there is still an assumption in this House that members know better than the public when it comes to issues of morality. The conscience vote exists because it is believed that MPs possess some sort of unique ethical view or intellectual capacity that entitles them to a greater say than the ordinary voter. That is an archaic belief that has no place in a modern democracy or 21st century New Zealand. This type of conscience vote is a relic of a bygone age. It is inherently anti-democratic and it is time MPs on both sides of the House consigned it to the dustbin of history. There is no reason why the public should be denied the opportunity to decide the outcome of this debate. 
The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill will change institutional marriage as we know it. This matter is by definition one of public morality and if New Zealand is to have a public morality it must be decided by the public the voters of New Zealand. We proposed an amendment to Ms Wall’s bill that would require a binding referendum to be held upon the bill’s passage which referendum depending on the outcome would be a catalyst as to whether the bill becomes law or otherwise. That proposal was rejected on the grounds that according to some media-driven polls 60 percent of New Zealanders support same-sex marriage. That may or may not be the case but the only way to test and determine that is by way of referendum. Such a major legislative change should be based on the collective will of the people not 121 temporarily empowered members of Parliament. New Zealanders should make these decisions collectively as a nation. 
There are those here in this institution and outside who would plead “But MPs are elected to make these tough decisions.” If that is true which party campaigned on this issue? Where was this issue in the lead-up to the 2011 election? Where is the transparency of campaign commitments that would lead some MPs to believe and conclude that they were elected on this issue? The fact is that they were not for at no time did they ever campaign on it. This Parliament is now wrestling with alcohol legislation which members themselves decided upon and created an unholy mess. This is a Parliament that decided to legalise prostitution without real safeguards and now all over New Zealand communities are alarmed at what is happening in hitherto safe business and community areas. What could possibly be wrong or unprincipled or unethical or immoral in letting the people decide a moral issue for themselves? What unique insights understanding or greater level of perception do parliamentarians exclusively have that are not shared by the New Zealand people? 
This party began 9 years ago firmly believing in the far greater use of referendum mandate. We have never changed our view on that even to the extent that we put a major macroeconomic issue like compulsory savings to the people of this country in a referendum in 1997. We could have just taken the arrogant view then that we should just ram it through Parliament. But we did not. And although the public voted in support of a view different from ours we accepted the public’s right to have their say. Since that time we have seen all manner of changes such as the abolition of the Privy Council changes to the New Zealand Honours system and the abandonment of Queen’s Counsel all rammed through this Parliament with the last two being overturned by a later Government. It begs the question: is this parliamentary superiority a transient chimeric thing? Not far from New Zealand is Fiji where the military has seized Government and constantly argues that it is backed by the people. Many of us have responded rightly I say that if that is so why not hold an election and prove it and thereby remove all doubt? Likewise tonight we say: let us ask the people and obtain a proper durable mandate. 
You know it is truly ironic to see so many people swearing daily their allegiance to democracy as MPs do every day and yet when a true opportunity for real democracy expanded democracy is presented before them so many have no desire to allow it to happen. Those of us who argue for a full public referendum on this issue are satisfied to accept the public’s will. We are satisfied to take our instructions from the people. We believe— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Sorry I did not hear the bell. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I gave the member a 1-minute bell. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I apologise. Could I just finish off then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the member did not hear I apologise. It was my fault. I will allow the member to finish. It was my fault. I did not ring it for long enough. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: What grounds could those who think otherwise possibly have? One has to wonder what priorities some MPs have when again today hundreds of people face losing their jobs such as another tranche of goldminers on the West Coast. Any emergency debate about them? Or do we just consign hundreds of families to the scrap heap of the free market and call this a more important issue? 
Therefore the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill without a referendum is opposed by New Zealand First. We oppose this Parliament again ignoring the people’s view whatever the people’s view may be. I ask: why are so many here not prepared to trust the people on these issues?