Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17454] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 The fundamental question that Parliament should be asking itself this afternoon is: will we make society stronger by making de facto relationships same-sex relationships and married people’s relationships exactly the same? That is the real key. All this wash we hear about human rights etc. comes back to what will make society stronger. 
The basic view I come from is that the family unit of mum dad and the kids is overwhelmingly shown in all the social research to provide the best environment in which to raise children. If we look at all the risk factors we so often debate in this Parliament whether in terms of kids’ educational achievement health statistics or youth crime we see that in all of those the evidence is overwhelming that families do best when there is a mum and a dad—not a mum and a mum not a dad and a dad but a mum and a dad. 
Why does that matter? Well it matters because the very future of our society is our children. I hear much hand-wringing from Labour members—they are concerned about child abuse in New Zealand they are concerned about educational outcomes and they are concerned about child poverty—yet the very institution of marriage and family that can best deliver those things for our society is being undermined by this bill. 
Mr Tim Barnett decided to get very personal and to refer to my own marriage. I would have preferred that we did not. I am proud of my marriage. It is not perfect but I am proud of it and I am proud of the institution of marriage. But the question is: well if we let everybody have it does that undermine it? Let me ask members: if we let everybody get school certificate does that undermine it for those who currently pass? Of course it does. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I know for Judith Tizard that it is part of Labour’s education programme to drive down standards of education and that it wants to do the same with our relationships. But if we go to the Olympic Games and say: “Everybody is going to get a gold medal.” does that undermine the value of the medal for those who get it? Of course it does. 
Then we come to the argument from Moana Mackey. She says the reason we need to get rid of marriage and provide for civil unions is that society is a secular society— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: The member’s speech is full of lies. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is nothing in the Marriage Act and I have it right here before me— 
Dail Jones 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sick and tired of Labour members making unparliamentary statements. If Ms Tizard wants to say something is a lie she should take a call. I distinctly heard what she said regarding Dr Nick Smith’s speech and these Labour members should be brought to order. That member should be made to withdraw and apologise for saying that Dr Nick Smith’s speech was a lie. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I thank the member. The member is absolutely correct and I will ask the member to withdraw and apologise. 
I furthermore remind members that Chairperson Clem Simich indicated to them that interjections should be kept to a minimum. I say because this is a conscience issue that members should try to respect other members. The member will withdraw and apologise please. 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Labour member Moana Mackey said the reason we had to create this new institution of civil union was that society is secular. I openly respect that. We are a secular society; it should not be for the State to impose religion. But I have the Marriage Act here. Nowhere in it does it have any religious overtone. In fact only a third of weddings today are actually held within a church. So to somehow say that we need to introduce this whole new concept of a civil union on the basis that marriage is solely Christian is wrong—it is just incorrect. 
Then we come to the argument that this is not really gay marriage. Well let me read what the bill said when it was introduced. Clause 42(2) stated that the word marriage was taken to include civil union. I will read it again. All the way through an amendment to the Family Proceedings Act the word marriage was taken to include civil union. Well if that is not gay marriage I do not know what it is. That is as clear as day. 
I note in a gay magazine that Tim Barnett and the Prime Minister have said how proud they are that the Labour Party has delivered gay marriage. They did not say “civil union” in the magazine; they said “gay marriage”. They know that the majority of New Zealanders are opposed to gay marriage so they have had their spin doctors getting every Labour member who takes the call to try to pretend that this is not the gay marriage bill.