Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17503] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 What a dreadful speech! It was a short appalling and shocking speech. The member got up and started attacking members opposing this bill for having weak marriages. I have had only one marriage. I really do not know how many marriages that member may have had but I have only had one. For the Labour Party to start bringing other members’ marriages into this bill shows the depths to which it has sunk. 
The Labour Party talks about tolerance. Well what comes into law this week? Old soldiers will be tossed out of RSA bars this week because the Labour Government’s legislation states they are not entitled to have a fag with their beer. Who is being intolerant there? Dianne Yates supported that legislation and put it through the House in her name did she not? That was the most intolerant legislation that I have seen in this House which was put through by Dianne Yates I think yet she has the cheek to talk about tolerance and intolerance. 
Stephen Franks 
: She knows best! 
DAIL JONES 
: Dianne Yates knows best. She supports prostitution—she knows best. She tosses the diggers out of the RSA—she knows best. She supports unnatural ways of life—she knows best. What an intolerant speech that was and now she cannot take it— 
Dianne Yates 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I thought the member said that I had supported the Prostitution Reform Bill. In actual fact I did not. That is a point of fact rather than a point of order. 
DAIL JONES 
: I apologise for that remark. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: It was not actually a point of order. 
DAIL JONES 
: Her party supported the prostitution legislation but I wholeheartedly apologise to Dianne Yates. 
Dianne Yates 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Prostitution Reform Bill had a conscience vote. Once again I think the member should get his facts straight. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Both of those points of order were not points of order. They are still debating points. [ 
Interruption 
] I remind members that when I am on my feet there will be silence. There will be no comment on rulings on points of order. They were both debating points. Members say things quite often that are not strictly accurate but they are still points that members can raise in debate and then debate them. 
Jim Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. In the course of your well-considered explanation to the Chamber I heard a comment from the other side—“For goodness’ sake!”. I believe it was a reflection upon your statement and ought to be withdrawn immediately. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is right. I did give a general warning but I will give it again. I ask the member who made a remark while I was on my feet speaking to withdraw that remark because that is the correct thing to do. 
Dianne Yates 
: Madam Chairperson I withdraw. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I remind members that when there is a point of order they should stop immediately and allow the Chair to deal with the point of order and call the member first. That often does not happen so I remind members of those courtesies. 
DAIL JONES 
: As I was saying the intolerant member for one of the Hamilton seats Dianne Yates who was responsible for tossing the diggers out of the RSAs has the cheek to get up and speak about tolerance. Of course what has been highlighted by Mr Barnett and Mrs Yates today is the fact that every piece of legislation will— 
Dianne Yates 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I point out to the member that my name in this place is not Mrs Yates. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is correct. A member should be referred to by his or her correct name. 
DAIL JONES 
: Sorry I had not realised—Dianne Yates. I do not mind being interrupted again. Both Dianne Yates and Tim Barnett have established today that every bill the Labour Government passes will lead to some subsequent legislation. The Government says that when this bill is passed that is it; but of course we know now that that is not it. When the human rights legislation was passed it was intended to have subsequent consequences. Clearly the consequence of this legislation will be adoption legislation that gives homosexuals and lesbians the absolute right to adopt children so that the courts will not be able to disregard their status. There is always a consequence of what the Labour Government does and that is the way we are heading with this legislation as clearly indicated to me by Dianne Yates and Tim Barnett. 
Mr Jim Peters made the very good point that schools will now of course have to teach what is meant by “civil union”. Schoolchildren will have courses on it. That will be their human right will it not? It will become part of the education syllabus. The Labour Party will say that Parliament passed the legislation and therefore as a consequence we must have courses in schools on civil union. I am sure Mr Tim Barnett agrees that it will be a natural consequence just as any school’s social issues classes talk about marriage and various other issues that are fully discussed in schools today. I am sure that schools today discuss homosexual and lesbian behaviour as part of the syllabus and that they will follow on from that by discussing the rights of homosexuals and lesbians as granted by this legislation of the Labour Government to any form of natural marriage—marriage in the natural sense between a man and a woman. 
This legislation cannot remove that law of nature. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman. Trying to have a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is just grotesque nonsense. 
That is the sort of thing we get from a party that supports prostitution legislation. That is what we expect from the Labour Party and that is what we get. It is the sort of thing we get from a party that tosses diggers out of the RSA—an intolerant party. It is the type of thing we get from a party that talks about human rights but really only wants to push the views of people who have supported its views from time to time. 
This bill of course is also meant to be a smokescreen to cover the mess the Labour Government is going to experience after the Supreme Court ruling in the Zaoui case. The Government is doing its very best to try to divert attention from what will happen in that case but New Zealand First believes that the civil union matter should go to a referendum of all New Zealanders and that New Zealanders should tell this Parliament what they want.