Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17445] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 This debate on the Civil Union Bill is an important debate. There is absolutely no doubt about that. For my money the Government has embarked upon a programme of radical social change—of social engineering if you like. We have seen a number of elements of that in recent months. The first was the decision to legalise prostitution which had a whole lot of consequences. The second was the decision in effect to close down the Returned Services Association clubs in New Zealand because that will be the impact of the smoke-free legislation. Now we see proposals that for all intents and purposes will introduce same-sex marriage. 
I think it is worth reflecting that while we are doing these things other countries are doing the opposite. Just in the last month in the Australian Federal Senate we have seen a clear stance taken against same-sex marriage. Even more recently in the context of the US presidential elections we have seen a series of referenda across that country and in the states concerned there has been unequivocal rejection of same-sex marriage. [ 
Interruption 
] In a moment I will to meet the needs of members opposite who are interjecting explain why the Civil Union Bill is all about same-sex marriage. 
But I will start if I might by making the point that as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee hearing submissions on this bill and on its companion piece of legislation which is in serious difficulty I along with other members of the committee some of whom are present in Parliament at the moment spent days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills. Not only did this issue receive more submissions than any other but it was been one of the most emotionally charged that I can remember. There were approximately 6000 submissions—maybe a few more than that—and 91 percent of those submitters were opposed to this legislation. That should give any thinking Parliament cause to reflect on the processes that the Government has initiated. Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise that their loving and committed relationships should be recognised in law but—and I hope members opposite will acknowledge this—with equal sincerity most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage to New Zealand which they believed would undermine the unique status of marriage. 
If I were asked to summarise very briefly what my concerns are in connection with the determination of the Government to push this legislation through I would say that they are these. First of all there is strong opposition to this bill—6000 submissions and 91 percent of the submitters saying no. That is the first thing. The second thing is that this bill is being rushed through under urgency. That is quite significant because one would have thought that issues of this gravamen in the community— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Rubbish! 
RICHARD WORTH 
: The member opposite says “Rubbish!” but he probably does not understand that we are in urgency. The gravamen of the argument though is that the bill is being rushed through—[ 
Interruption 
] 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Minister alongside you is abusing his privilege by using his microphone to interject on me which he is not permitted to do. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: That is quite right. I have indicated to the Minister that I would like him to quieten down. 
RICHARD WORTH 
: I have been making the point that the bill is being rushed through under urgency. It is a serious matter. It does not deserve to be rushed. It deserves careful and considered reflection. It has been reported back early. It was due to be reported back on 23 December. It is quite unusual for bills to be reported back within their first stipulated time limit. That has happened here. 
But there are other things going wrong. I was party to a sorry set of events in the select committee where it seemed that the officials were being badgered to hasten events so that there would be an early commencement of the bill. That is why there is a change that would see the bill come into force on a fixed date and possibly a departure from the Cabinet rules so that the normal time frames between the passage of regulations and the regulations coming into effect would be waived.