Peck Mark: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Peck Mark: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17473] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I want to make just one more contribution to this debate. I will spend a little bit of time on Dr Don Brash and make a few comments about his position but I want to put a couple of things on the table first up. 
Most important in this sort of debate those in glass houses should not throw stones. Can I say to people that we should not get sanctimonious in this debate. I could stand up here and tell the Committee line chapter and verse about my life—the good the bad and the ugly. In the little while that I have been dealing with some of the bad and the ugly one of the things that I have realised is that there is nothing that any member of this House has the right to judge any other human being by. I ask any member who has never transgressed against the moral codes to put up his or her hand; then I will not use the word we cannot use. It is clear to me that as human beings we all have our failings and we should all recognise that for what it is. 
I want to say about Don Brash’s position that it is morally bankrupt. I know that he actually knows that. I think Don Brash’s father would be turning in his grave over this particular matter. The Leader of the Opposition was brought up well in the traditions of a caring and Christian family. He knows only too well that allowing a referendum to go ahead will mean exactly what I said in my first speech and that is that we will have a hate campaign wheeled out against the gay community of this country—nothing more and nothing less. This is from a man who would lead this country. That is a failure of leadership. That is allowing division to be heaped upon people of this nation due to something that is not of their making. I have never heard that member in the past say we should put things to conscience votes. I have seen him in this Parliament on all sorts of legislation exercising his conscience vote. 
I had a person come to me on Friday to talk to me about my decision as to whether I would vote in favour of this bill. She is totally opposed to this bill and she told me all the reasons why she is opposed to it. She has good strong legitimate reasons. She believes that the Bible is the absolute truth. She believes that the story of Adam and Eve is the absolute truth. She believes all of that and I will never convince her that my position on the bill is right and nor am I going to try. I said to her at the end of my meeting with her that I wanted her to change seats with me. She asked what I meant. I said that she was to imagine that she was the member of Parliament for Invercargill and I asked her to tell me what she would do if I were to organise 150 people to send her emails telling her to vote in favour of the Civil Union Bill. Would she do it? She said no way not on her nelly—that it was totally opposed to everything she believed in. I know that for Dr Brash to oppose this bill is to totally oppose everything he believes in and everything he was taught. He still has time to salvage that for himself. He has to look at himself in the mirror in the same way that I do and the same way that every other member in this Parliament has to do. 
I want to say a couple of things. I referred to a letter that my father wrote to his congregation. I got it wrong. I said that it was St Barnabas Church but it was St Michael’s. At the end of my speech I will seek leave to table it. I think that it is instructive and that members will get some very interesting stuff out of it. He made a comment about Anglicanism and the three planks of scripture tradition and reason. But as I have been going through my life and taking stock of the good the bad and the ugly I have started to think again about some of my core beliefs some of which are very deeply rooted in Christianity. This is the Christianity I believe in: it is one concerned with love not punishment one concerned with service not selfishness one concerned with inclusiveness not exclusiveness and one concerned with wholeness not division. That is the religion I ascribe to. They are the things that my father taught me and taught the rest of my— 
Stephen Franks 
: What a lot of wussy new-age arguments. 
MARK PECK 
: I say to that member up there who used to be a Labour Party member that he was wrong then and he is wrong now. One day he should start to learn the lessons. He can preach all the right-wing ideology that he wants but I will tell him one thing quite clearly. There is a very good saying—I cannot remember the theologian who said it—and it goes this way: “The Christian right is neither.” It is time we had some tolerance in this debate and I am sick of the division. 
I seek leave to table a letter written by my father concerning the issues within this debate. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.