Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13953] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This legislation and the bill that has just been referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee are fundamentally flawed because they are based on two quite flawed assumptions. It is a fiction that all relationships are the same. De facto same-sex and married relationships are different. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. It does not always last the distance but it is based on that ideal and that ideal deserves recognition in law. The second fiction in the bills assumes a sort of sexless society in which men and women are not only equal—and I agree with that—but the same. In Labour’s eyes it just makes no difference whether a couple is two men two women or a man and a women—it is all the same. But those couples are fundamentally different because a man and a woman are the foundation of a family—of a new generation and a future for our society. I openly accept that there is a private good associated with all sorts of relationships but there is also a public good when it comes to marriage and the relationship between a man and a woman and that is why it should be accorded a higher status in law than other relationships. There has been a huge focus in the debate this afternoon on the issue of gay relationships but far more significant in numerical terms is what this bill says in respect of de facto relationships. We are talking about 400000 or 500000 New Zealanders who live in de facto relationships and fewer than 10000 who are in gay relationships. I want to focus on the significance of those changes in respect of this debate. 
A couple of myths are being perpetrated by the Government in this debate. The spin doctors in the Prime Minister’s office are saying that this is not a gay marriage bill. I say it is in every single sense. The registration of marriages and civil unions will be the same the process for celebrants will be the same the process of exclusion from marriages and civil unions is absolutely identical the process for divorce is the same the issue of bigamy and the penalties for that are the same and there are exactly the same rights in respect of children. If we look at the 19 specific Acts that are to be amended we see every single Act—dealing with births deaths and marriages family proceedings child support insurance—will state in effect that de facto relationships same-sex relationships and marriage are exactly the same. The Minister Mr Benson-Pope is saying there is a difference between them because civil unions will not have a religious connotation. I am sorry but we have had marriages by registrars in this country for decades so that is not a difference. There has already been a recognition by the churches that some will allow civil unions. The last difference that the Minister attempts to hang his hat on is that the words “marriage” “husband” and “wife” are not used in the civil union legislation or in these de facto provisions. That is an argument over semantics. A civil union and a marriage will be synonymous in law; there will be no difference. I simply put it this way: if something looks like a duck quacks like a duck and smells like a duck it probably is a duck and calling it a web-footed bird does not change anything. 
The reality is revealed fully in this Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. It actually states that the terms “marriage” “civil union” and “de facto” are to be completely interchangeable. It states that the terms “wife” “de facto partner” and “same-sex partner” are to be treated similarly within the law and it states “spouse” will mean all the above terms. That is radical social engineering and those who say it will make no difference to society are trying to rewrite hundreds of years of history and culture in respect of marriage and the family. We are emasculating the family by making it into such a diverse range of arrangements that it will become meaningless. 
I have also heard the argument that by making de facto and same-sex relationships the same in law as marriage we are not somehow downgrading marriage. That is bunkum. It is the same argument that the Government put up with regard to School Certificate. If we say that everybody gets School Certificate whether a person is any good or not does that downgrade it for those who do pass? Of course it does. The Government’s approach in education and in social policy is the same: everybody is just the same we are not allowed to have difference and there is to be no judgment about that which is good and that which is better. The truth is that giving the same legal status to marriage and to same-sex and de facto relationships does downgrade marriage. Quite simply why would anyone bother to get legally married if under this legislation one can get all the benefits of that and what is more one can walk out of it tomorrow if one is in a de facto relationship? The tap can be turned on and off with a de facto relationship. The difference between a marriage relationship and a de facto relationship is that one is entered into with a commitment of permanence whereas the other can be turned off tomorrow. That is why they should be treated differently in law. 
There is an even more important dimension than that. I challenge this Parliament to reflect on what is in the best interests of children because we know that that is in the long-term interest of society as a whole. We know from all the social statistics that despite all the attacks that this Government has made on the traditional family it is the traditional family that out-performs every other relationship in terms of the statistics that matter for children. Child abuse figures are markedly lower for stable long-term relationships. If we look at issues like the immunisation rate the figures on educational achievement the figures on youth suicide and the other figures on health and well-being we see the fact is that children do best in long-term committed relationships. If we are serious about addressing some of the woeful statistics that this country has in respect of children then we as a Parliament need to support the very institution marriage and the family that can make for doing that. 
I want to challenge Government members. The onus is on them to prove that this legislation will make for a better society. I concede quite openly that there are single-parent families that do a damn good job and there are also gay couples that do a good job of raising their children. But the statistics show us that on average committed long-term relationships are far better for children than other relationships. Research in the UK in Sweden and in the United States and even our own domestic research in New Zealand shows us that. I challenge the Minister to put the case as to how increasing the recognition of de facto relationships by saying that de facto partners will enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage without making that long-term commitment will benefit children. I say that it will not. 
I want to make a further point. The other point that comes out very strongly in the social research is the importance of children having both a mother and a father. We have a social tragedy going on in New Zealand in which thousands of children—principally boys but girls too—do not have a male role model. I come back to the point I made at the beginning—men and women are different but equal. Children need to have a relationship with a father as well as a mother. This bill undermines the important long-term relationships that make for stable families. 
I will put it quite plainly. I have no difficulty in providing for the legal recognition of de facto relationships. They are a reality. But what I object to in this bill is the approach that says that all relationships are the same. To say that a commitment for life—a long-term commitment that states one will try throughout one’s life and through all its ups and downs to stick together—is the same as just moving in with someone is a mistaken view. I say that Parliament should not suspend its judgment. It should put de facto and same-sex relationships on a different footing from marriage. That is not what this bill does.