Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17595] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I want to respond to one of the comments made by the previous speaker about hospitals being rung to ask them what their policy is when dealing with same-sex couples and if in fact they would deny a person in a same-sex couple access to his or her partner. Of course they do not do that and that was reiterated by the Nurses Organisation at the Justice and Electoral Committee. But the difficulty arises when there is some kind of disagreement between the family and the partner of a person in hospital who is unconscious or has been in an accident and is not in position to sign a next-of-kin form. 
Larry Baldock 
: And this doesn’t deal with it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: How many times do I have to say this? If someone is in a civil union it is a legal recognised relationship under the law. When same-sex couples came to the committee they said that they know there are no next-of-kin laws. Mr Smith will remember that because to his credit he was there for all the submissions unlike many members of the committee who have come to the Chamber and pretended that they were there for all of them. What same-sex couples said was that if they were in a civil union it would be a legal recognised relationship and they could take their civil union certificate with them if need be and like a marriage certificate it would be evidence that the relationship was recognised under the law. That is how civil unions would be helpful for the next-of-kin issue in relation to people in hospital. The representatives from the Nurses Organisation themselves said that it would be very helpful and that it is not fair that nurses have to make the call between the disapproving family and the partner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So we’re doing it for the nurses now? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We are doing it for the nurses. I feel that there are many areas that the bill helps and if we can make it easier— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s wrong with a referendum? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will talk about the referendum soon I say to Mr Peters. If we can we should make it easier for hospital staff to implement their policy. I think same-sex couples should be given the right to choose to go into one of these relationships. Of course not all of them will and there will continue to be problems but if they have a choice we have fair legislation. 
Now just to keep Mr Peters happy I will talk about the issue of a referendum. I do not support referenda on issues like this. I will tell members why. If we had had a referendum on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill 18 years ago it would not have passed. How many people can honestly say that that law has changed their lives—that their lives are worse because 18 years ago that Act was passed? I wish we could have referenda on issues that actually affect people’s lives. I wish we had had a referendum on the student loan scheme. I would not have been old enough to vote but I would have felt much better if a referendum had been held on the student loan scheme and we could have had a say. That scheme affects my life. 
I am not opposed to the idea of referenda. However I think MPs are here to make decisions. Referenda are costly so they should be used sparingly. I do not have any problem with the concept of referenda but referenda on issues like this are the reason that in a country like Switzerland a progressive nation women did not get the vote until 1971. In 1956 a referendum was held in Switzerland and it failed. Women did not get the vote in 1956 in Switzerland because of the referendum system. It would be the same if a referendum was held here on an issue like this. I believe that referenda are useful when everyone voting on them is affected by what he or she is voting on. If people are affected by what they are voting on then a referendum may be a very useful tool if Parliament is unable to make up its mind or deems an issue serious enough to take to the people of this country. But we are paid to come here and do a job. In 20 years’ time no one will even blink at the way his or her life has changed because the Civil Union Bill passed into law. 
We could spend an awful lot of money on a referendum—and there would be posturing by a lot of people—but if we are serious about referenda why are we not putting them up for issues that really affect the lives of New Zealanders? Will it be New Zealand First that decides what we have referenda on? Will it decide the important issues? Who will decide? To be fair to New Zealand First I have to say that it is the one party in this Parliament that has a policy on referenda. I guarantee that if the opponents of this bill had the numbers to see this bill fail they would not be calling for a referendum. National Party members would not be calling for a referendum if they had the numbers to see this bill fail. I have no doubt about that. I do not believe that United Future as well would be calling for a referendum if it had the numbers to see this bill fail. At least I am consistent. I would not support a referendum even if we did not have the numbers to pass this bill into law because I do not believe that this is the right issue for a referendum.