Fairbrother Russell: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Fairbrother Russell: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17652] 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I do not stand here as one who supports the bill because I have an immediate family member who is gay. As with everyone who has a wider family there is a gay union within my family but that is not why I support the bill. I support it because for 25 or 30 years of legal practice I was proud to represent the marginalised in this society. I do not need to be marginalised to know what it is like to be marginalised. If someone is treated as a classless citizen without full legal rights that person is easily put down and subjugated. Too many people accept that treatment with humility and tolerance and try to get on with their lives but the barriers the unspoken barriers the hurdles the preconceptions—the shifting of a shoulder the glance—are hurtful to the individual although not recognised by many others. That is why I support this bill. Any effort at all to remove that social hurt that discrimination that treating of a fellow citizen without humanity I stand against. 
I therefore support this bill enthusiastically and I do hope it is passed today. As my good friend Tim Barnett said in his speech the sun will rise tomorrow the world will be the same but there will be some people in this country who can treat the world with a little more optimism. Winston Peters was correct in his speech when he said that this bill falls short of providing marriage. He is absolutely correct. He is correct when he says it offers a sop to the gay community. It is sad that that is the case. But if someone is a second-class citizen if someone is marginalised one piece of bread is better than two if that person cannot get anything at all. Maybe the day will come when those who do treasure marriage as I do will appreciate that the world will not end if others who have a different orientation can also enjoy that status. But then society will be ready for it. We have heard the speeches in this House we have read the emails and we have heard the submissions before the select committee and clearly many many people are not ready for that big move because their own emotions their own barriers their own set ways of thinking prevent them from embracing such a move. 
So Winston Peters is right: this bill is a sop to the gay community but it is one that many of its members welcome with open arms and some of them reject because they still feel as though they are being treated as second-class citizens. It is a sop because we are not offering the gay community and others those who cannot marry in this country but want to have legal relationships the equality of society. We are not offering them the warmth of humanity. We are offering them the cold face of legal equality. The cold face of legal equality is only that. So when people say they do not know what a civil union is I say they do not need to know. If we try to describe what a marriage is we cannot do that either. Most people who marry do not read the Marriage Act. But those who do get married know what it means to them. I expect that those who enter into a civil union will also know what it means to them. 
It will not open up amazing doors for them. There may be problems in our subsequent legislation as we try to define the cut-off point between marriage and civil union but at least this measure is a step along the way. All of those out there today who cannot speak up and say they love someone else those who cannot have that affection recognised publicly at least can take that step. We can see that they do not have horns on their heads. We can see that they are human beings with the same emotions as those of us who are not gay. We heterosexual men and women can walk around this community in the knowledge that we are not harming the lifestyle of others who are born and act differently. 
I saw the celebration outside Parliament today. There were orange balloons and there were protesters protesting against civil union. That is the New Zealand I want where both factions in a social argument can express themselves openly and joyously. It is amazing that those who are against the legislation were sullen and quiet and those who are in favour of it were exuberant and noisy. That is the New Zealand where we can exchange our views we can learn from each other and we can share the warmth of humanity without labelling people but loving one another. That is surely a basic Christian message.