Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17471] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I would just like to respond to the point that the last member Mr Adams raised about legislating for morality but before doing that I will encapsulate again my view of this legislation. Conferring rights on a minority never undermines the majority. Creating civil union will not undermine marriage. Overseas experience proves that that is true. 
I shall deal with Mr Adams’ point. If Parliament could cure the ills of society by improving its morality through the passage of laws we would have a rash of legislation in the next month and New Zealand’s ills would be cured by the following month. The reality is that that is not how society operates. Parliament does not create society’s morality. Most of us think that adultery is damaging to relationships. We do not legislate against adultery or other sexual immorality except where we think it will damage young people. Where there is no damage we do not legislate. That is why we have laws against assault but we do not have laws against adultery or premarital sex. That has been the case in Western democracies for centuries and long may it continue to be so. 
I would also like to comment briefly on the call for a referendum. The  
Timaru Herald 
 said this about it with regard to Richard Worth’s proposed amendments: “He is clutching at straws just as his leader Don Brash and others were doing last week in trying to have the matter decided by public referendum. Dr Brash was trying to win cheap political points. He actually supports the bill. But a referendum is a bad idea. Would it be binding? If so the bill would likely be defeated.”—I disagree with that but in any event—“And that would go against Dr Brash’s stance. So to win votes he’s prepared to compromise what he believes. That’s pretty shallow. Non-binding?”—by that it means a non-binding referendum—“What would be the point? We would be back at square one. We elect politicians to make decisions.” To quote the  
Timaru Herald  
further: “Why should they abdicate on the hard ones? Why not a referendum on the foreshore and seabed issue smoking prostitution? And if we did all that why have politicians at all? The danger in such a course is you have majority rule and that does not necessarily produce the best law. The Civil Union Bill is essentially about human rights more so even than the morality aspect but no matter how good the education campaign the emotive aspects in any public vote would win the day. And again that’s why we have politicians; to sift through the arguments on both sides and make the best decision regardless of whether it is popular or not.” That is right. 
I would just like to say something about the Catholic Church view. Turning this into single-issue politics is in my view wrong. I have to ask where the Catholic Church in the United States was when the United States went to war against Iraq killing women and children innocents in an illegal war. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What’s that got to do with it? 
DAVID PARKER 
: It shows a double standard I say to Dr Smith. 
Stephen Franks 
: You hide behind the American shield. 
DAVID PARKER 
: Mr Franks believes that its actions were justified; I do not. I am proud of our Government which did not just follow that particular course. Where is the Catholic Church when there are other issues of international injustice? Do its bishops say: “Vote against that particular candidate on this basis.”? 
Stephen Franks 
: Yes they do 
DAVID PARKER 
: They do not take the steps that they have taken this week. I find their attitude irreconcilable with their more moderate stance in 2000 when all the Catholic bishops in New Zealand in a submission on a National Party consultation document about proposed civil unions or the right of gay people to have some civil recognition of their relationships said that they were not opposed to it. They were concerned as to the way in which it was done. They said we should not confuse it with marriage. They did not like the idea of vows. But the idea of civil recognition of gay relationships was something that as their submission on 24 March 2000 shows they agreed with. At the time the  
National Catholic Reporter 
 said: “New Zealand’s Catholic bishops support legal registration of same-sex unions though not as a steppingstone to legal marriage.” That is what they said they supported and this bill effectively does just that.