Peters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Peters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I wish to move the following amendment: to delete all words after “That” and to substitute “a referendum be held at the time of the next general election to decide whether the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to recognise marriage between two people regardless of their sex sexual orientation or gender identity.” 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member should if he is going to speak continue to speak. I would ask that I have a written copy of the amendment please. So just continue. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: This is clearly about many issues and many beliefs and you have heard them tonight and for many years and over the last few months in particular. But it is also about the right of the people of this country to be heard the right of New Zealanders to all have their say and to evince their equality with anyone who sits in this Parliament. New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. It is in our cultural DNA. We are one of only nine countries that can claim an unbroken line of democracy—that is elections on a regular term—for the last 1½ centuries. We are a seriously unique country in that context and the democratic traditions of New Zealand are part of who we are as a nation. 
Tonight for reasons that members may best understand themselves that tradition is again under threat. We stand on the verge of passing legislation that would radically change the institution of marriage. No one in tonight’s debate watching television or being here tonight would surely dispute that. We stand on the verge of passing legislation that would radically change the institution of marriage—my party is not here to argue the merits of that—but we are going to go about it without any democratic mandate at all. 
Who here in the last campaign said we were going to do this? Who here in the last campaign— 
Hon Members 
: We did. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh we did. Is that true? Well I do not recall the advertisements. I do not recall the hoardings. I do not recall the proud boasts when it was thought that votes would be forfeit. 
So we can make that frivolous statement but tonight I am asking you this: why do you think that your knowledge of this country is preferable to that of the mass majority of adult New Zealanders? Answer that question. Do you still feel that you have an entitlement that is superior to that of the ordinary people of this country who after all we are meant to serve and not become the directors of? We are doing it without any democratic mandate at all. Have no doubt about this. The New Zealand people have been denied the chance to vote on one of the most polarising issues of our age. 
This is not to argue the merits of each side. The proponents of Ms Wall’s bill point to the select committee process as being some sort of vindication. Well if that is true is that a mandate? If that is true is it good enough? If that is true why do you not trust your fellow New Zealanders? What is it about the New Zealand people whom you forswore to serve all your parliamentary days that you do not trust and think you have a superior knowledge of? If the select committee submissions revealed anything it is that the public opinion in this country is widely split. We all accept that. But where is the majority in our country? Where is the mandate? [ 
Interruption 
] This may seem tiresome but just yesterday we were talking about the need to ask the country about asset sales. 
We all know that there is a massive majority of New Zealanders who are despite our politics against the sale of assets. How can something be meritorious yesterday and 24 hours later not be meritorious? Answer that question. Such a major legislative change must be based on the collective will of New Zealanders not 121 temporarily empowered MPs. Most of these people are going to be gone tomorrow—we all know that—so why would you not repose the trust in the voters of this country as against the people who sit here? It is called democracy for goodness’ sake. If New Zealand is going to have a proper debate— 
Sue Moroney 
: Go and get your 400000 signatures. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Someone just said to me “Go and get the signatures.” Oh really? Well why not do what Washington and other great people in history have done? Why not ask the people? What is so wrong with that? What can be wrong if you have the overwhelming majority of 4 million New Zealanders expressed by their adults in a referendum? Where is the sin here in actually reposing the trust in the people of this country? 
We are calling for a referendum on this issue to give all New Zealanders the same say as these people here tonight. Why not? What could possibly be wrong or unprincipled or unfair in letting the people of New Zealand decide this issue for themselves and in knowing then whichever side of the argument we end up on that the public have decided and therefore because we believe in democracy we must live with their choice? What could be so wrong with that? 
In the past so often—and there are people in the gallery tonight watching TV tonight and in this House who know there has been an enormous fundamental disconnect between politicians and voters. We have seen and endured this on occasion after occasion particularly over the last 30 years. No one could dispute that tonight. On so many occasions we have seen politicians blatantly lying about their intentions. There cannot be anyone who is watching tonight’s debate who does not understand that. 
You know tonight we are actually seeing it in this sense: there is a recurring theme here and we wonder why a million people did not vote at the last election who were entitled to. There were one million such New Zealanders in a country that used to pride itself that even though the vote was voluntary we used to outperform Australia where the vote was compulsory. That was a recent boast but a million never turned out at the last election and I can see and I am sure some of you see why that is. They think that their voice does not matter. Echoing out of this House tonight and reverberating around the country all around New Zealand is an expression saying: “You don’t matter. You don’t count. You’re just Joe Bloggs out in the suburbs or somewhere else or in some backblocks place.” when in fact this should be an empowering expression from New Zealand. 
There is nothing New Zealanders hate more than politicians who think they know best. There is nothing more odious more loathsome than politicians who think they know best. This debate sadly and I am not doubting the integrity of any side of this debate shows a terrible indifference in 2013 when all of our expressions are about transparency openness and taking the people with us. There is an absolute apathy and indifference to democracy. It portrays a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority that some people in this Chamber hold. My challenge to you up there right now and around this country is: do you think these people are better able to judge this issue than you? 
Hon Member 
: Yeah. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no you do not. Oh no you do not because there is no one who believes in democracy who does not want to have the decision shared with their family their friends their community and indeed their nation with them themselves. I think the people of this country are being grievously let down tonight because there is an enormous sense of haste and argument here but there is also the feeling that we again will take the people for granted. 
My party proposes a referendum. My party says that we believe that the people of this country are better able to decide this issue than anybody else is. If you do not trust the people pray tell me who are they going to trust now?