Rich Katherine: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Rich Katherine: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:666] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 Every single New Zealander who was polled in the DigiPoll referred to by Mr Copeland will be pleased to know that the present law in New Zealand as it stands is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I repeat: the present law states that marriage is between a man and woman. This bill adds nothing to the law—the law is already settled on this matter. If people do not believe me then I ask them to read  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General  
1998 and I ask them to read various papers put out by the Ministry of Justice by Crown Law by Chapman Tripp and by members of the legal fraternity like my learned colleague and friend here Chris Finlayson. The law is very clear. 
Let us see the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill for what it is. It is a cheap political stunt put up by a party that wants to pretend it has a monopoly on having an interest in long-term relationships and that it has a monopoly on concern for New Zealand families. I look around the House tonight. Most members here if not all of them believe that long-term relationships are the glue that keeps this community together. But this bill would add nothing to the present legal position—nothing at all. We hear rhetoric in this House about members not taking up Parliament’s time and about our not wanting to create bills that add nothing to the law and do not make a difference but this bill is one of those that would do nothing but restate the status quo. The purpose of this bill is so that United Future can stand up and say that it has a monopoly on believing that marriage is important and that long-term relationships are important—but United Future simply does not. 
This bill is a cheap political stunt and will be used as a platform for every banjo-playing redneck homophobe who wants to stand up and make comments about the way other people lead their lives. I have referred to the impression that United Future wants to create but this bill will add nothing to the body of law we now have. United Future wants to create the impression that we have hordes of gay and lesbian couples around the world focusing on New Zealand as their destination of choice. Again the law is quite clear on that point. If New Zealand gay couples travel and marry somewhere else their relationship will still be dealt with under the civil union legislation and regulations. If foreign people in some other kind of relationship want to come to New Zealand the law is pretty clear about their status as well. So if we look at this bill we see that it will do absolutely nothing to change the present situation. 
We often stand in the House and say we want to create bills that will make a difference and will stand for something so why are we standing here debating something that is already extremely clear in the law? My great-grandmother used to have a pub years ago called The Live and Let Live and I think that that is a very good saying. United Future members should take a look at themselves introduce some common sense to their own views and see that the legal situation as it is is quite clear. 
Marriage in this country is between a man and a woman and many in this House believe in that and support that. Many people who voted for the Civil Union Bill supported that which is why we had that bill in this country. Once again we see that party stand up and pretend it is the only party in this Parliament that is concerned about long-term relationships. We all know that long-term relationships remain the glue that keeps our community together but when I look at this legislation I am concerned about the sort of debate it will unleash on our communities. It will be used by many as a platform to say all sorts of things that will offend and to make statements about other people’s lives. 
In my view this bill does nothing more than state a situation we already have. Those DigiPoll respondents will be pleased to know that the law is extremely clear. We have not had a single lawyer stand in this House and say that the law is not clear. Every law we pass in this Parliament is potentially open to challenge but I tell members that if we put this law in place it will be challenged by those within the community and in particular it will be challenged under the Human Rights Act.