Donnelly Brian: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Donnelly Brian: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17440] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I want to talk a little bit about my father. He only ever won one trophy—we kids used to think it was neat—and it was for winning the Auckland boxing championships. In some ways that expressed his view of masculinity. He served in North Africa and Italy from 1940 to 1945 and fought at El Alamein but he only ever told stories of the fisticuffs he used to get into during leave. It would be fair to say that he had a fairly macho view of masculinity. 
My mother was quite the opposite. She had a different upbringing. Her mother died when she was young and she was largely brought up in Catholic boarding schools. The nuns became her surrogate mothers. So she was very staunchly steeped in the Catholic faith and Catholic beliefs. She and dad became engaged before he went to war and mum waited patiently for his return. When he came back they were married and produced five kids—three boys and two girls. 
I was the third son so I got the hand-me-downs from two brothers but my sister after me got flash new clothes and that is why I consider I am still a scruffy dresser. One of my brothers was in fact just different from the other two boys. He was not as physically skilled although he joined in all the sports. He was artistic whereas the other two were not. I do not wish to make a stereotype but just to tell members about it as it actually was and as it is. 
In general we grew up as a typical family of the time in a typical State housing area and differences did not matter. My brother got married as did the other members of the family. His was a big Catholic wedding but the marriage was not successful. Following the annulment my brother developed a pattern of having male mates live with him. He did not actually come out of the closet as such but just gradually the door was pulled ajar and we all became progressively enlightened. 
The knowledge of my brother’s sexual preference hurt both my parents. I know it did. It challenged my father’s view of masculinity and indeed his own masculinity. It challenged my mother’s religious beliefs very deeply. But never once not even in the slightest did either of my parents convey any sense of rejection of my brother as a valued member of our family; my father conveyed silent acceptance and my mother fierce protectionism. My brother and his partners were fully accepted. 
I want to pay tribute to my parents because through their behaviour and through their example they taught me the true meaning of family values. I have heard a lot about family values but I believe they taught us the true meaning of them. They taught me that family values mean that acceptance of family members is non-negotiable and unconditional. 
I also want to take the opportunity to talk further about the family and to inform the Committee that on Friday this week I will not care whether this bill is still being debated because I am not going to be here. I will be with my wife walking my eldest daughter up the aisle. I am glad there is a formal ceremony in which my daughter and her partner can make a public commitment to each other—can make a pledge of an exclusive and long-lasting relationship to each other. I do not for one minute believe that the passage of this bill will undermine the marriage into which my daughter is entering. My brother and his partner will be there amongst the rest of our family and friends as should be the case. 
I accept the consciences of those who oppose this bill—and people know that I have put forward an amendment for a referendum—but I would respect those consciences far more easily if I had witnessed an effort by just one of those members to put up a bill in their time in Parliament to re-criminalise homosexual behaviour. But not one has. 
 The message therefore must be that gays can have legal sexual relationships but that there is no legal way they can make public commitments to long-term exclusive relationships. That I put to this Committee is a position that encourages promiscuity and that position is in no one’s best interest in terms of public health. So at this point in time I am still supportive of this bill but as I said later on during the Committee stage we will debate my belief that this issue needs to go to a public referendum so that we can settle it for all time.