Worth Richard: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Worth Richard: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:667] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 It is seldom I disagree with Katherine Rich but on issues like these where effectively we are confronting a conscience vote I simply cannot agree. The proposition being advanced to members of this House is an assumption that the law is unchanging. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. The law is constantly changing sometimes incrementally and sometimes in dramatic advances. It is changing both as a result of decisions made by judges and also of course by decisions made in this House. 
It is right to say that judge-made law is settled by the Quilter decision but in principle there is nothing to say that the Supreme Court now our highest court could not review that decision in an appropriate factual matrix. It is also absolutely clear that this Parliament could make substantial change as Parliaments around the world have done—in some cases in short order. So the position that I adopt in speaking to members of the House tonight is that this bill should be supported. I do not for a moment buy into an argument that just because it reflects codification of the common law then somehow it is a waste of time to have it referred to a select committee. 
I plan to vote in favour of this bill for a number of reasons and I encourage colleagues in the House who are listening to these arguments to reflect on whether their arguments are right if it is their plan to vote against this legislation. I would say these things. First of all I say that passing this bill will provide a significant hurdle to the introduction of same-sex marriage in this country. It will be more difficult for Parliament to introduce same-sex marriage if it first has to repeal the Marriage Act—or sections of it—and then pass further legislation. Second I say that without this bill the Civil Union Act paves the way for same-sex marriage. That is because it would be much easier for a Parliament to introduce same-sex marriage by passing a minor amendment to the existing Civil Union Act and leaving the Marriage Act untouched. The Civil Union Act currently provides that a civil union couple can convert their civil union to a marriage as long as they are able to marry anyway. I think we have also seen—and this is the third point—how easy it is in the context of what has been going on in a number of countries to change the law to sanction same-sex marriage in short order. The latest illustration of that would be in South Africa where there is not a definition of marriage in the legislation. 
It is not the role of Parliament to dictate moral habit or moral custom but as a legislator I believe it is important that we send signals to the community as to what is or what is not acceptable behaviour. I think it is appropriate that this Parliament does send a message to New Zealand families that marriage is important. We have suffered 6 years in this Parliament of quite dramatic social engineering. It is appropriate to send signals that reverse that trend. 
I am not sure how relevant it is that we follow patterns of conduct advanced by those across the Tasman but the reality is that this issue has been looked at very determinedly in the context of the Australian Federal Parliament and that this bill is virtually identical to legislation that was passed by the Australian Liberal National and Labor parties. 
Finally I conclude by noting what the Attorney General of Australia Philip Ruddock said during the second reading of the Australian bill: “The bill is necessary because there is a significant community concern about the possible erosion of the institution of marriage. The Government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society. It is a central and fundamental institution. It is vital to the stability of our society and provides the best environment for the raising of children.”