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:9022. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I want to introduce to the Committee for consideration Supplementary Order Paper 202 in my name. I want to make some preliminary remarks about the Supplementary Order Paper and the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill and then introduce the new clause that I have. 
When President Obama indicated that he would support same-sex marriage most New Zealanders who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage between a man and a woman did not expect that such change would occur so quickly in New Zealand especially given that New Zealand already had civil union laws which gave legal rights to same-sex couples and in particular given that promises were made in this House that marriage would not be interfered with. I took a stance then in favour of the minority view of this House to not support the bill. I did so in accordance with the rights of freedom of conscience afforded to me on this issue and the need to represent the views held by many throughout my constituency by my family and friends as well as the views expressed to me by religious groups. 
Many in the religious and faith communities whether they are Christian Muslim Jewish Hindu or other faiths have expressed and continue to express a view that marriage is a union of a man and a woman. These beliefs are real and genuine. They are not made up; they are not fairy tales. They are true and heartfelt and many trace the source of this belief back through history to their deity. In addition views expressed by my colleagues friends and family members are also genuine and strongly held in favour of their right to be married irrespective of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. I called on everyone then on both sides of the argument to keep the debate respectful and dignified as this issue impacted on colleagues friends and family members and I acknowledge that the House has conducted itself in that manner. 
The basis for my introducing my amendment at this late hour is because many of the Churches prefer that this bill not pass at all. However as reflected in the votes so far on this bill it appears that if we are honest with ourselves this bill may pass thus launching New Zealand into new territory where we elevate same-sex unions from civil unions and provide new legal marriage freedoms for two people regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity. If this be the will of the House that this bill pass at its third reading then my amendments become critical in creating a balance between the religious freedoms currently enjoyed by religious and faith groups and the new same-sex marriage freedoms provided for by this bill. 
My amendments aim to ensure that the newly created rights for same-sex couples do not infringe on the existing long-held rights of church groups to continue to conduct their affairs with the freedom to hold on to their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. My amendments make an appropriate distinction between the affairs of the State to protect the equality of rights for all citizens and the affairs of a Church and how it conducts its affairs with its members who have a traditional view of marriage. My amendment is in accordance with the desire of the Government Administration Committee statement in its report: “It is our intention that the passage of this bill should not impact negatively upon people’s religious freedoms.” 
I acknowledge that the select committee has worked hard to address the issues of religious freedoms of belief and expression. With the greatest respect however the select committee’s recommendations do not protect the freedom of expression of persons and organisations outside the context of clergy who are authorised by their organisation to refuse to perform a specific marriage. The select committee recommendations do not protect church organisations from refusing to allow their premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes to be used for or in connection with same-sex marriage ceremonies. The principles in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 do not have supremacy in our laws and can be overridden by other legislation and because of the provisions in the main bill specific provision is also now needed to protect the rights of those who believe that marriage can be between only a man and a woman. My amendments provide protections that are clear in their intent and designed to avoid unintentional conflicts. 
My Supplementary Order Paper includes three new paragraphs. In the first new paragraph section 29(2)(a) my amendment provides protection to religiously affiliated celebrants or Church ministers if their personal beliefs are that marriage must be between a man and a woman even if their religion is not absolutely against same-sex marriages. The select committee’s efforts refer to “the religious beliefs of a religious body”. That is the denomination as a whole. This means that all the ministers of religion within a church are bound or otherwise by the religious belief of the Church in relation to same-sex marriage. There are currently two Churches today that I am aware of that have not yet confirmed a formal position as a whole as to whether to accept marriage of same-sex couples or not. There is no protection for individual Church ministers to conduct their religious role in accordance with their own conscience in the absence of a formal position by the body of their Church. 
I have tweaked the select committee amendment to include protection of freedoms of belief and expression for individual church ministers whose religious organisations have not yet formalised a view on whether or not to accept same-sex marriage or where the church organisation has refused to adopt an official position on the issue. My amendment provides this individual right to a church minister pastor or rabbi in a situation where there is absence of a view by the whole body of their Church. My amendment does not broaden out this individual right to civil celebrants and registrars. Civil celebrants and registrars would not have this protection because they are performing a paid public service and this is in accordance with the positions of Canada and the United Kingdom. 
In the second new paragraph my amendment provides in section 29(2)(b) that a person or a religious organisation will continue to have the freedom to express their views and provide counselling that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The select committee is to be commended for repealing section 56 of the Marriage Act which was not compatible with the rights and freedoms set out in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. My amendment however explicitly removes all doubt and provides greater certainty of these freedoms of religious belief and expression. 
And in the final new paragraph my amendment in section 29(2)(c) provides for a religious organisation to refuse to allow its consecrated premises premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes to be used for or in connection with a marriage that is not a marriage between a man and a woman. My amendment aligns with the Crown Law Office recommendations in its report: “Therefore if Parliament intends that religious congregations not be required to permit their place of worship to be used for the solemnisation of same sex marriages contrary to their religious beliefs we recommend that this be made explicit in the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt.” My amendment provides clarity and certainty of this right. I am not asking that we extend the rights to commercial for-profit or investment property; it is solely for properties that are consecrated and occupied and used for religious purposes. I believe that without this amendment and the necessary safeguard it provides for religious freedom the recognition of same-sex marriages will lead to socially divisive and entirely unnecessary conflict. 
My Supplementary Order Paper is in alignment with the intent and the statement by the select committee. It reaffirms with certainty the freedoms of religious belief conscience and manifestation as provided in sections 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite the wonderful efforts of the select committee which I acknowledge and thank it for the intention of Parliament is not clear with this legislation as it now stands hence my amendments which clarify and provide greater certainty of religious freedoms in light of the new marriage freedoms for same-sex couples. It is important that Parliament’s intentions are crystal clear otherwise what may occur is that Parliament’s intention may be challenged in a court of law in the future. 
I have attached for the sake of members of this Committee in my Supplementary Order Paper references to Canadian law. Canada for people’s information has some experience in maintaining this balance given it has had same-sex marriage since 2001. I seek consideration by this Committee and I ask that you find in favour of my Supplementary Order Paper.