Brown Peter: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
Brown Peter: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13955] 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I agree with much of what the Hon Nick Smith has just said. I will not go over that ground again but I do endorse what he said about marriage being quite different from a de facto arrangement. That difference should be recognised. In my view marriage should be put on a pedestal and nurtured and encouraged. I do not deny that there is some merit in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill particularly if the Civil Union Bill goes through. But it is a contentious bill. It represents a very sensitive area of society and it is my view that such legislation should have the support of and a mandate from the public at large rather than just be passed into legislation at the behest of a majority of 120 MPs. I do not think that that is a fair go. Some people will argue that certain bills have to be handled by Parliament because the public will always vote against them and that is true. If there were to be a referendum on taxation I do not think any member of the public would vote for increased taxes or whatever—and it is the same with law and order safety highway safety and those sorts of things. I think those matters are the responsibility of Parliament to push through in a proper and an appropriate manner. But this bill and the Civil Union Bill will actually change the values of society and actually change what average New Zealanders think about the society they live in. That is a huge issue in itself. 
I listened to Judith Collins in the earlier debate and I think she touched on the issue very well. She said that if there has to be a debate on homosexual marriage let us have it. Let us have the debate on that. But let us not have a Civil Union Bill and this accompanying legislation which is in fact a disguise for the debate on homosexual marriage. We all know that the pressure to push this and the preceding bill through the House has come from the gay community. I am hesitant to use that word with my colleague next door because he is a little old-fashioned like me and he thinks that people who are gay are happy people. They probably are but the word “gay” has been somewhat hijacked by the homosexual community. 
I have had literally hundreds of letters on this and the preceding bill. Not many of them were standard letters—some were but not many. Most of the standard letters were from people who supported this bill. Most of the mail I received against this bill was made up of individual letters or emails crafted by people who were expressing their concern about it. I have done a provisional check and those letters are running at nine to one against this and the preceding legislation. Yet the members of this Government sit over there on the other side of the House and do not bother even to listen to those people. 
I was encouraged by my colleague Brian Donnelly’s speech on the Civil Union Bill. He supported it going to the select committee but he said that if it comes back to the House he will move an amendment to make it subject to a binding public referendum. If he does not do that I will do so for both this bill and the Civil Union Bill. I know that New Zealand First’s commitment to citizens initiated referenda is strong; it is a strong commitment that we have made. I am hopeful that when the Civil Union Bill comes back to the House and when this bill if it passes its first reading comes back to the House other members will say that they want the public at large to have a say on this legislation. I hope they will want the public to determine whether we are to enact legislation that will change society’s values in a very significant way. 
I will be voting against this bill because it sits very very uncomfortably with me. But my principal reason for voting against it is that the people who put me here in Parliament have made it quite clear that that is their view. They have told me in no uncertain terms that as MPs we represent them and we should not impose legislation on them.