Sio William: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9043. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 Talofa lava Mr Chairperson. I want to take a short call in responding to some of the comments by the previous speaker Chris Auchinvole just to provide some clarity for the consideration of the Committee. The wording that I have used in this draft of Supplementary Order Paper 202—regardless of “sex sexual orientation or gender identity”—is consistent with the bill that is in hand the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and you will find that in clause 4 of the main bill that we are discussing. That is the wording that it has: “marriage between 2 people regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity.” So in my amendment the words that I am using are consistent with the main bill. That is the first point. 
The second thing is that I take on board what the Government Administration Committee has done. It is not an easy job and I accept fully the sincerity of its desire to protect these religious freedoms. In the first part of my amendment I have tweaked and added to it to ensure—because the select committee refers to a marriage celebrant who is authorised by the body of their church. We have a case currently where the Anglican Church and Presbyterian Church as a body do not have a position one way or the other and ministers on their individual bases are divided on the issue. So my amendment provides the protection to that individual minister whose body of religion has not yet made a decision on whether to adopt a formal position one way or the other. 
In terms of new clause 5A(2)(b) of my amendment yes the committee I acknowledge removed section 56 of the Marriage Act because that was incompatible with the freedom of religion provided by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. However it does not state that those rights are there and we know and those of you who are in the legal fraternity will understand that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act does not have supremacy in our laws and any other Act can therefore overcome that particular Act. Finally in terms of the last clause of my amendment with regard to premises I make reference specifically to religious premises consecrated occupied and used for religious purposes only. I am asking that that protection be there. I am not worried about premises that are used for profit commercial or investment purposes. That is not the intention of my amendment. 
Finally it is also not the intention—and I want to make it clear—of my amendment to cover broadly protection for civil marriage celebrants because civil marriage celebrants and registrars are conducting a public service and are paid for it. My amendment in the whole is about providing greater certainty for the freedoms of religion that are provided for in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I am simply wanting those rights to be explicitly part of the bill. That is why although it is late in the piece I do ask and hope that members of the Committee can have consideration. It is about balancing the rights provided by the State for protecting equality for all people versus the rights of the church and how churches conduct their affairs with their members.