Duynhoven Harry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Duynhoven Harry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17513] 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 This is a first for me in that I do not think I have ever spoken in the House before on a conscience bill even though I have voted on many of them. 
Dianne Yates 
: Yes you have. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is quite right. I spoke in the debate on the prostitution legislation. The Civil Union Bill is a conscience bill and I greatly respect views that are sincerely held regardless of which side of the issue people are on and regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me. I am in this House as the elected member for New Plymouth because people expect me to exercise my vote according to what I believe and if they do not support me in that then they can vote for a different person. There will be times when people disagree with the way I vote on issues and there will be times when they agree with the way I vote. Sometimes I disagree with my colleagues—it happens occasionally. 
I do not support a referendum on this issue. Even though some people who are against this bill as I am want a referendum as a next step in trying to get another bite at the issue as it were I do not support that. The reason is that if we as members of Parliament have to poll our electorates to find out what our conscience and our beliefs should be then we should seriously consider whether we should be in Parliament. We as MPs are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf and if members have to poll their electorates to find out whether 50.1 percent of people view an issue one way and 49.9 percent another way and therefore they should go with the 50.1 percent then they should not be here because they do not have the ability to make a conscience vote. They should walk out of the door and leave it to those who can make a conscious decision on a conscience matter. 
Some members who support the bill have told the Committee that those who have struggled to make a decision and who after weighing up all the issues have decided to vote for the bill have real courage. There are some for whom no doubt that is the case. For others of us it actually takes a bit of courage to weigh up the issues and then make a decision not to support the bill. But I respect both those who support it and those who have made a decision not to support it provided they are honest and valid in their decision processes. 
I have had to think hard about this bill because of one experience I have had. It happened some years ago to a friend of mine who is gay and was living with a partner. They had a home together and had lived together for some years. They had cars a dog and all the things a family would have except that they were a gay couple. The partner of my friend died and the difficulty for the survivor was that at the funeral he was made to feel an outcast. He was not allowed to make decisions because the family of the dead partner made them. I have struggled in respect of this bill only for that reason. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill fixes those issues. 
Like Gordon Copeland I support and argue that the Homosexual Law Reform Act did the right thing in decriminalising homosexuality so that homosexuals were no longer treated as criminals. But this takes it a step further and normalises relationships that are not the norm for the public. In my view people can already have a contract: they can stand up in front of their family and friends and say: “We are devoted to each other.” They can formally have a ceremony in front of their friends even though they are a same-sex couple—if they are. They can make contractual arrangements through the law on property and all sorts of other issues. In respect of this type of legislation we should learn from the experience of others. The Dutch Government took this step some years ago when it introduced a similar law. But it got itself into all sorts of difficulty over things like superannuation entitlements etc. This bill is not a step that I support.