Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17453] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I have already spoken in this Chamber about my view of this word “homophobia” which has been used. I said before that I think the word is actually misguided because I do not think it is about fear of homos it is about fear of a pluralist society. It is about fear of diversity in a society in which we accept other people for who they are rather than who we think they should be. 
It is quite strange to see a number of members in this Committee whose parties talk about one law for all then vote against this bill. When they talk about one law for all are they talking about a law that is impartial and treats all people equally? Or are they talking about a law that is monolithic and says there is only one way of living one’s life and if one does not live his or her life according to their way then the law is against one? In particular I look at some of the members of ACT and most of the members of the National Party who I think are weaselling out of what they know is the right thing to do—to support this bill—by using convoluted arguments that I think they know in their hearts are actually quite wrong. 
When we talk about one law for all it seems that some members of the Committee have the view of equal rights espoused by Napoleon. I do not mean the Corsican emperor I mean the one in  
Animal Farm 
 who said: “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.” I think it is a shame that some members of this Committee want to continue a status quo that would maintain that and it is a good thing that it appears very likely they are going to fail in that attempt. 
I would like to address the question of whether there should be a referendum. I have no doubt in my own mind that a referendum would pass. Polls indicate that while gay marriage is not supported by the majority of New Zealanders most of us do appear to support civil unions or something like that. I think in that sense the numbers in this Committee probably reflect to quite a large degree public opinion. We are probably a little bit more conservative in this Chamber than the New Zealand public but I think that we are roughly representative of the position of New Zealanders. I think that it would pass because New Zealanders pride themselves on tolerance on a sense of fairness and on respect for human rights. 
So as I say I do think that a referendum would be in favour of this bill but I do not agree that this question should be put to a referendum. That is because firstly it is simply a stalling tactic and it is time that we passed this bill. It has been a long time in the Justice and Electoral Committee and it has been a long time in front of this Parliament. Those who say that this is a rushed process are simply misleading the public when they make those statements. Secondly I do not believe that the rights of minorities should be subject to a majority veto. It is interesting that members such as Mr Wayne Mapp who talked on this issue say that they want conscience questions—primarily moral questions—decided by a referendum. I have never heard the member argue for a referendum on genetic engineering or on free-trade agreements for that matter. No no it is only on moral issues. He thinks it is only those questions that New Zealanders should have the right to decide on directly for themselves. 
I do not believe and the Green Party does not believe that the rights of minorities should be subject to majority veto. This is not the kind of question that should be put to a referendum. This is a basic question of: do we support human rights or do we not? Do we support equality for all New Zealanders or do we not? It is as simple as that. It is an abdication of our responsibility if members say they support the bill but they will vote against it because there is no referendum. That is an absolute abdication of those members’ responsibilities as legislators. I make particular reference to Dr Don Brash who said that he supports the bill. He said that he would support the issue in a referendum but he will vote against the bill. I find his reasoning there a little hard to understand. We were elected to this Parliament to legislate and I think it shows a lack of comprehension of what we were elected to do and what the role of a parliamentarian actually is. 
Before I finish I would like to challenge Brian Donnelly and Ron Mark. The Hon Brian Donnelly put up the Supplementary Order Paper on a referendum. I accept that that is in line with his party’s policies and I accept that he has a genuine reason for doing so because that is the position that that party takes. But my challenge is if it fails what will those members then do? Will they oppose the bill? They voted for it according to their conscience; will they vote against their conscience in the future?