Volume 622 Week 76 - Tuesday 7 December 2004(continued on Wednesday 8 December 2004) 
Volume 622 Week 76 - Tuesday 7 December 2004(continued on Wednesday 8 December 2004) 
[Volume:622;Page:17497] 
Tuesday 7 December 2004 
( 
continued on Wednesday 8 December 2004 
) 
Civil Union Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed. 
Part 2 Civil unions ( 
continued 
)  
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: When the debate finished last night Stephen Franks was speaking. He has 2 minutes and 15 seconds remaining should he wish to continue. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I do wish to continue speaking—and I wish for much more. However we will see what happens. We are dealing with the core of the bill at the moment. The concern I raised before we rose last night was that the bill assumes the contract that is represented by civil union and does not state what it is. The objection immediately came up in the Justice and Electoral Committee that the Marriage Act does not do so either. That should have caused a responsible Parliament to decide whether we have so emptied marriage of content that we can no longer assume it is for committed stable relationships—or exclusive relationships—and that we ought to go back and look at both in terms of the policy. What is it we are trying to do? 
When the French Pacte Civil de Solidarité came in in 1999 their Parliament debated for 120 hours. That is more than 7 weeks of our full-time sitting time. It came up with a regime that has some real substance. For example the contract can stipulate how household items are required to be divided and what welfare and work benefits there are—things like taking annual holidays together. It excludes automatic descent or succession rules. The tax treatment which equates to marriage arises only after 3 years of successful living together in a civil union. In other words the French Parliament took seriously the questions that have been completely ducked here in the effort to get a great symbolic victory—something to whack around the ears of all the people whom the Government likes to call homophobes. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Not the Government. 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: This is a Government bill I say to Mr Duynhoven which he is voting for because he has probably been whipped to do so but will not admit it. The Government calls homophobes people who raise legitimate questions such as why we are debating a civil union bill without defining “civil union”. Why is the State engaged in so-called recognising a relationship when it does not have any interest in what that relationship is? There is absolutely no reason why a civil union could not exist for one day and expressly qualify. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I will not be supporting this legislation. I have been thinking through it because there are a lot of things that have been discussed and there has been a lot of debate on the Christian perspective yet every major religion in the world affirms marriage except one which I have heard about loud and strong in the debate and that is secular humanism. I believe that has been a strong voice in this country. 
In the early days of my rallying career we did a tremendous amount of our special-stage driving at night time. To be honest I absolutely loved it. All I could see with those powerful spotlights mounted on the front of the car was the road ahead. Everything else was in pitch darkness. Even if I had wanted to see what was on either side of the road that I was going down at breakneck speed it was impossible because of the darkness. That is exactly what is happening with the Government-led Civil Union Bill. 
The Government has decided the road it wants New Zealanders to go down and all its effort and attention is on giving illumination to that road or pathway—only. It is trying to convince us that it is a good road and it wants to hide everything that may be on either side of the road in darkness. Well I have news for the Government. Another thing I learnt from my years in rallying is that darkness does not last forever. At a point in time the sun does begin to rise. We are at a point in New Zealand history at which the sun is beginning to rise over our nation. Things that have been previously hidden from view by the night will now be seen clearly by all because when the sun begins to rise the darkness must go. No longer is the road alone all that we see. What is on either side becomes of tremendous importance as it affects the ability to maintain maximum forward motion on the road ahead of us. 
Middle New Zealand has seen what this legislation really is and the Government will not be able to hide the consequences of it from them. I believe that middle New Zealand has been speaking clearly on the bill. They know that it has nothing to do with loving relationships and absolutely everything to do with gay marriage. Not one email I received stated that couples were looking forward to having a civil union next year but many stated that they were looking forward to getting married next year. Members should think of the complications. Already we have Mr Mrs Miss Master and Ms. What on earth will we call these? “Civs”? Just imagine the cost to business for the stationery. Just imagine the cost to Air New Zealand when people fill out their cards. What will they be: “Civ” Miss or Ms? It gets confusing. Besides one cannot build on a lie. 
Homosexuality is a choice. Nobody is born homosexual as far as I am concerned. Yes one may lean more towards one’s masculine or feminine side but one is either a male or a female. As I said previously I have never heard of anybody’s bones being found and identified as lesbian or homosexual. People are either male or female. I have never seen a birth notice announcing the birth of a baby lesbian or homosexual. As we heard previously God made two types only—male and female. The gender people were born with is the gender they will die with and science will always confirm that. One can shout it from the rooftops as long as one likes—there are only two types. I know many gay and lesbian men and women who chose to participate in the gay lifestyle but who have since chosen to leave it. All tell a similar story which is normally to be honest a very sad story. But the bottom line always is that it always was a choice. 
I do not believe legislation should be passed to encourage people into making wrong choices. I was fortunate enough to be brought up in a generation that was at least taught what was right and what was wrong. I did not always follow what was right because people will always be able to exercise their free will. However many years later one learns and appreciates that many things one thought was OK when one was young in actual fact had consequences that were not pleasant. If this legislation passes—and I pray that it will not—there will be consequences to our nation. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I speak as a man who has never felt as though he has been through a traumatic experience. I do not think anyone abused me into becoming gay. From the very earliest time I recognised my sexuality I realised I was gay. It may come as a shock to Paul Adams to hear that but the reality is that there are many people in our society who have a genuine sexuality that is normally identified as lesbian or gay and that has not been caused by a trauma or an experience on the road to Damascus. In my view the reasons are genetic but for whatever reason it is a reality. There are people who identify in that way and against all the odds we choose to try to form relationships with people of our own gender. In many ways our lives would probably be a lot easier if we chose to go along with the pressure that parents and the majority of people often put on us but we do not choose to do that. We choose to be who we are just like others in this Chamber and I think we generally get recognition by society for that. 
I have a friend who is now 94 years old. As it happens he is the father of a former member in this House. He recognised in his teens that there was something different about him. Brian Donnelly spoke very powerfully yesterday about the kind of sense he had about his brother that there was something a little different about him. My friend knew from his teens that he was different from many of his male peers and he identified that as being something that in those days was impossible to express externally. He married—a happy marriage—had a family and eventually his wife died. By then in his 80s he could come out as something he always was—namely someone who is gay. That was not as a result of an experience he went through; that was his sexuality. I know that Paul Adams represents an extreme in this Parliament. I know that there are honourable people like Stephen Franks who do not deny that sexuality outside of heterosexuality is a reality. It is just a pity that they cannot go one step further and recognise that we should be treated as equal citizens in this Parliament and in this country. 
I want to make a fundamental point about the Human Rights Act. Many in this Chamber choose to denigrate that but back in the early 1990s this Parliament after extensive debate agreed to substantially expand our human rights legislation. The major debate was around the issue of sexual orientation. There was also debate around—as the wording put it—the presence of organisms in the body which was about whether people who have hepatitis or are HIV positive should be protected from discrimination. Disability and other grounds were also added to that legislation. That was a fundamental debate. 
In many countries human rights laws such as we have are embedded in a constitution. When we describe New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements we talk about our human rights law. Having said that once that decision was made naturally it flowed through society. We saw through the 1990s that many private providers of for example pension schemes and insurance schemes recognised same-sex partners as part of a reality in society. So they removed discrimination from their services. Towards the end of the 1990s the National Government tried to give the Government itself a permanent exemption from the Human Rights Act. Eventually it withdrew from that proposal and 3 years ago really by agreement across this Parliament the Human Rights Act was expanded as was always intended to include the Government. Once it included the Government from which legislation comes it was always inevitable that legislation that was discriminatory against groups in our society would be addressed. 
If we look at New Zealand legislation we see that people with disabilities and people who are lesbian or gay are the two major groups who are discriminated against in our law. That is exactly what this legislation is about. It would have been possible at that point to say we had to expand marriage. Very sensibly I think the decision was made to leave marriage untouched and instead set up a separate institution called civil union which certainly should be open to same-sex couples and have the same basic elements as marriage. That is a fundamental delivery of equality to New Zealanders. At the same time given that we do not want to set up discriminatory institutions it makes some sense to open that to heterosexual de facto couples added on to the fact that we know that there are now many New Zealanders living in heterosexual relationships. One-quarter of all heterosexual couples and one-third of young heterosexual couples are living together in relationships. That is what this legislation is all about. 
JIM PETERS (NZ First) 
: 
 It is interesting is it not that in response to Mr Adams’ everyday common-sense comments the reply from the Government side of the debate was that his is an extreme viewpoint. That really illustrates to this Committee and to the wider world exactly where we are with regard to this debate. I rise with pleasure to speak in opposition to the bill that is before the Committee. I support the contention that New Zealand First continues to advance that these issues should not be decided by us. The last speaker amplified very clearly why we should not decide them. He demonstrated the complete range of belief of an extreme type that has developed—which is not surprising though—on the other side of the Chamber in a compliance social and moral issue - riddled Government. Government members have come to the Chamber and as the previous speaker did proposed that what I believe the majority of people believe to be an ordinary everyday assumption is extreme. That label has been placed upon Mr Adams and others who support what thousands of us have said is our belief with regard to the institution of marriage. 
I rise for another reason. This bill amply demonstrates to the wider country something of the nature of the present Government. At the first reading we had a comprehensive bill in the House that presented to the country a whole range of not just marriage and partnership implications but financial ones as well. Now we have before us a small part of that with the draconian unknown implications of what it means deliberately left for another day. I say to the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope that that is just not good enough. We have a right to see the total implications for the constitutional and legal framework of this surprising change that is before the Committee. We do not have that because the Government has deliberately left it off the agenda. That illustrates to me something in terms of the continued tampering with the constitutional nature of this country. 
I raise another issue. Here we have a most extraordinary position. We have had much comment made about marriage and some comment made about de facto relationships and same-sex relationships. But now into the continuum of at least three different types of relationships or partnerships we have a fourth one: a Labour Government - instituted civil union. It is a fourth one and again I say we are without any knowledge at the present time of the full financial implications of what it means. I say to the Minister that that is not atypical of what one sees from this Government with regard to social and moral issues. There has been a huge tendency to interfere in everyday life. We will see that on Friday when those who would normally go about their private business will be constrained with regard to where they can smoke. I have no doubt that next we will see outdoor bars in the street being constrained by that social determination on the part of the Labour Government. 
This bill is another step on that continued path—that is what it is. It really is social engineering engendered by a minority opinion for all the reasons that the last speaker spoke of. We are coming to the point now whereby a normal everyday common-sense attitude is regarded as extreme. That is the level of debate that I have seen all through the years with regard to the social and moral issues that are before us. The result of all this will be in the classroom. There will be an absolute desire that these issues be perpetuated day by day in teaching in the future. As a teacher I deplore what is happening right here. We have before us a systematic and—if it is passed—successful attempt to reconfigure much of the thinking that will take place in the institutions of this country. On behalf of the New Zealand First supporters who have spoken to me I regard that with abhorrence. I regard the whole matter of civil union as one that at best those who support it may have some gratitude for but that for me is a very very major attempt to upset our fabric. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I will take a brief call to respond to the comments made by the preceding speaker. The first thing I say to Mr Peters is that this is not compulsory. One of the things that makes me most proud to be a part of this Government is that it is prepared to take hard decisions. This is a hard decision but it is an appropriate one. 
Jim Peters 
: Where’s the other bill? 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Peters that I will come to that. For me this legislation is the absolutely inevitable consequence of the human rights and Bill of Rights legislation passed by our predecessors in Government in the 1990s. We cannot have those decisions on our statute book and continue to allow the discrimination that currently exists in this and related areas. In terms of the companion Relationships (Statutory References) Bill it would have been ideal to debate it in tandem with this bill. I acknowledge that. I also acknowledge the ongoing work that the Justice and Electoral Committee is doing on it. It would have been impossible given the workload of the House and the House roster at this time to do that before Christmas. I think it is entirely appropriate that the select committee has taken the decision—which has of course been its decision—to make sure that that ongoing work continues— 
Jim Peters 
: Ha ha! 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: I say to Mr Peters that the committee members are masters of their own destiny. They are making sure that that work continues in order to ensure that there are no unforeseen consequences of that legislation. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 The Minister has just put his finger on the nub of the problem. The reason we do not have the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill here is precisely that the Justice and Electoral Committee discovered the legislation had unintended consequences. One of the big problems with this issue is that the Government is taking a bureaucratic view of human rights. The logic of what the Minister has just said is that we all have a human right to have the same sort of relationship which the Government somehow has to guarantee in law. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: No that you’re not discriminated against. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The only way to show that people are not discriminated against is for us all to have the same sort of relationship. How can any difference in rights and obligations possibly be justified according to the Minister’s logic? That point is demonstrated in clause 18 of the Civil Union Bill. I notice the subtle change made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. Clause 18 used to be called “Converting civil union into marriage”. At least that was honest. Now it is called “Changing form of relationship”. Labour has decided that civil union cannot be said to be marriage. Lianne Dalziel got up yesterday and said that civil union is not gay marriage. The Government therefore could not have anything in the bill that looked as though it was gay marriage so it has changed the title of clause 18 from “Converting civil union into marriage” to “Changing form of relationship”. 
We know the policy intention because that is expressed in the commentary on this bill. I refer the Committee to the heading “Prohibited degrees of civil union”. The paragraph under that heading states: “While the policy rationale is to reinforce the status of civil union as legally equivalent to marriage many of the prohibited degrees of marriage were introduced for historical reasons …”. I do not want to discuss the prohibited degrees in any detail but that does make it quite clear that the Government’s policy rationale is to reinforce the status of civil union as being legally equivalent to marriage. I want the Minister to tell this Committee what degree of legal equivalence there will be between civil union and marriage when this bill is passed if it is passed at the end of this week. That matters because people will be able to interchange the two sorts of relationships. They will have different statutory definitions so if anyone is to vote for or against this bill he or she needs to know the consequences of those definitions. That is why this bill is a nonsense without the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill—we simply do not know what will be in it. 
The issue is tricky enough even within marriage. In the church in which I was married the registration aspect is simply a requirement by the Government that has no relevance to the validity of the marriage of which I am part. In fact the Catholic Church in which I was married says that we marry each other; we do not even need to have a celebrant. The substance of the marriage is in the personal commitment made in front of the community with the sacramental overlay—which is more than an overlay; it is at the heart of it. That is a completely different version even within marriage of how and why it happens and why it is valid. We then go off and sign the Government’s licence because that is what the State requires us to do. If we have that kind of complexity within the social meaning of marriage then what are the implications of civil unions being converted into marriages and vice versa? 
People have a right to know what this legislation means. If the Minister cannot tell us who will decide that? Parliament could with subsequent legislation. As I have said before in this debate I do not think Parliament will ever see that legislation because the select committee will not be able to resolve issues like the definition of de facto. For welfare purposes de facto means a couple that has been together for a couple of weeks and for property purposes it is a couple that has been together for 3 years. How can we possibly discriminate in that way? 
DIANNE YATES (Labour—Hamilton East) 
: 
 There is a lot of huffing and puffing from members on the Opposition side of the Chamber particularly from the previous speaker who was formerly a Minister and could have done a lot of things then that he talks about now. If he was really concerned about the situation perhaps he should have overturned the human rights legislation. I will talk about Part 2 of the Civil Union Bill which is about processes formalities and the vows people take. We are not talking about marriage in this Committee as has been made very very clear. We are talking about a legal contract with the State. We are not talking about the marriage vows that many people make within their churches. Nor are we talking about marriage as a sacrament which I know that many churches particularly the Catholic Church uphold and believe in—and have done so for centuries. We are talking about a legal contract that is enforceable by the law of this land. I have no objection to people going through these formalities and forming a legal contract in which they make a commitment to each other. 
Part 2 includes provisions concerning the formalities of that contract a couple’s mutual obligations to each other and the legal agreements that they make to support each other uphold each other and go into financial deals together. I see no problem with that. I see no reason for the people who are opposing this bill to oppose it except to gain political capital and mileage. It has nothing to do with what is taught to children in schools. Nor will it destroy the fabric of the family. I think that that is absolutely ridiculous and that the people who say that must have very weak marriages and very weak families. I think it is just a matter of homophobia and their own insecurity. I am absolutely appalled at some of the speeches I have heard here. 
Hon Bill English 
: That is just absolutely outrageous. 
DIANNE YATES 
: It is not outrageous and I am entitled to my view. If that former Minister does not agree with my right to speak in this Chamber perhaps he should have changed the law when he was a Minister. 
I call for tolerance and reasonableness on behalf of the people in this Parliament and the people of New Zealand. I think this is very good legislation about basic human rights. I do not think that many people will take this contract up anyhow but it is a human right that people are entitled to go into this form of legal agreement. I have no objection to it and I wish the bill a safe passage through this Parliament. 
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. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 In rising to speak in support of the Civil Union Bill I would just like to make a comment about the previous speaker’s views on how intolerant the Labour Party or anyone who supports the bill is. I put it to this Chamber that his diatribe of attacks on anything less than what he perceives to be the norm his intolerance of anything that is not part of the Dail Jones view of how the world should be is absolute intolerance. 
Dail Jones 
: Let’s have a referendum. 
LYNNE PILLAY 
: I do not believe that a referendum is appropriate. This is a conscience issue and we have cast our votes accordingly. 
I would like to pay respect to people. For me my vote was not a difficult decision—I actually feel really strongly that this legislation is about justice and equality—but for many members the issue has been difficult. I would like to pay respect to Ashraf Choudhary who I know spent not just many hours but days and weeks thinking about this issue. In the end he decided to support the bill because it is about justice and equality. That is something that I feel is an integral part of our society. This legislation is simply about the ability of couples in loving relationships to formalise those relationships whether they be gay or heterosexual. It is also about their extended families and about their children. 
We are a great nation with great communities. Generally speaking we are a tolerant and inclusive society. But as the previous speaker has shown opponents of this legislation are not looking at it from an inclusive point of view; they are saying that people who do not fit the norm—who are not like them—are somehow less than whole. I have heard previous speakers say that the best family situation for kids is to have a mum and dad and that any family that does not fit that mould is therefore just not up to scratch. My perspective is that I was for some time a single parent. I had been married and I believe that it was in the best interests of me my ex-husband and my children that we did not remain married. Also my children are of Indian and Pakeha descent. Life was a lot different a couple of decades ago—they are now 26 and 23—and from time to time as they grew up racist comments were made to them. They would come home genuinely upset about things that had been said to them. To a parent there is nothing more hurtful than having one’s children hurt by something that one knows is unfair and repugnant. 
Opponents of this bill who say that people in same-sex relationships should not have their relationships formalised and that their children are in some way disadvantaged or less whole than children whose parents are married are actually doing exactly the same thing to those children—they are passing a judgment that those children are somehow not as good or that their family backgrounds are not as good. 
Obviously my children have grown up. I am not a grandparent yet as many members are but I do have many friends with young children. Many of those friends are heterosexual and some of them are gay parents. My two particular sets of friends who are gay parents are wonderful parents. They are absolutely fantastic parents. They have great kids who are high-achieving and wonderful children to know and who are very dear to me. So it really grieves me to hear members criticise such families. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make some comments this morning with regard to some of the speeches that were made last night when members were dealing with Part 1. 
There was a speech from Mark Peck in which he preached his doctrine and religion of tolerance and it all sounded really wonderful. He said that no one should ever judge anybody else and that we should all be tolerant of everybody but he made it very clear even during his own speech that he was less than tolerant of those of us on the other side of the Chamber or wherever we may be who have any view apart from his own. That is the fallacy of that particular doctrine that is preached; it is all about: “We are tolerant of everything as long as you agree with us.” 
We do not live in that kind of world. This is not a world where there are no rights and no wrongs although many people try to proclaim that there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong and that everybody should accept everything. The people who preach that decide very quickly that something is wrong if someone steals their car breaks into their home or affects their person in some way. Then suddenly they have standards that they consider are right and there are actions that they consider are wrong. So although that doctrine sounds wonderful it is a lot of poppycock and codswallop to say that we should all be tolerant of everybody and should not have any standards. New Zealand society has a right to be able to determine that some things are right and some things are wrong. That is why some of us believe that this issue should go to a referendum—so that New Zealanders can say whether they believe that it is now right for people of the same sex to be able to have marriage in the same way as heterosexual couples have it. 
Another speech last night was from the Hon David Cunliffe who gave great respect to the Church and its opinions in society but then said that the Church should keep its opinions out of government and that it had no place here. But he seemed to miss the point that instead this Government was stepping into that role and making declarations in this nation. I have to ask what right the Government has to do that. What right has the Government to tell the Church that it should keep its opinions to itself then to step in and begin to make declarations—as it is doing through this legislation—about what is right and wrong in our society without reference to the opinions of those in the land who do have strong beliefs? 
The real high point of the speeches yesterday though was that from Tim Barnett. He got up and said that he was in a dilemma in that he obviously could marry but if he married a woman it would not work out very well. He has a same-sex partner but he is unable to marry that person. He said very clearly that he has been living in sin for a number of months because he has been unable to marry his partner. That is an amazing statement. I appreciate the man’s honesty but why does he feel that he is living in sin? Why does he feel that he now needs the Government to pass a law this civil union legislation so that he can marry and not have that feeling of living in sin any more when in actual fact the whole basis of this argument is supposed to be that there is not any such thing as sin that one can do whatever one likes and that everybody should be tolerant of one’s behaviour? 
That is really the crux of this legislation. It is about giving those living in relationships that they feel are wrong the endorsement of society. They want the acceptance of society and through this legislation they are trying to demand that anyone in New Zealand who has any other opinion must conform and give acceptance to their relationships. Well I say to Mr Barnett that I am sorry but it is not possible to legislate for that. This Government even if it passes this law cannot force me to give him acceptance of his relationship. I can honour him as a human being and give him human rights but I cannot be forced by this Government to endorse his particular lifestyle and his choice of relationship. It is absurd that while one speaker on that side of this argument is saying that the Government should keep the Church out of its decision this bill is turning the Government into the Church of the land in that it is beginning to provide absolution for all of those in New Zealand who are living in relationships that they do not feel are accepted by society. In Mr Tim Barnett’s own words he feels he is living in sin and he wants the Government to give him absolution so that he will not feel that way any longer. He will be able to have a ceremony and receive a piece of paper from the Government and then he can feel OK about the way he lives. 
We are not seeming to hear any more in this debate about all the arguments about next-of-kin agreements and it is rather strange that all of that has stopped. When the bill was first introduced people said it was all about the fact that many people were being denied their right to visit their partner in hospital. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chairperson for the opportunity to take a brief call. I want to cover just two issues really. 
The first issue is what I think lies at the heart of this bill the companion legislation and the homosexual law reform legislation of the mid-1980s. What that is quite simply is allowing people to be who they are to be comfortable with who they are and to live a normal life as who they are. In my life I have known too many people—and I know one or two still—who are gay but for some peculiar reason seem unable to express that publicly are unable to live their lives honestly within a public arena and are intensely miserable and unhappy people. It is quite obvious from simply watching them that they are intensely miserable and unhappy people. I am not sure why we should think that is a good thing or why we should decide to make people in effect through the way we act—through law and through norms—live a life such that they cannot be themselves and cannot be who and what they actually are. 
That is particularly the case when what they are and who they are does not actually affect the rest of us. The fact that somebody is gay that somebody has a relationship with a person of the same sex does not affect me at all. It does not affect my relationship with my wife and it does not affect the nature in my view of the society around me. I just want to engage in that peculiar argument which I think we have heard hinted at once or twice that gay people should somehow force themselves to be heterosexual live in extraordinarily unhappy relationships and rear children within those extraordinarily unhappy relationships. I cannot understand why anybody would think it is a good idea to try to force people to live in unhappy relationships and to raise children within them. 
I turn to the issue of marriage. I have heard quite a bit of the debate and there is still enormous confusion—as I think is quite common in New Zealand—between secular law and ecclesiastical law. Nothing in this bill affects the position of a Church any Churches in relation to their view of what is ecclesiastical law and the nature of marriage within the Church itself. It is worth reminding ourselves that in terms of our English law tradition there was no secular law of marriage until 1754. Marriage was a purely ecclesiastical affair up to that point and it was regulated in part one suspects to try to force people to marry within the Church of England because after 1754 one could marry outside the Church of England only if one was a Quaker. Nobody else could get married unless he or she got married within the Church of England and that state remained until 1836 when Protestant dissenters achieved the passage of the Civil Marriages Act and it became possible to marry outside the Church of England. That probably really created modern secular marriage as an institution. 
What the Civil Union Bill does not do is extend secular marriage to gay people; it provides for civil union for recognition of relationships. People argue that that is perhaps playing with words. In my view that is not the essential point. The essential point is the State chooses to recognise or regulate relationships for the purposes of the interest of the State as a whole and that may be quite different. It is as if we were trying to impose upon the Catholic Church the abolition of clerical celibacy. I find clerical celibacy a very strange idea. I find it an even stranger idea that celibate men who wear long dresses tell us about sexuality. I find that a very odd idea indeed but that is the nature of that Church. It is a tradition that it has held—not for 2000 years because clerical celibacy arose much later in the history of the Roman Catholic Church than that—for at least something over 1000 years. Since then that has been the norm of practice within the Church and I deeply respect it. The Church stands by that position and its priests are married to the Church if one likes. 
That is not something the State should interfere with at all in my view but in the same way the Church should not interfere with the State’s definition of what relationships are and which relationships should be recognised. To me the fact that my friend Tim Barnett is able to have recognition through the State’s mechanism of the nature of himself and his relationship does not affect the Church’s position at all. The Church may continue to preach that hellfire and damnation will follow from that but that is its choice. I do not believe in hellfire and damnation at all because I do not believe in the afterlife or indeed all that goes with that so I do not think that anyone is at risk of that. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I note clause 12 “Issue of licence and forms where solemnisation by civil union celebrant or exempt body” and I recall that about a fortnight ago two women were married joined or united in a ceremony in my electorate. So I have to ask why we need this bill as that couple has already done that. 
There is nothing like a conscience vote to set the debate exercise the mind and make one stop and consider the rationale for whatever position one decides to take. On the lowering of the drinking age and on the Prostitution Reform Bill I had no difficulty at all in having a pretty clear rationale for opposing those two bills or proposals but it is not quite so easy in respect of the Civil Union Bill. For me it is about setting parameters and about a way of living that has proven to be the optimum not just for children but also for families and thus society as a whole. 
We all need boundaries and rules. We can set some of those boundaries for ourselves but some of them are also set through the parameters we set in this Chamber. That is of course what we are doing here today. The discussion on this bill is based on members of a small sector of society wanting something that they consider is important to them. Many sectors of society have aspects that they consider are important to them and they lobby for those issues but that does not necessarily mean they will be successful. After all we are meant to be in Parliament to govern for the good of New Zealand as a whole and to make decisions for the greater good and in the best interests of all New Zealanders. 
In this case members of the homosexual and lesbian community want a law for themselves. They want to be able to have a ceremony where they can have a licence and form issued by a civil union celebrant or some such. However in arguing for the case someone who happened to be homosexual said to me: “Let’s be honest about it.” Well if we are going to be honest about it why are we not calling it the “Homosexual and Lesbian Civil Union Bill”? 
However there is not necessarily a lot of honesty around. This Government does not support a referendum on the matter because it knows that it would lose it. So I think there is not much honesty in that regard. I think a referendum is absolutely necessary. After all I believe that the majority of New Zealanders want a benchmark for their children something that they can aim for. It is about saying that there is an optimum—the best for themselves for families and for society as a whole. 
I have not been able to see any reason why legislation is necessary to give same-sex couples a feeling of self-worth so that they can feel happy and feel good not bad—as just reported by Dr Cullen—when those people can already create any sort of contract to suit themselves and be “joined” for want of a better word in a ceremony even a ceremony conducted in a church. It is my understanding that any other concerns can be addressed through various legal mechanisms. 
If one supports this bill on the basis of human rights and loving relationships then why would one not support polygamy? After all is that not a human right? Is that not a set of loving relationships—a man with multiple wives or a wife with multiple husbands? At what point does one set a parameter by which society has a level of standards that we can all aspire to? I think that is what we are seeing in Parliament. People are saying that they want a set of parameters. 
I was listening to Larry Baldock speak earlier and I was very impressed by some of the comments he made and he acknowledged the respect he has for individuals. But he also said that the issue was about setting standards for society and I fully believe that. We need to have a benchmark. We need to have a set of parameters by which society will function as a whole and in the best interests of the whole of society. That is what Parliament’s job is supposed to be—to make law in the interests of society as a whole; not necessarily to make law that addresses just some of the needs of a small section of society. We have not even gone into the whole AIDS issue but somebody may have. That is about the whole point of setting parameters and about governing in the interests of New Zealanders as a whole. Is the Government doing that here? I do not believe that it is. 
I want to see my children have a set of benchmarks and standards that they can aim for. It may not necessarily mean that they will get there. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am not sure whether the member who has just resumed her seat realises that homosexuality was actually decriminalised nearly 20 years ago. We had this thin end of the wedge argument at the Justice and Electoral Committee and there is a big difference between practices that currently are illegal under New Zealand law and practices that currently are not. The reality is that homosexual couples live in legal consensual relationships. People who have a relationship with their horse or relationships with children are not in legal consensual relationships—by legal I mean they are not breaking the law. But their relationships are not able to be legally recognised as having some standing. If that member had sat on the select committee and heard some of the stories that couples were telling about what had happened to them because their relationship had no standing she might have thought a bit differently. 
This idea that Government should set the moral standards for families and children is interesting because I think that that was the job of my parents. My parents did a very good job of instilling in me the values the parameters and the boundaries— 
Phil Heatley 
: That was a bad job! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I thank Phil Heatley for that comment. I will report that to my mother; she will be very pleased to hear that you thought she did a bad job. 
Stephen Franks 
: Do not report my congratulations; she did a terrible job! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will tell her that too. It is always nice to hear from Mr Franks. But it was my parents’ role to set those moral standards; it was not the State’s role. When I was growing up my parents were quite adamant. They told me that homosexuality was not abnormal even though it was illegal under the law. We had many gay friends around when I was growing up and I have to say that at no point was I ever confused by their presence even though I was young. At no point did I ever think: “Oh goodness me look there’s someone who’s attracted to someone of the same sex. Maybe I am gay.” No that is absolutely ridiculous. 
I think it is stupid to stand here today and say that the State should be implementing morality for families when we know pure well that for example many United Future families come from a religious background. They pass that on to their children. They are good parents and I have absolutely no problem with that even though I may not agree with some of the viewpoints that they pass on. I would not stand in this Chamber and say that we should pass a law saying that maybe we should take churches out of human rights legislation and say that they are no longer allowed to discriminate against women and for example not allow women to hold office within a church. This is the role of communities the role of parents and the role of families. 
I have heard some people say that now we will have to teach people that civil unions are good and that marriage is not the only thing available. I do not think I ever recall being taught anything at a State school about marriage apart from being told in Bible studies that marriage was the cornerstone of the Christian church. That is fine. But otherwise I do not recall that. There were kids in my class who came from single-parent families and from de facto families. Not all the kids who I went to school with came from homes with two married parents. I do not ever remember anyone saying that those kids’ families were bad or good and I do not think that beyond this we will be saying to people that marriage is not right and that civil unions are right. Quite frankly I think it is just scaremongering. It is trying to make people feel all of a sudden that we will be going out there and as Mr Connell puts it recruiting homosexuals. I would like to— 
Brian Connell 
: I did not say that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Mr Connell laughs now. He says that he did not say that the Civil Union Bill is a recruitment drive for homosexuals. 
Brian Connell 
: I said that? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is right. 
Brian Connell 
: I did not say you were. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: That is interesting. 
Brian Connell 
: I said you guys were. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh we were recruiting homosexuals? Well yes that is quite right! 
Stephen Franks 
: It’s a free qualification isn’t it? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: To be in the Labour Party? 
Stephen Franks 
: I don’t think you’ll get promoted any higher. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Ha ha! Well coming back to the bill one of the things I wanted to touch on was the changing form of relationship in the bill and people saying they did not understand why it is here. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee as to whether we should have it. The officials raised with us the instance of a couple who are in a civil union and are moving overseas. They want continuity of their relationship and we should not be telling them that they have to separate and live apart for 2 years in order to be able to then marry and go overseas and have their relationship continue to be recognised overseas. There was a lot of discussion at the select committee about whether this should actually be part of the bill whether it was needed or whether it would just raise the ire of people. 
We felt that telling people who might have a legitimate reason for needing to transfer from a civil union to a marriage—because they are going to a country that does not recognise civil unions—to break up their family and live apart for 2 years just so they can get married at a later stage was slightly ridiculous and redundant. In reality people who have a civil union will stay in a civil union. People who get married will stay married. As we have now the majority of people marry and the majority of people will continue to marry and I doubt that this bill will make a lot of difference to that. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 Yesterday I spoke about this bill in the context of marriage and today I shall speak on Part 2 and the fact that same-sex people also may enter into civil unions under this legislation. I made submissions to the Statutes Revision Committee that considered the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986. I favoured the decriminalisation of homosexual acts. I considered it to be completely wrong that people who engage in homosexual activities should be imprisoned when people who committed adultery for example were not imprisoned. I thought that that was fundamentally unfair. However I asked the select committee whether it could include in the bill a clause to the effect that the passage of the legislation did not in and of itself signal that homosexual activity was moral. I was told in no uncertain terms that such a clause could not be put in a bill before Parliament and that it was only about law. However that is exactly what we did last year with the prostitution legislation. A clause was put in to state that although the status of prostitution was being changed in this country the State was not thereby saying that it in and of itself constitutes moral activity. 
I think that that is at the absolute heart of the issue that is causing so much confusion in this Parliament and we have just had another example from the previous speaker Moana Mackey. Just because something is not criminal does not mean that it is thereby moral. They are two quite different things. I can think of a number of examples and I have already given the example of adultery. Another example I could mention is lying. We all know that people lie every day. That does not make it moral. We know that people commit adultery. That does not make it moral. I give those two examples because they are immoral activities that are quite legal in this country. 
What we did hope would arise from the Homosexual Law Reform Act was that New Zealand would become a tolerant society towards the homosexual community. My position is that we should extend our tolerance to them. That tolerance includes the right that they already have at this time to get married. There is no law of the land that prevents that and indeed a number of members in the Chamber may have already been to ceremonies where gay and lesbian couples have entered into a marriage sometimes celebrated by a person who is a member of the clergy. All that is already happening. 
Therefore the principal concern I have with this bill and the reason why I strongly oppose it is that it is completely unnecessary for the State to take the next step in the process and that is to try to declare that that activity is of itself moral. The State must be making that statement when it decides by legislation to give State sanction and State blessing to unions between two people of the same sex. 
I do not agree at all with Dr Michael Cullen that the State has the power to do that. In my opinion morals do not come from the State. Morals supersede the State; they supersede culture. Moral realities exist independent of the State and the State should always take into account moral principles when passing laws. Some say of course that we cannot legislate for morality. That is interesting. We have laws in this country against stealing murder rape and incest. They are all moral issues and we have laws against them. It is true that every time we pass law in this House we are also addressing moral issues. 
As Moana Mackey has said many families in this country bring up their children with firm moral principles and I want to see my children and grandchildren brought up in that way. The difficulty I have with this bill is that we are removing the signposts. We are saying that morals have now changed and that children can be taught something at school that is different from what they are being taught at home. In fact that is what will happen. We are not looking just at individual marriages. I found the whole discussion on that issue right off the point. We are looking at what is central to our culture and how we are changing this culture for the generations to come. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 Part 2 which we are discussing this morning lies at the heart of the Civil Union Bill. Paul Adams talked about the sun rising over our nation with this legislation. However I am afraid that our interpretations of what that particular rising sun might mean are very different indeed. 
What I find phenomenal in this debate is that in the 21st century in a country that prides itself on its tolerance and respect for human rights this House has members like Mr Adams who hold the most strange 19th century attitudes towards members of the rainbow community. These members of Parliament seem to have no conception of the spectrum of sexuality that all of us are part of like it or not gay or straight or anywhere in between. Such a black and white approach to both sexuality and life leads to the kind of black and white theologies and philosophies that are the most dangerous to anyone who deviates from the straight white male norm. We have only to look at history and indeed that history goes way back before the 19th century—it is a history of humankind—and around the world even today to see some of the terrible things that happened in the name of those black and white theologies that condemn people like prostitutes and homosexuals. I am thinking of the burning of a gay young man in America and of the decapitation of prostitutes in Basra. That is still with us and that is what we are fighting against in this Parliament today. 
Thank goodness I am part of a Parliament and of a country that is heading in another direction and under another kind of sun. Like my fellow Green MPs I am honoured to be among the majority in this House who will be voting for this significant step forward in the long long struggle for true respect and liberation for all people in this country regardless of our gender or our sexuality. In fact speaking personally I would rather be voting on gay marriage here today. At least with the Civil Union Bill and its companion relationships bill same-sex couples will at last have the chance to achieve the same sense of commitment in a loving relationship that straight people have been entitled to always. 
Just speaking briefly about the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I would like to stress how critical it is that that bill is passed as soon as is practicable otherwise the bill today will simply be a hollow gesture. I listened with interest to the comments made by Bill English on some of the problems associated with the interface between the relationships bill and the social security legislation—an area with which I have some familiarity. I hope that some of us will be involved in the Government’s ongoing attempts to sort out the vexed question of relationships “in the nature of marriage” that this bill has brought up. That discussion is long overdue and I hope that the Government will work with us on that question. 
Like all other MPs supporting this bill in the last few weeks and months I have been subject to a torrent of communication from the bill’s opponents. While I respect the right of all people to their honest beliefs and their right to express them I have to say that on the whole I simply do not understand their arguments even with the best will in the world. One of their main arguments seems to be that civil union for same-sex couples will somehow undermine heterosexual marriage. I simply do not comprehend that. How will two gay men or two lesbian women entering a committed relationship in the eyes of the State threaten my or anyone else’s marriage? How will any loving and committed relationship gay or straight be undermined by anyone else’s loving and committed relationship? As many members have pointed out marriage is threatened all the time by all sorts of things but civil union is not one of them. In fact I find it ironic and incomprehensible that so many married MPs seem to think that it will be a moral wrong for other citizens to have the right to take the same vows or similar vows as they have. 
Underpinning a lot of this debate are theological beliefs. As happened with the very liberal Biblical interpretation by some of the people in the prostitution reform debate they seem to want to try to impose their ideology on what is now a secular society. I do not accept that New Zealand in this day and age is a religious society. Over a million of us are either not Christians are a part of some other faith are heathens or are Christians who interpret the Bible in a very different way from some members in this Chamber. As anyone who has studied church or biblical history will be very well aware every word of every single translation of the Bible has been argued over and over again all over the world and through two millennia. Like many others I do not accept that the word of God is about condemning homosexuals as unrighteous wicked or evil. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 When speaking on Part 1 yesterday I shared with the Committee the dilemma of constituency members as they grapple with the fact that their constituents have a valid expectation that they will represent them in this House and with their responsibility to vote in the interests of all New Zealanders especially minorities. That is not easy. In speaking to Part 2 I want to continue to try to explain to members what I see as the fundamental problem with this legislation. 
As I mentioned yesterday a survey showed that my electorate is deeply divided over the issue and following the vote on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 I had to live with the fact that I knew in my heart that I had in my view voted wrongly on that legislation. So I wanted to support this bill but my problem—and Part 2 really emphasises it—is that it is a real shame that something as important as this bill will not pass through the House with clear majority support. I believe that it would have been possible to draft legislation that supported same-sex couples—and maybe heterosexual couples as well—being able to enter into legally recognised partnerships that would have had the overwhelming support of this House. 
I ask those who are promoting this legislation why they went about it this way. Why draw up a bill that so clearly parallels the Marriage Act? Why could it not have been possible to draw up legislation that spelt out the legal requirements simply the fundamental process that couples would have to go through to obtain a registration certificate that registered their relationship then left them with the freedom—and I would have thought this would be so important to so many people—to celebrate that partnership or union in whatever way they wanted? Why with this legislation that will probably be passed in 2004 are we bothering to put into law stuff that is totally unnecessary? There is stuff in this bill that is totally unnecessary to achieve the long-term legal commitment wanted by the people who want this legislation. That is what I ask those who are promoting the bill. 
It is not too late now to amend this legislation so that it gets the overwhelming support of Parliament. I believe that my constituency could clearly support this legislation if it were not seen to parallel the Marriage Act and if it set out just the fundamental legal requirements for a civil partnership to provide for a long-term legal commitment between same-sex couples or whomever. I believe that my constituency would support that. But what troubles my constituents so much is that this legislation so clearly parallels the Marriage Act. 
I have not heard in this debate why that has been necessary. Why was it not possible through wider discussion across the House to work out legislation that could have had an overwhelming mandate from this Parliament? I think that would have been hugely desirable for New Zealand. I believe that it would have been possible to have law addressing this problem passed by a two-thirds or three-quarters majority of this House and I think that would have been better. 
It is not too late now. It is possible to make amendments to this legislation that I think could receive the overwhelming support of Parliament because I know there are many members in Parliament who do not want to deprive same-sex couples of the right to be able to register their relationship and have it recognised. I think there are many people who feel quite deeply about that and who want to see it available to same-sex couples. The problem is that the way this legislation is drafted offends people and that is unnecessary. Why do people who are promoting and supporting this legislation want civil union to look like marriage? I want to hear the answer to that. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Minister for Transport Safety) 
: 
 This is a first for me in that I do not think I have ever spoken in the House before on a conscience bill even though I have voted on many of them. 
Dianne Yates 
: Yes you have. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The member is quite right. I spoke in the debate on the prostitution legislation. The Civil Union Bill is a conscience bill and I greatly respect views that are sincerely held regardless of which side of the issue people are on and regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me. I am in this House as the elected member for New Plymouth because people expect me to exercise my vote according to what I believe and if they do not support me in that then they can vote for a different person. There will be times when people disagree with the way I vote on issues and there will be times when they agree with the way I vote. Sometimes I disagree with my colleagues—it happens occasionally. 
I do not support a referendum on this issue. Even though some people who are against this bill as I am want a referendum as a next step in trying to get another bite at the issue as it were I do not support that. The reason is that if we as members of Parliament have to poll our electorates to find out what our conscience and our beliefs should be then we should seriously consider whether we should be in Parliament. We as MPs are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf and if members have to poll their electorates to find out whether 50.1 percent of people view an issue one way and 49.9 percent another way and therefore they should go with the 50.1 percent then they should not be here because they do not have the ability to make a conscience vote. They should walk out of the door and leave it to those who can make a conscious decision on a conscience matter. 
Some members who support the bill have told the Committee that those who have struggled to make a decision and who after weighing up all the issues have decided to vote for the bill have real courage. There are some for whom no doubt that is the case. For others of us it actually takes a bit of courage to weigh up the issues and then make a decision not to support the bill. But I respect both those who support it and those who have made a decision not to support it provided they are honest and valid in their decision processes. 
I have had to think hard about this bill because of one experience I have had. It happened some years ago to a friend of mine who is gay and was living with a partner. They had a home together and had lived together for some years. They had cars a dog and all the things a family would have except that they were a gay couple. The partner of my friend died and the difficulty for the survivor was that at the funeral he was made to feel an outcast. He was not allowed to make decisions because the family of the dead partner made them. I have struggled in respect of this bill only for that reason. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill fixes those issues. 
Like Gordon Copeland I support and argue that the Homosexual Law Reform Act did the right thing in decriminalising homosexuality so that homosexuals were no longer treated as criminals. But this takes it a step further and normalises relationships that are not the norm for the public. In my view people can already have a contract: they can stand up in front of their family and friends and say: “We are devoted to each other.” They can formally have a ceremony in front of their friends even though they are a same-sex couple—if they are. They can make contractual arrangements through the law on property and all sorts of other issues. In respect of this type of legislation we should learn from the experience of others. The Dutch Government took this step some years ago when it introduced a similar law. But it got itself into all sorts of difficulty over things like superannuation entitlements etc. This bill is not a step that I support. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on the comments made by the Hon Harry Duynhoven. I was looking forward to his contribution and I am looking forward to hearing Mr Tamihere Mr Samuels and Mr O’Connor. I know they are the real blokes in the Government who are prepared to stand and argue against this legislation because they simply do not believe in it. As Mr Duynhoven said it takes some courage to weigh up the facts and come to a decision that is going against the tide. I thought it might be useful to remind Mr Barnett—who came to the Chamber yesterday and had great glee in getting out the  
Ashburton Guardian 
 and quoting the editorials. I thought I would return the favour. 
I was in Timaru last evening and I picked up the  
Timaru Herald. 
 I have here this morning’s edition and of the first four letters to the editor not one of them supports this bill—not one. This one is noteworthy and quite short: “The Government says the Civil Union Bill has nothing to do with sexuality. To me it is a pity that the parents of Aoraki Labour MP Jim Sutton David Benson-Pope and other bill supporters did not choose a same-sex marriage.” I very much happen to concur with that sentiment. 
The previous speaker Mr Duynhoven was arguing that we do not need a referendum to determine these sorts of issues because as elected members of Parliament we should be able to come here and make these calls ourselves. I accept the general thrust of what he is saying except that when we are facing an issue where there has been so much misinformation deliberately fed into the public consciousness people are not making a decision based on the facts. 
Edwin Perry 
: They’re being fooled. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: They are. The only way this issue can be resolved is to put the facts in the public domain so that people in this country can make an informed decision. The Government will not have a bar of that—for one simple reason. When all the smoke clears the fact around this bill is that it is about homosexual marriage. But the overwhelming view of the people of New Zealand is that they do not want a bar of that. 
Mr Barnett took great glee yesterday in standing here and quoting all sorts of poll statistics but what he did not say was that the public has not had the question put to them: “Do you want or would you support gay marriage?”. Because when that question has been asked of people they have resoundingly rejected the notion in overwhelming numbers. The  
Timaru Herald 
 is just a sample of what people are saying all over the country. The  
Press 
 this morning has letters to the editor on the same tack. The same applies to the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and the  
Dominion Post 
 but those members refuse to acknowledge that fact. 
Mr Hughes took a call yesterday and argued for everything—but in name—for gay marriage. He just did not quite have the courage of his convictions—or was just not able to articulate or admit that what he was actually saying was that this bill is about gay marriage. He said that he wanted people’s loving relationships recognised in a formal sense. I say to Mr Hughes that that is what marriage does. I would have thought that you would— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Do not bring the Chair into the debate. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: Sorry. I would have thought that that member would have had the courage of his convictions— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No the member will be seated. The member knows because he has been here long enough that he cannot imply it is a personal reflection that someone lacks courage. The member will withdraw. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I certainly do not wish to dispute your ruling in respect of the reference to “courage” and I am sure my colleague will do the right thing in that respect but I did notice that you were particularly quick to jump on Mr Connell when he brought you into the debate. I have been down here now since about 10 to 10 this morning and note that a number of members who have been speaking in quite an impassioned way about this legislation have from time to time slipped into bringing the Chair into the debate and I just ask that for the sake of consistency you measure that when others are making their contributions following Mr Connell’s. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution and refer him to Speaker’s ruling 70/4. I call Mr Connell and remind him to withdraw the comment. 
BRIAN CONNELL 
: I withdraw. Mr Nandor Tanczos when speaking yesterday argued against binding referenda as well. I thought it was highly ironic because the only reason that the member is here is by virtue of a binding referendum. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I think one of the unintended and unfortunate consequences of this bill and the opposition to it generated by certain churches—by no means all—is that it has legitimised the expression of the most unchristian-like intolerance prejudice and even bigotry against homosexuals in our community; and thousands of New Zealanders now seem to feel that it is acceptable to make judgmental derogatory and in my view bigoted comments in public about homosexuals. I am certain that many gays and lesbians must have been deeply hurt deeply distressed and indeed even traumatised by some of the intolerant remarks that have been made over the past few weeks. 
In a letter in the  
Dominion Post  
yesterday a 23-year-old person a homosexual said: “If you told a heterosexual person that they were disgusting and should refrain from falling in love or acting upon their love because it wasn’t ‘normal’ they would feel judged and attacked not only in their sexuality but in everything that they are as a person.” That sums up how people in the community are feeling as a result of the unleashing and legitimising of this sort of intolerance in our society. 
We need to remember that homosexuals are a minority that has suffered huge discrimination and persecution throughout history. We have all heard about how the Jewish people were persecuted in Nazi Germany but how many of us have heard about the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany? About 10000 homosexuals were imprisoned in concentration camps in Nazi Germany and many of them died. We have all heard about the Jewish people who were forced to wear the yellow Star of David but how many of us know that anyone who was identified as a homosexual in Nazi Germany was forced to wear a pink triangle identifying him or her as homosexual? That badge singled out those people for persecution for the gas chambers and even for death. 
So we have a duty in this House as legislators to protect this discriminated against minority—and any other minority—to ensure they are not subject to further discrimination and abuse. I am proud of members like Katherine Rich Heather Roy Clem Simich etc. who have not bowed to what must be very considerable pressure upon them. 
 Our job as legislators here today is to sort out the truth from the fiction the wheat from the chaff and the emotional from the rational. We need to ask ourselves whether there is a rational basis for the claims of the Opposition that this bill will undermine marriage undermine social and moral standards institutionalise immorality—as one letter I have just received has stated—and that it is a slippery slope that will lead to social decay in our society. 
Fortunately we are in a position to make this judgment because we can look at countries that already have legislation that is similar to this. Countries such as Denmark Norway and Sweden have had civil union legislation or its equivalent for 20 years in the case of Sweden and 15 in the case of Denmark. If the claims of our opponents are rationally based rather than just emotional scaremongering and intolerance we would inevitably see in Denmark and in Sweden a steep decline in marriage rates or a slow or swift decline in moral and social standards and immorality and social decay. We would have to see that if their claims are right. We would expect to find in Denmark—which has a population of 4 million; a similar size to New Zealand—that Shakespeare was right and that there was something rotten in the State of Denmark ever since it passed the 1989 civil union or its equivalent bill. So I asked the library to look up Denmark’s marriage rates and I found that they have remained stable in fact they have slightly increased since the passage of the bill there. In 1990 a year after the bill came in the rate was 6.1. Now it is 6.8. 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to pick up on one comment that Moana Mackey made which I think is a very relevant comment. She confirmed that once the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passed this would be just another step. I think there is a lot of relevance in that—that this step is just another step. 
Even in the debate in this House I have heard much about the intolerance of those who have a Christian belief or even a religious belief. Just last weekend I was speaking to a pastor from Canada. In Canada they do have same-sex marriages and the same intolerance I am hearing to my viewpoint—which I believe is a viewpoint held by a large number of New Zealanders whether or not they have a religious belief—that marriage needs to be built and kept for what it is in this country. That Minister told me that gay and lesbian communities now target churches and come to them asking to be married. When churches refuse to marry them they then go to the Government and request that the churches’ licence to marry people is removed from them. So let me assure members that if this becomes normalised we are another step further to hate speech. I have heard many say that the Church is free to preach from the word of God but I dispute that. I believe that the Church will not be able to do that. 
They tell me that a tree is known by the fruit it produces. If you give me an apple off an apple tree and you try to convince me that it is an orange— 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member for interrupting him but notwithstanding Speaker’s ruling 70/4 the member on his feet has now twice brought you into the debate. You were very quick to jump on Mr Connell when he did it once. So far that has not been the case with members before and following Mr Connell’s speech. I apologise to the member on his feet for interrupting him but I ask for some consistent ruling from the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I appreciate that. I did not hear it and had I done so I would have called the member to order. Can I just say to the member that it is inappropriate to bring the presiding officer into the debate. He must speak in a different form and I would appreciate the member doing so in future. 
PAUL ADAMS 
: I apologise; I did not realise I had brought the Chair into the debate. 
So members will never convince me that an apple tree is an orange tree and I bring this point up because I have heard much about the fact that if this bill is passed it will make no difference to society. Let us think back on the laws we have changed. If the fruit from marriage is children let us seriously think of what has happened to our society. As we have changed the law and the moral base in our nation I ask whether the product of the womb is improving or not. I would challenge that it is not. 
It grieves me that last week I saw in this nation we had had three murders in one day. I think it is well-timed that we need to understand that the tree of marriage needs some fertiliser. It needs some watering. It does not need watering down because our next generation comes only from the product of a man and a woman. 
We can talk about gay and lesbian couples bringing up their children but let me assure us all here that each child has a father and a mother. I would encourage members of the Committee to read Gordon Copeland’s speech; I think he covered many of these aspects in great detail. 
If we have a moral shift on a human right it is always a progression. If for example we take a woman’s right to choose on abortion we can ask what that has led to. It has led now to the killing of 17500 of the children in this nation per year—one every 28 seconds. Members tried to pass legislation called the Death with Dignity Bill. So what are we trying to produce by legislation—a perfect person or a perfect society? I do not think we are improving the outcomes of our society and I believe one of the fundamental reasons is that we have failed to esteem the importance of the family. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by addressing a point that David Parker made yesterday when he said that giving rights to minorities does not take anything away from the majority. I say that yes that is true unless those rights of the majority are dependent on the oppression of a minority. Ending slavery took something away from American slave owners because it removed their supply of free labour provided by kidnapped African people. My concern is that much of the debate on this bill seems to be based on the assumption that giving rights to gay people will somehow disadvantage the majority of heterosexual people. What they are saying is that the State should privilege them in order to allow them to continue to feel superior and that is not a justifiable use of the law. Gay people are becoming a scapegoat for some of the members of this Parliament and for people in our society. Marriage is not from the State; it does not come from the State. The State simply recognised at a point in history what already existed and that is exactly what we are doing in this legislation. We are simply recognising a situation that already exists which is that gay people can have long-term committed relationships and we are simply allowing the law to recognise that. Marriage exists because it fills a human need and that is what this bill addresses. 
Some of this debate has been odious. Lynne Pillay talked about some of the comments made by Dail Jones for example. During the second reading debate Mr Jones described himself as a bigot and a redneck. That is how he described himself so we should not be surprised at the kinds of things that he said. He has become a caricature of what he is trying to represent. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I listened carefully to my colleague Dail Jones in terms of how he described himself. In no way did he describe himself in the manner that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Can the member please be seated; I am on my feet. If there has been a misrepresentation then that fact should be brought up at the end of a member’s speech. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I invite members of the public to check  
Hansard 
 and see what he actually said. Some people—for example Mr Eckhoff—say that they oppose the legislation because children— 
Ron Mark 
: He said: “Some people might say”. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not think that is what he said but we can check that in  
Hansard 
. Mr Eckhoff says he opposes the bill because children may be teased in school if they have gay parents. Some of the comments of some of the members of this Parliament have been at least as childishly callous and casually cruel as any schoolyard comment. 
Some members have said they oppose civil union because mums and dads make the best families—that children need to grow up with a mother and a father. That may or may not be the case. I think that what is important is that there is love in the family. I would rather see a child grow up with two loving homosexual parents than grow up with heterosexual parents who fight and abuse each other and the children. So it is the love that is important. But we can also say that children will grow up better if they live in a family with a decent income—that is a true comment. So what do we do with low-income families? Do we forbid them to get married? No. We look at how we can support low-income families to raise their children. That is what this bill is about. Gay families already exist. There are already families in this country in which children are growing up with gay parents. This bill will allow those families some protection in the law. 
Marriage is not a competition. The Hon Nick Smith likened marriage to the All Blacks. He said that if we allowed just anyone to become a member of the All Blacks that would devalue our national rugby team. No the All Blacks are merely the best rugby players in the country. Rugby is strengthened by the number of people who participate in it. In fact the more people there are who play club rugby the stronger the All Blacks will be. So that member put forward a totally fallacious analogy. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would like to make two points. First of all I have just checked with my colleague as to whether he ever described himself as a bigot. He did not. Over the telephone he told me how he described himself which was basically as a “redneck conservative”. There is a total difference in meaning between the words “bigot” and “redneck conservative”. I take offence that the member used that term and has been allowed to get away with it. My second point is that if we allow members to carry on for a 5-minute speech when offence is taken in the course of it and then stand and take the point of order at the end we are allowing them carte blanche to say anything. That is not acceptable. 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I apologise. I genuinely thought that that was what the member had said. Mr Brown pointed out that the member described himself as a redneck but not as a bigot. That is fair enough. I withdraw my comment regarding the word “bigot”. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the member for that. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 That point raises an interesting question which may require a ruling from you Mr Chairman. Is it possible for a member to take offence at comments directed at a different member altogether? It may be worth your ruling on that point. In the absence of the member who is allegedly offended is it possible for another member to take offence on that member’s behalf? 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I draw the Chairman’s attention to the fact that if I am correct nobody has taken more points of order than the honourable Simon Power over aspersions cast against the leader of the party he belongs to when National’s leader has not been in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member knows he has gone too far. Members have had their fun. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 38/4—I was asked for a ruling and members on my left are not actually listening—which states: “Words or phrases used robustly in debate but which do not impugn the honour of a member will not be ruled out of order.” It is really up to the member concerned—if that member took offence on a personal basis because he or she was the member who was referred to—to be in the Chamber. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take my first call in the debate and I do so prompted by a rather interesting speech from a person I do have some time for although some could argue that he was not elected to the House but passed into it by legislation—the Hon Harry Duynhoven. He raised questions around the issue of putting the bill to a referendum to allow the people to decide as to whether it should pass through Parliament at all. 
I take up a couple of points that were made by Mr Duynhoven. The first point is the statement that we should not put take a poll of the people in order to find out whether they feel that this legislation is acceptable. That is a rather interesting statement coming as it does from a member of the most poll-driven party in the history of this country. There has been no party or Government in the history of this nation that has been more driven by its consistent behind-the-scenes taxpayer-funded polling. In fact I had the comment made to me that people suspect very strongly that certain members of Cabinet and the Government take a poll before they even get out of bed to decide whether it is a good idea to appear in public that day. 
Brian Connell 
: Where did that come from? 
RON MARK 
: It came from the honourable Mr Brian Connell. The other point I want to make is that Harry Duynhoven and the Government should wake up. We are now a Parliament full of MMP MPs—men and women who were elected here after 1996 as a result of a referendum in which the country spoke very loudly and very firmly on the need for change. We have trumpeted all over the country about what a great and wonderful thing that was. We have exhorted the virtues of the new House—its diversity its mixture of different ethnic groups its diverse views and philosophies and its greater representation of different parties. How did that come to be? It came to be as a result of a referendum. The public gave its verdict. It is a little bit strange for a member to then stand up and say that we should not have a referendum. 
The idea of a referendum is not new to New Zealand First. It is an old idea. Our policy on decriminalisation of marijuana is that we can live with the result if the public can. We would have a referendum make it binding and the result would be the decision. That is a policy this party has had since 1993. I was one of the first people in my caucus to argue for the idea of a referendum on conscience issues. I was one of the first to argue for it around the question of the death penalty. I know there is a calling out there for the death penalty for people who commit heinous crimes on children in particular. But it is not an idea that fits well with a large slice of New Zealand and my argument was always that we should put it to the people. If the people are fair just and know what they want they will tell us. We as a Parliament then have a simple direction as to what to do in order to meet the people’s expectations. I do not see anything wrong with that. 
The only reason one would vote against such a notion would be if one was scared. Mr Duynhoven should not talk to me about needing the courage to come here and make a decision off one’s own bat. There are plenty of people in the House who have courage and have convictions and can stand up for the things they believe in. Indeed this bill is before the Committee because Mr Tim Barnett has displayed the courage necessary to put the issue forward and to campaign on it. He will take the decision of the public if at the end of the day the people of the Christchurch Central electorate say they have had enough of it and do not re-elect him. So be it. But therein is the other point and Mr Duynhoven made that point too. He said that if the public do not like his decision they will not re-elect him. 
 There is only one flaw in that argument. We know that there are certain safe seats in this country in which constituents still do not have their head around MMP. I know that if I put a dead horse with a red ribbon around its neck in the race in Christchurch East and just said it was a Labour horse it would win— 
Simon Power 
: It’s won twice. 
RON MARK 
: —yes twice—and that is the fact of the matter. The referendum idea is the one way in which we could get a clear direction from the people of New Zealand as to whether they want this bill. I asked the opponents of the referendum idea what they are scared of. If the polls are suggesting that the public wants this legislation what are they scared of? They should vote for it. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 In the nearly 2 hours since 9 a.m. I have listened to many speeches and I think that only three were memorable. One was a draught of cool water from Dr Cullen who spoke about the connection or lack of connection between this bill and religion and about the religious view of marriage. Then Dr Lockwood Smith asked why the Labour Government had not put forward something that would achieve exactly the same legal objectives and end discrimination in terms of legal privilege preference or disability but would not stick it up the noses of the 20 30 or 40 percent of New Zealanders who have values similar to those that nearly everyone held 30 or 40 years ago. In other words Dr Smith may not have referred to Dr Cullen’s address but he was referring to the fact which is evident in this debate that no one wants to talk about the words. 
No one is looking at what this law actually does or does not do. No one is looking at the clauses because they are all busy making precious statements about their own morality and world view—smug speeches that support one side or the other but those primarily made by the proponents of this bill are about how intellectually superior they feel to the poor benighted traditionalists who happen not to agree with their sexual morality. This bill is Parliament acting as a bunch of priests. Instead of Parliament approaching this and asking what the law provides or what the law ought to do about status it is setting out to try to decree respect—it is not tolerance legal permission or legal rights and abilities that are being claimed but respect. 
I think Sue Kedgley for the Greens said it as her entire speech was about how Parliament must make sure that people are not traumatised by derogatory remarks or feel judged and attacked. That is why I will vote against this bill. When I asked the Justice and Electoral Committee for some assurance that this would not be converted by activist judges the Advertising Standards Authority film censors or anyone else who exercises authority delegated from this Parliament into an instruction that their role was now to decree respect instead of protecting freedom I could not get it. In fact the Labour members scoffed at the idea that we should revisit the absurd provisions of the Human Rights Act that state that no one can discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status. That is where the law should stop. It should state that the State cannot discriminate on those grounds; that the coercive powers of the State should not decree someone’s morality. But for private individuals how else do they express their views? By what other way do ordinary people—people other than the elite who stand in this Chamber and pontificate—try to propagate and promote their values except by drawing distinctions and acting on them? The law should protect everyone from coercion or violence. 
When I look at this bill I see that it is simply a deliberate mimicry. It is deliberately the revenge of that coterie as someone explained it of covert lesbians and gays who have authority within the Labour Party. It is their revenge on straight New Zealanders. It could so easily have been done along the lines of the Worth amendments. This is not just a criticism of the Labour Party. I am stunned that I have not heard Richard Worth explain this morning why his amendments would have made such a better job without trying to decree respect. He would have amended the law in a way that was more facilitatory cheaper easier to operate easier for everyone to understand and less discriminatory because it would have covered people in caring committed stable and loving relationships who did not consider that those relationships needed to be seen as sexual. That would have been the way to approach this legislation if all one was concerned about was ending discrimination and legal disability making sure that people who loved each other got hospital visiting rights could go to the mortuary could decide how the burial went or were able to access superannuation benefits. All of that could have been done without this fatuous provision that has a $5000 fine for someone who pretends to be a marriage celebrant. Why when the marriage contract does not specify content and when the words that are uttered are only about identifying the parties and stating that one wants to be in a civil union? 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow on from that member. I quite enjoy following on from people who can take words and make them mean what they want them to mean at any particular point in time in a debate. I have a daughter who is a lawyer and one thing I have learnt about lawyers is that they can make an argument around any position—as long as they are getting well paid for it. There are two professions: the oldest profession of course and that of lawyers which is the second-oldest profession. Both of them have pretty similar ideals. 
I wish to comment on the debate that has been held so far. I think that the strongest statement against proceeding with this bill has come from the Hon Bill English who at least has drawn attention to the fact that a tandem piece of legislation needs to come into being as well at some point in time. That has been the strongest principled position against passing the bill at this stage. He said that we should hang on until the second bill was ready to go. That is it; that has been all. There has been no other good logical strong reason not to proceed with this bill at this time—none at all. 
Members fascinate me. They stand up and go on about how difficult it will be to exercise a conscience and how important it is to have a referendum. I really enjoyed Sue Kedgley’s speech. It is not often that I listen to Sue Kedgley and agree with her but a lot of what she said was absolutely dead right and bang on the money. It is extraordinarily clear to me that if we run a referendum it will not be about civil unions. The debate will be to demonise homosexuality—full stop. That will be the debate. 
I have mentioned what Brian Tamaki and others will do during that debate. We will see 800000 people petitioned again we will see the ghost of Norman Jones revisited upon us and the doomsayers will say that society as we know it is dead and will become even more dead as a result of this legislation. 
But we all know that the experience since 1986 has been absolutely to the contrary. Will somebody look around this room and tell me who is homosexual and how we can tell? Will somebody look around the gallery and tell me who is homosexual and how we can tell? 
Brian Connell 
: Tim Barnett. 
MARK PECK 
: How can the member tell how anybody is homosexual? 
Brian Connell 
: Because you told me. 
MARK PECK 
: Exactly. As the member said somebody is because somebody said so. There we go—wonderful stuff! 
I lived in the United States as a kid. I will tell members about some other intolerance that I lived with and had to put up with as a child—intolerance for black people. People were scared of black people. One thing I will never forget as a child was taking part in a march in my town after four children—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. He will have a minute added to his time. The reason is simple. Mr Chairperson directed that there would be no continuous barrage of interjections and that people’s rights to be heard would be respected in this Chamber. This is an emotional and passionate issue for many people. As members of Parliament with people out there listening to us we should have respect for others. Mr Peck has 2 minutes and 30 seconds remaining. 
MARK PECK 
: I took part in a march in my town because four little children in Alabama had been killed by a bomb from a bunch of racists who were so scared of black people and the right of those people to ride on buses that they decided to become violent. 
There are people in our society now who will become violent over homosexuality. That is just as wrong as what happened to those four little children. I was hugely delighted to read in the newspaper as I was going to speak to a Grey Power meeting not that long ago that one of those bombers was finally caught 35 years after the act. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the act that he carried out on that occasion. 
One of the reasons why my family immigrated to New Zealand was that it was a tolerant secular society and in a tolerant secular society we tolerate differences. What appals me about this debate is that we cannot for the life of us seem to get our heads around the fact that people are people. Whatever they had for breakfast or whatever they did on Sunday does not change the fact that they are people and all people have the right to dignity and respect. 
Having listened to some who have gone through the agony of having to put up with this debate and revisit it time and time again I ask members to put themselves in their position for a moment. Can members imagine always being told by what one heard in Parliament and read in the newspaper that one was not a fit and proper human being that one could not have a fit and proper relationship and that one should have nothing to do with one’s whanau—the children one might have fathered or been a mother to or one’s uncles and aunties or nephews and nieces—because of one’s sexual orientation? 
That is what is wrong. It is time we grew up. Members can put up all the arguments they like for voting on a referendum now but the truth of the matter is that holding a referendum means that those people will have to relive that nightmare. As a member of Parliament I will not see that visited on anybody in this nation. 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I certainly do not condone any violence towards homosexuals in this country. But despite the previous member’s speech I do not believe that that would be the outcome of a properly handled referendum in this country. It would simply be an opportunity for people to share their views on this very important subject. Nor do I condone the Government introducing legislation against hate speech into Parliament at some time in the future. That would restrict the ability of any New Zealander to have an opinion about homosexuality. I think that the honourable member Stephen Franks made that point very clear in his speech. What concerns many New Zealanders as they look at this legislation is that they see it is one more step towards shutting down any kind of opposition to a homosexual lifestyle. I believe that New Zealanders should be free to have their own moral views and to be able to express their opinions when they feel that they need to. 
I need to address the amendment that I have on the Table for this legislation before we run out of calls and I will spend the rest of my speech on doing so. It is an amendment to clause 18. My colleague Marc Alexander also has an amendment to remove clauses 17 and 18 from the bill altogether. We believe that that is the Trojan Horse in this legislation whereby people will be able to access marriage officially while in a same-sex relationship because of the ability within the bill to convert from civil union to marriage. Currently the bill states that couples can do that only if they are eligible to marry. We understand that under the current interpretation of the Marriage Act marriage is for men and women. But we do not hold any confidence that that may not be overturned in the future by judicial activism which we have seen occur in the past. I simply want to put the issue beyond all doubt by making an amendment to clause 18 that adds the words “and who are a man and a woman” so that it can be very clear that the intention of Parliament if this bill passes is that only those civil unions that are between a man and a woman could ever transfer to marriage officially. I do not see that as an unreasonable request. 
If the supporters of this legislation are adamant about the fact that it is not a step towards gay marriage then let us make it clear in the legislation that that cannot occur in the future. I believe the contrary to that is true. I believe that this bill is a Trojan Horse. I cannot see any reason why those transfer clauses are in this bill except to allow a same-sex couple who are in a civil union to go to court in the future and say that they are being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation and to take an appeal right through to the Supreme Court. I believe it is entirely possible that the Supreme Court would overturn the will of Parliament and begin to give gay marriage to civil union partners. The thing that concerns us about this bill is that civil union is made so much like marriage that it is possible to flip-flop between the two. Why on earth do we want heterosexuals to have civil unions when they could have civil marriages anyway under the current law? That simply does not make sense. 
A number of speakers have raised the issue of the international precedents. They have happily cited the European countries that have provided for civil unions and for marriage. One of them that has not been referred to of course is the Netherlands which has had civil unions or gay marriage since 1999. In the Netherlands’ 5 years of experience the surveys have shown that each civil union lasts for an average of 18 months. It is entirely the right of people to have civil relationships but we ought to look at the facts about what those civil unions have produced there: relationships that last on average 18 months. The surveys show that during those 18 months people have also had up to six or eight partners. In a free society people are entirely free to do that if they wish to do so but that is not a relationship that we should consider putting children into. Children need more than 18 months in order to grow up and mature. They need to have a stable relationship between a mother and father over a period of at least 20 years in order to be able to grow to maturity and to have the benefits of the love and care of those individuals. It is not enough just to be loving and caring at the beginning of a relationship. That love and care has to continue throughout a lifetime in order to provide a stable relationship in which children can grow mature and become adults themselves. One of the submitters who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee said that his studies of same-sex relationships over the entire world had found that the average length of those relationships was 2 years. We know that marriages break down and that de facto heterosexual couples break up but their average internationally is 17 years. That is a much better average than 2 years. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Following on from Larry Baldock I would like to point out to him and to the Committee that one does not have to condone violence; one merely has to encourage it. We have received very many pieces of correspondence on this legislation in the recent period. The worst that could be said about the correspondence we received in favour of the bill is that some people have used the word “marriage” rather than “civil union”. I think it is regrettable if they do that because we are not bringing in same-sex marriage. But the language used in a fair proportion of the correspondence against the bill has been quite extraordinary. I do not think any of it would condone violence but a lot of it would encourage violence. 
I would like to quote three short passages to the Committee from letters that I have received. They are also contained in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee so they are on the official record of the House. The first is from a gentleman in Redwood in Christchurch who states: “These bills are short-sighted attempts to satisfy the desire of a very small minority. While everyone would be affected it is very obvious that the only people who really benefit from these changes are same-sex sick homosexual people who need urgent treatment rather than listening.” Then I turn to Mrs M A Collis of Timaru: “God created Adam and Eve—he did not create TWO Adams or TWO Eves!! In my thinking gay people are a blot on society unhealthy repugnant so why try to bring in a Civil Union Bill?”. Lastly I turn to a submission from an 11-year-old girl: “The Bible mentions that God gave the homosexuals over to a debased mind to do things which are not fitting being filled with all unrighteousness wickedness having evil minds to be proud violent boasters haters of God disobedient unforgiving unloving backbiters and whisperers. It also mentions that they are worthy of death”. 
That is the kind of language that we have been receiving from people who are opposed to this legislation. I cannot say that any one of those submissions condones violence. They come as close to endorsing hatred against a section of our community as I can imagine. Personally I have never supported hate-speech legislation. The Government Administration Committee is holding an inquiry on hate speech at the moment. I have a profound belief in freedom of speech. I think it is important that we have an inquiry on hate speech—not least because the United Nations has repeatedly stated in its audit of our human rights law that we do not protect people from hate speech in the way that many other countries do. So I think the debate is worth having but I am certainly not convinced that we should as a result label people such as those who have written those submissions as criminal. I do think that we as politicians elected to positions here need to reflect on whether that kind of language should be able to influence our minds towards a significant section of our community that absolutely has a recorded history—not only in New Zealand but worldwide—of being the victim of discrimination of the most hideous kind. 
I must end by pointing out that one of the four groups of people targeted in Nazi Germany for concentration camps—additional to the Jews the clergy and the gypsies or Romanies—was homosexuals who died in gas chambers in their thousands. That was no mistake. It happened because they were a group identified as a threat to that society just as some speakers in this Chamber and others claim that people like me are some kind of hideous threat to our society today. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 I listened to the last speaker as I have done throughout the debate with some interest. That person brings a diversity to the Parliament and I congratulate him on that. I think that that is a good thing in an open compassionate society. But the very strength of his argument demonstrates the reason why I am opposing this legislation. He said he has pulled out via this process the worst aspects of society through the email he has received. I have received email of a similar kind because I have been opposing the legislation. That is one of the strongest reasons why we—120 individuals—should not be making this decision under this process. It is one of the strongest arguments why this decision should be taken via referendum in society. 
I say to the Parliament today that I oppose this legislation for a number of reasons. The first is that it can be described as nothing more than social engineering. Quite frankly New Zealanders as a general rule are opposed to that. They have had enough of it. They have seen it for 6 years now and they are certainly not in favour of it. It is championed by the Prime Minister; there is no question about that. In fact I suspect that this legislation would not have the numbers it has if it had not been for some on the other side despite the fact that this is supposed to be a conscience vote being fairly heavily spoken to by the leadership of their party. 
Also I ask what we are trying to fix if nothing is broken. I would like to know where the problem is in the legal sense. Certainly no problem was identified through the select committee process as I understand it. Certainly no legal problems could be identified clearly through that process. I say to members opposite that I have been in what I guess one could describe for all intents and purposes as civil unions such as a business partnership. I ask what is wrong with that mechanism and what is wrong with the power of attorney. I have heard no strong argument yet that I can hang my hat on that justifies the process we are going through and the need for this legislation. 
The reason I oppose it is that it actually does attack what has been a cultural tradition in the Western developed world and around the world of marriage. People say that it does not. I have heard the arguments that it does not threaten marriage. Well I ask what the legislation does do in terms of marriage. Does it enhance marriage? Is the relationship of those who are married today changed in any way by it? The relationship is changed only to the extent that the legislation offers another option. I ask the people out there who believe that that is a good idea or a good option what is wrong with a traditional marriage between a man and a woman as we have seen it for thousands of years. Therefore why should those who choose to live in de facto relationships—those who choose to stay outside marriage—be swept up by this social engineering Government into a legally binding situation that they may not want to enter? 
I see members on the other side shaking their heads as though that is not going to happen. I ask those members then to take a call and tell me that when a de facto relationship that exists today breaks up and is contested before the courts for whatever reason in no way under no circumstances will that situation be influenced by the passing of this legislation. 
Darren Hughes 
: We’ve already got law on that. We did that 2 years ago. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well here is the reality. If we already have law on it then what is the purpose of this legislation? I ask the member over there who is chipping in to take a call and absolutely unequivocally rule out the possibility that any lawyer anywhere in New Zealand will be able to use the Civil Union Bill—or the Civil Union Act when it becomes an Act by a slim majority in this Parliament—in any kind of court case or civil hearing against a de facto partner in a relationship that has failed. I ask the member to tell me whether lawyers will be able to use it—yes or no. I ask because a large number of people with legal backgrounds in this area have said to me that inevitably that situation will be swept up in this legislation because it takes precedent. I ask the member to rule that out for those out there who have some uncertainty about it. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I want to address some of the concerns raised by the previous speaker. I start by letting him know that civil unions will not be compulsory. People will choose to have one if they want to have one. Some of the issues the member raises probably have more to do with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill than with this legislation because of course if one does not choose to have a civil union then one will not be in one. The select committee is still looking at some aspects around de facto couples in the— 
Shane Ardern 
: Do you rule out the question I asked? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I would rule out the question the member asked if I understood it. If a de facto couple—a couple in a relationship like the one I am in—choose not to have a civil union then the Civil Union Bill will not impact on their de facto relationship. I was on the select committee that heard the submissions. It amuses me that the member seems to think that no issues were raised at the committee about power of attorney and about next of kin. Perhaps he should ask the National Party member whom he undoubtedly got that from how often that member was at the committee hearing submissions. 
If the member would like me to I will tell him some of the stories people told us about what really happens. One of the more disturbing was a situation where a couple had spent an awful lot of time and money getting a formal contract drawn up that talked about burial rites cremation rites next of kin the will enduring powers of attorney and all that stuff. When one partner passed away because of an illness the remaining partner found that because his relationship had no legal standing the family was able to challenge the contract. The court actually overturned it in his case. The select committee was quite shocked. We had thought that if one went to the time— 
Shane Ardern 
: So can you guarantee that a civil union could fix that? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I tell Mr Ardern that if one is in a civil union with someone then it is a legally recognised relationship with next of kin. It is funny that Mr Connell is not upset about people on his side of the argument interjecting when he was on his feet every 2 seconds whenever we answered Mr Ardern’s questions—but that is fine. The Nurses Organisation talked to the committee about the difficulties nurses face when they have a family that disapproves of a relationship on one side and a partner on the other side and the person who is in hospital has not been able to sign the next-of-kin forms because he or she is unconscious on arrival is extremely ill has died or whatever. That poses problems for the hospital. It is down to the individual policies of the hospital because we have no next-of-kin laws in New Zealand. It is an extremely problematic area. 
The Nurses Organisation said that it is actually up to the staff members whom the family or the partner comes to to make that call. When the family says that a person has not been in a relationship with their son or daughter and the partner says that he or she has been in a relationship for 20 or 30 years then the hospital has to make a pretty unfair call. While the relationships bill does not address this if that couple are in a civil union it might be that the partner has to come along and show the civil union certificate and say: “Look we’re in a civil union; this is a legal recognised relationship. It is recognised in the law that we have chosen to spend our lives together.” Then that person is the next of kin and that eliminates that uncertainty. 
There will still be couples who choose not to have a civil union who will remain in de facto relationships and there will continue to be a problematic area in New Zealand law—as the select committee is finding out—about what one does when one gets into those extreme situations that people do not anticipate happening. I think that if even a small proportion of the 320000 heterosexual people living in de facto unions decided to have a civil union it would make situations like that far easier than they are today. 
There were other examples before the select committee of people who were not able to get any kind of legal certainty around the status of their relationship. They had children. There was one couple who came in where the biological mother was overseas. The partner was denied access to the child because the partner was not seen as a legal part of that family. The child was extremely distressed but the child was not allowed to make that call because of the child’s age. The family stepped in and said: “No we want to be involved.” when the family had in fact had nothing to do with that child for a very long time but the partner had done. 
Shane Ardern 
: How would civil union make a difference? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Because I say to Mr Ardern if they had been in a civil union then that person would have been legally recognised as being in a legal relationship under New Zealand law. When one is in a de facto relationship that by its very definition means that it is outside the law. Those couples do not have a choice. Heterosexual de facto couples do. Unfortunately most of them do not think as far ahead as that or they have such an issue with marriage that they will not do that. But homosexual de facto couples do not have a choice. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 I have been quite disappointed with the way the Government has failed to take this part of the bill seriously. Along with other speakers like Stephen Franks of the ACT party I have asked the Minister to explain just what rights and obligations go with a civil union. Clauses 17 and 18 allow for what is now called a “changing form of relationship” but that is what was more correctly called in the original bill “converting civil union into marriage”—or the other way around. Parliament has a right to know what the Government thinks happens to people’s rights and obligations when one converts a civil union into a marriage because we cannot tell from reading the legislation. The Government is sowing confusion by saying that this is not gay marriage—OK let us take Government members at their word; I believe they make that statement for political reasons not legal reasons—but one can convert a civil union into a marriage. So what do I tell my constituent who is in a gay partnership about what this legislation means? If my constituent wants to enter a civil union and then wants to convert that into a marriage what is involved? What are the rights and obligations? Well they are not in the bill and the Minister refuses to tell us. 
I think that that is because the Minister does not know. What was meant to happen was the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was meant to be here. It was meant to outline by indirect means through all the changes to other statutes what would be involved as rights and obligations of a civil union. But it is not here so we do not know. When one looks at it this bill really legislates for only a ceremony. That is all it does. What the Government is doing is putting into statute a ceremony of civil union without knowing what it will lead to. We have heard various emotional pleas and statements from the Government about homophobia about their relations and about how Government members feel about all that but altering that is not primarily the job of this Chamber. The job of this Chamber is to debate this law outline its implications and make it clear to people what the results are of entering into a civil union. In that respect this debate has utterly failed. Members are no clearer now after a couple of days of debating the Committee stage about what that means than they were when they started. 
The Government ought to understand the complexities that this will create for relationships. The day after this bill is passed there will be a handful of gay couples who will go and have a civil union ceremony and there will be photos in the paper and there will be rejoicing. But the nitty-gritty of this is the implications down the track for those couples when something goes wrong and there are children and property involved—none of which is made clear here. That was not the Government’s intent. It was never the intent. I think that Parliament still does not understand what a mess this is turning into. 
The previous speaker said that civil union is not compulsory but under the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill it will be. Under that bill—when it gets here—every gay couple who are in some kind of adult relationship will have the same set of rights and obligations as a married couple. That is the thrust of the Government’s argument. It argues that human rights cannot discriminate so everyone has to have the same legal framework for their relationships. The threshold for that relationship will be quite low because if we cannot discriminate we will have to use the social welfare definition of “de facto” which is a very low threshold for determining a relationship. Which ceremony one has been through will make no legal difference when the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill comes through this Parliament. That is the intent. It is the intent of this bill that there will be civil unions which are a ceremony outlined in this bill but the legal rights and obligations will be the same regardless. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 I thank the member who has just resumed his seat because he does draw attention to the important point that Parliament would not be doing its job on this bill if it were to get excessively hung up on broader issues—for example those of homosexual law reform—at the expense of looking at the bill. 
It is time that we ask what this bill is not about. Is it about creating gay marriage? Clearly it is not. Marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. The Civil Union Bill does not alter the Marriage Act of 1955. It simply enables couples who do not wish to marry or cannot marry to have their relationships recognised at law. There has been a fair degree of comment from the Churches around the country about the fact that the Christian concept of marriage is something that should be separate and different from a civil union. It seems to me that is patently true and this bill creates a positive and creative opportunity for Churches to say exactly what that difference is. If it is a sacred covenant that goes above and beyond a matter of contract law or legislative provision then let the Churches say what the difference is. 
The next argument is that this bill is simply about gay rights. Again I think that a factual analysis shows that is not the case. The law currently differentiates between people according to their marital status. A number of legal rights and responsibilities apply to only those who are married couples. That is potentially discriminatory and this bill is one way of addressing that discrimination. 
It has been argued that the bill affects only a tiny minority of New Zealanders. Well that is not true either because one in five New Zealanders are currently living in a relationship where they have chosen not to marry. That is over 330000 people who are potentially or directly affected by this bill. 
The next argument is that this has all happened very quickly but that is clearly not true either. The Human Rights Act was passed 11 years ago and it outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In 2001 this Government announced that it agreed that laws should be applied equally. 
There is an argument that New Zealand is leading some kind of strange social engineering experiment. Well that is not true either because many other countries have preceded us in adopting non-discriminatory civil union type of arrangements—for example Canada Denmark Finland France Germany Greenland Hungary Iceland Norway and Sweden to name a few. 
There is an argument that people will be able to be married and in a civil union at the same time. The answer is that no they will not. Here I would like to pick up on a point that the Hon Bill English made in referring to the issue of changing the form of a relationship. I think the Justice and Electoral Committee’s work is instructive. If we turn to page 6 of the very detailed select committee report we see an extensive discussion of the amendment to change the reference to “converting” a relationship from a marriage to a civil union to “changing form of” the relationship. The amendment was made to preserve the fact that a civil union and a marriage are different things but not to imply that in fact the relationship between the two people has to cease to exist in order for one to be converted to the other. But what is instructive in the select committee’s report is that the ongoing distinction between the two was broadly agreed to in the committee and remains pertinent to the House. 
Finally the argument is made that this bill should not proceed because the majority of New Zealanders are against it. Well the  
Herald- 
DigiPoll of 2 October found the opposite: 56.4 percent of New Zealanders were in favour of civil unions and only 39.3 percent were against. The email traffic to my parliamentary office has been broadly in favour of this bill passing—not I might add simply because it provides equal rights to homosexual New Zealanders but because it removes discrimination that could apply perniciously against various New Zealanders in various states of relationships. 
I am pleased that this discussion has got over the homosexuality issue as we have proceeded to debate the text of the bill. I hope that will continue because the more it does so I think the less threatening the bill will become to members opposite and to New Zealanders and the more sensible it will be in removing existing discriminatory provisions. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Is there not a real irony when one Labour speaker after another—with a couple of others in-between—completely contradicts what the previous Labour speaker said? In my submission earlier I said that the difficulty I have with the Civil Union Bill proposal is that 300000-odd New Zealanders almost as an unintended consequence will be swept up into some kind of legal debate which they do not want or understand or know about if their relationship fails. That was strongly rebutted not only by interjection but by the following speaker. Then the speaker who has just resumed his seat said that this bill was not about the small minority of gays whom the Opposition was opposing; it was about the 320000 New Zealanders whom the passage of the legislation would impact on. Which is it? 
We have a Minister in the chair. I put a question to the Committee before and it has not been answered. I have had legal advice that says that in the case of a de facto relationship where the couple has chosen not to get married or enter into a civil union there will be legal implications for that couple in the event of the failure of that relationship not only in terms of the children in that relationship but also with regard to property. I do not know whether that is so but what I do know is that there is a huge amount of ambiguity around it. In this debate the Minister and the Government should clear up that ambiguity for New Zealanders who want an answer to that point. 
I say to members of the Government that we should protect minorities. It is part of New Zealand’s culture. We are an egalitarian society. We should protect small minorities in this country. But this legislation does not do that. 
Ron Mark 
: I am a small minority. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That member being a New Zealand First member I agree that he is part of a very small minority—but I do not think that was what he was referring to. The fact is that we should if we can pass legislation that is sensible in terms of protecting a minority as well as protecting property but not at the expense of what we know has been a cornerstone of New Zealand society. Coming from a very conservative seat and a traditional background I say that I am almost an endangered species being a white Anglo-Saxon married middle-aged male in this House. I am being threatened and the cornerstone of society is being challenged as well. 
I say to the Government that this is not an attack on those who suggest we are in some way lesser than they are in terms of our degree of enlightenment about what is acceptable in society. I ask the Government to justify what it is trying to achieve. So far nobody has. When we take its legal argument we see that it cannot be clearly won. When we take the emotional argument or social argument we see that clearly there is no strength to that argument. When we look at the argument about enabling people to live happily in society we see there is no strength to that argument either. 
If a power of attorney can be challenged as was suggested by a previous speaker or if a legal partnership can be challenged why then can a civil union not be challenged? I have a case in my electorate right now of a person who signed a pre-nuptial agreement. He has been taken to the cleaners. The argument put forward by the judge was that his partner did not fully understand the implications of signing it. Well what happens if a gay relationship fails after the couple have entered into a civil union and some clever lawyer or judge says that one of the partners was not quite sure of what it was he or she was entering into? Will that case stand? Can the lawyers tell me that? The answer is that no they cannot. They will not know until it is tested but it will no more stand up than a marriage agreement or any other legal agreement will stand up in those circumstances. 
So the reality is I cannot see what it is that the Government is trying to fix. Clearly this bill is no more than the Prime Minister and her team entering into a form of social engineering that most New Zealanders do not want and have not supported in any way shape or form. It is interesting to note that the previous speaker said that the email traffic to his office has been about even in terms of those in favour and those opposed. I have to say that overwhelmingly that has not been the case in terms of my email. 
Hon PAUL SWAIN (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I do not usually speak in these conscience debates. I usually listen to the arguments and make my own mind up. But I do feel on an important issue such as this that a contribution is warranted. By definition I am pretty conservative on matters such as this. I was opposed to the lowering of the drinking age and voted against that. I am opposed to voluntary euthanasia which was also debated in this House. I voted against this bill as it was introduced primarily because I was opposed and am still opposed to anything that implies gay marriage. As I say I am still very strongly opposed to gay marriage. But I have looked into this matter quite a lot. I have done quite a lot of further study talked to a lot of people and come to the conclusion that this is not gay marriage. The Marriage Act has not been altered. Marriage is still between a man and a woman—a husband and a wife. Those terms are still available only to people in a marriage. So the Marriage Act has not changed and marriage has not changed and I would not be supporting this legislation if they had. Civil unions are about a public declaration and legal recognition of loving relationships. I support loving relationships whatever form those relationships take. Civil unions are nothing more than a public declaration and legal recognition of those loving relationships. 
There are claims that civil union undermines marriage and threatens the family. Well I think a lot of fear has been generated around that and I apply it to myself in my own situation. I say to people that really there is nothing to fear. I am married and I do not feel that civil unions threaten my marriage. I think that maybe a number of other things threaten marriage across the country but certainly civil unions do not. I have a family: two wonderful boys and now a lovely new daughter. I do not think that civil unions threaten my family. My family is not threatened and other families are not threatened so in my view there is really nothing to fear. 
I think that another thing that influenced me was the experience of watching the Destiny Church rally here. I was deeply concerned about men in black shirts standing in front of this Parliament. I was brought up as a Catholic—brought up as a Christian—and I was looking to see some kind of comparison between the Christianity I know and the Destiny Church. What I wanted to see in that demonstration was love. I saw hate in a lot of eyes. I wanted to see tolerance in those eyes but what I saw was intolerance. I wanted to see understanding but what I saw was ignorance. From a Christian perspective we need to see more love tolerance and understanding which in my view are some of the principles that underline this legislation. 
In conclusion this has been quite a difficult decision for me to make. I have gone into this legislation in some depth. I spent a lot of time talking to people and I did a lot of reading. I read the report which I thought was a good report and I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee for a very short period of time and heard the arguments for and against the bill. In summary civil unions are not marriage; they are not gay marriage. I need to indicate that if there had been changes to the Marriage Act I would have opposed that. If such legislation comes before Parliament I would oppose it and I make that point quite clear. I do feel though that this issue is about loving relationships and about people in loving relationships wanting to declare those publicly and to legally notify them and I do not see anything wrong with that. This legislation does not threaten my family nor does it undermine my marriage. I think that things have been whipped up by some people and that fear has been created around this bill so I ask people how the passage of this legislation will undermine their marriage or threaten their family. I do not feel that—I do not feel threatened or undermined as a result of this legislation. What I am very keen to tell the people who are in loving supportive respectful relationships and who want to go through some sort of ceremony where there is some kind of public and legal recognition as a result of that that it is fine by me. I support the bill. 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 Once again I will address the issue of civil unions and the objections raised by some earlier speakers against the concept of a referendum. I have been struck by the total inconsistencies I have heard. I have voted in favour of the bill at every stage so far. I am a strong advocate of a referendum and plead with members—Government members in particular—to support the amendment in the Supplementary Order Paper. I shall tell members why. To deny a referendum just because people would campaign for and against civil unions as one speaker said is ridiculous. It is absolutely absurd. To deny a referendum because the issue might incite hateful comments would be denying what is happening right now and be showing a lack of faith in the fair-mindedness of Kiwis. 
I shall give some examples. During the course of this debate someone outside the House said to me that de facto relationships are immoral. My reaction was that by inference civil unions must be immoral. I asked that person to tell that to my kids two of whom have lived in de facto relationships for many years. One of them had lived in a de facto relationship for 8 years before he and his wife decided to get married. I am able and most Kiwis are able to rationalise statements such as that and to judge people accordingly. I have received videos of Sodom and Gomorrah and some rather bizarre letters because none of those things have endeared me to the writers or senders of such material. I do not believe that fair-minded Kiwis faced with such an onslaught would treat a referendum any differently. 
Take for example the statements made by the Catholic Church. All my children and grandchildren are Catholic but I am not. However I am quite able so are other people to sift out the inconsistencies. Do members really think that all the Catholic women who use birth control methods will seriously take every word of the Catholic Church as gospel and live by it; that they would not vote for a referendum even though in their conscience they believe they should? Take for example the priest in Christchurch who has debarred a teacher from having a tagged appointment in a Catholic school because the teacher lives in sin. In this day and age that is nonsense and it is seen as nonsense. That priest in Rangiora is facing the scrutiny of parents who think that is a ridiculous attitude. His words on civil unions will be taken on balance by people who are able to sort through the issue. 
Some people have told me that marriage is an institution sanctified by God and that civil unions will undermine marriage. I balance that view with the knowledge that in countless weddings God is specifically ruled out yet by decree they apparently have the same sanctity as a marriage conducted in a church. I have seen registry office marriages. Supposedly advocates would say those marriages have the same status as a marriage sanctified in a religious ceremony in a church. We have seen marriages of convenience whereby Russian husbands and Asian wives have been brought to this country and we sit here and expect people to believe that those marriages have the same sanctity as a traditional marriage and do not undermine it. If that is the case it leaves a big argument as to what further damage the Civil Union Bill would do to the sanctity of marriage if those types of marriages are considered acceptable. 
Virtually every person I know and the vast majority of them are opposed to this bill say that the Destiny Church has turned them off. These words have been used to describe the Destiny Church: “A bunch of telemarketing evangelists a bunch of Jonestown acolytes zealots really scary people people you wouldn’t invite to dinner”. That is the sort of reaction the Destiny Church campaign has engendered against itself not against the bill and not against gay people. So my question to this Government and to all those people who I am starting to suspect have been whipped into line—Labour MPs who are voting against the bill but now are voting against a referendum—is what does this House have to fear by putting the question to the people? Why not ask them? We say that it is really simple: that issues like this should be put up at the same time as a general election. There should be a series of questions like: “Do you want to have same-sex marriages?”; “Do you want to have civil unions?”. They are very simple questions—yes or no—and the public is quite capable of answering them for us. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on Part 2 of this very important Civil Union Bill. Just recently we heard the Hon Paul Swain give a very sincere and thoughtful speech as a Roman Catholic supporting this bill. It is very difficult at times to balance the thoughtful speeches that are given by members on either side that relate to this bill. I think he ended up by saying in essence that he supports the civil union possibility of a loving and caring couple who wanted to go through some sort of public and legal recognition. I ask the Hon Paul Swain why one needs this formal Civil Union Bill put up by the Labour Government and the rights it bestows on people when we already have common law rights in New Zealand that allow that extra freedom of individuals to be able to design the sort of framework for the relationship that they would like. Surely that extra freedom is something that is enormously important and the whole democratic process is about working for those freedoms. 
Have we not in this case almost got an over-reaction of the civil and human rights gained over the last 40 to 60 years in the gender battle? When one thinks back to Oscar Wilde and the absolutely extraordinary persecution that he went through in that era one thinks of how he would be able to express himself today with considerable openness and hopefully little or no persecution and also enter into a relationship that would be recognised by common law if that were what he wanted. 
 Is the Labour Government not over-reacting in a historical sense and saying: “Here is a small group of New Zealanders who want to be recognised by special legislation over and above the common law so this is what we will provide for them. They are particularly shrill in the way they have caused this to come about so we will indeed give them this framework of civil union which they say is different from a marriage.” 
I heard the Hon Paul Swain say he could not support civil union being equivalent to marriage yet time and time again we have asked the Minister to explain to us what the difference is and he has failed to do so. 
In terms of the Labour Government’s concerns as to the myths relating to civil union it has put up 10 yet they do not seem to be able to stand very close scrutiny—for instance its third one: “Doesn’t this bill affect only a tiny minority of New Zealanders?”. Time and time again we have heard the rhetoric that there are in the order of 330000 New Zealanders in de facto relationships and a small number of same-sex couples who would be affected by this legislation. That indeed is true but what we do not hear is on the one hand the number who would be likely to take advantage of this bill and on the other hand how many would be quite satisfied to design their own common law contract. This is the point I am making. Surely in historical terms this is an over-reaction. Surely the greater freedom that we have in this country is the ability to be able to form a union under common law. 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make just a few points based on the commentary we have heard in the past. If this bill goes through the sun will still shine and the birds will still sing tomorrow. The world will not end. But this bill is a bill that this country does not need full stop. I too would like to see tolerance. I would like to see tolerance towards those who do hold marriage sacred who do not want a carbon-copy mockery of it handed out to people who only want social approval but none of the inherent responsibilities attendant on the Marriage Act. I also want to see respectfulness and loving relationships but we do not need law for that. 
There are a number of gay people in this Chamber and out in the community who are in longstanding relationships and that is to be commended. That is great but a law is not needed. The fact that those relationships survive proves the point: we do not need legislation to try to support that; it happens regardless. 
This bill is nothing more than about formalising an arrangement pushed along by a social agenda that is not publicly demanded—for the simple reason I guess of trying to legitimise a want. It is more about scratching an itch that is in the public. There is absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It is not the job of Governments to legislate such things. It is not the job of Governments to give people a qualitative analysis on the type of relationship they have loving or otherwise. Many gay relationships last much longer and are of a far better quality than some marriages but that is not the issue. The Marriage Act—the act of marriage—is all about the support of the children who are a natural consequence of that relationship. 
Such consequences do not normally ensue from the types of relationships that civil union is supposed to cover. In fact if children were involved the guardianship laws would kick in. So again there is no need for the State to intervene. We have categories for just about everybody now—de facto civil union perhaps marriage divorce and on and on it goes. We will end up in a situation where we will legitimate 4 million types of relationships simply because people want them and not because they actually need them. There is no necessity for this law at all. In fact the very arguments that are put forward in favour of it are not even considered in the bill. They will be addressed down the track next year with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which we have yet to see in its detail. 
This bill is also absolutely and utterly short-sighted. It is not the job of the Government to change such a fundamental aspect of our civil society without there being a clear mandate from the people. Given the differences of opinion in the House and the community it seems reasonable I think that the people should decide. That would be the most representative thing for this Government to do. So certainly I will be supporting the referendum call. But the bill is also short-sighted because it does not address the questions of civil union in terms of its impact on the relationship between civil union and marriage. 
For example if this bill passes people will be able to get civil union in New Zealand then go overseas to a country that does not recognise civil unions and get married to somebody else. Upon returning to New Zealand with a spouse from another country is the person a bigamist? |A person’s civil union is recognised in this country; will we recognise that person’s marriage in another country? How will that work? I would love that question to be addressed. Another country that does not recognise a person’s civil union registered in New Zealand will be more than happy to register that person’s marriage to a different person in that country. 
What does that make a person? From that other country’s point of view he or she is not a bigamist but from this country’s point of view he or she might be because according to the law in this country people cannot be in a civil union and married at the same time. Where are the legal boundaries here? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It actually creates a problem that is not already there which is simply that a person can be in a civil union with one person and married to another person somewhere else. That I think needs to be addressed. I would love to hear a call from the sponsor of this bill to address exactly that concern. 
I just end on this note: this bill is about legitimating wants. That is all it is. Some small segment of the population has stuck its hand up and said: “I have a want.” It is cloaked in the language of rights but it is not that. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I say in response to the member who has just resumed his seat that there can often be contradictions between jurisdictions in countries that have different laws. We have a situation now where same-sex couples who have a civil union in another jurisdiction come to New Zealand and do not have that relationship recognised here. Those situations are not completely restricted to this legislation. 
I take a very practical view on this legislation. This is the first call I have taken in the debate on it. I do not share the almost hysterical view coming through in some of the speeches we have heard in this Chamber and neither I believe do most New Zealanders. Given that I have 56000 people in my electorate very few have contacted me. Those who have fall into three distinct groups. The first group comprises people who have been sent along as part of a congregation either with a form letter or to express their views to me and I have listened to them. They deliver a view that I do not share but that I am very happy to respect their right to hold. The second group comprises those people who wish to enter into a civil contract because that is the only option available to them under New Zealand law and they are people who are in a gay relationship. 
There is a third group of people a small number of whom have contacted me and I understand exactly what they are talking about because their situation is the same as mine. They are the people who are in a de facto relationship and are not necessarily looking to formalise their relationship in the form of marriage. I feel personally that it would be wrong for me to formalise my relationship in a marriage given that that is seen to be the cornerstone of the Church in this country. Yet currently I have no other option. I voted against the clause in the Property (Relationships) Bill that would mean that I would be statutorily tied in by this Parliament to having a formalised relationship. I voted against it because that had not been my choice. A civil union would actually be a choice that I could make—the same as other New Zealanders. 
I have been bitterly disappointed in some of the speeches I have heard in the House. I have been bitterly disappointed to hear this issue raised as being about nothing more than gay marriage and I have said to my colleague Tim Barnett that I do not want to hear him referring to this bill exclusively in terms of gay relationships. It is not just about gay people; it is about a whole lot of New Zealanders who may like to choose to formalise their relationship in front of friends and family. I have never considered going to a lawyer and paying $5000 as an alternative to having this Parliament recognise my right to have a type of relationship. I would say to all those people that when they take away all the fluff and bother from this issue and start thinking about what they believe in and the sort of country they want to live in the best response they can have to the people who come to their offices and say: “Don’t vote for it.” is to give them some of United Future’s speeches and Brian Connell’s speeches and say: “Is this the sort of country you want to live in?”. The response I have usually had is “No and you do what you believe is right.” 
R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) 
: 
 Like the previous speaker I have not taken part in this debate to date and I want to mention just a couple of matters. I am opposed to the Civil Union Bill and I too think the issue should be put to a referendum. One could ask why the Government would not want to do that. We know that this Labour Government is the most poll-driven Government ever. So it cannot be said that it does not know what the majority of New Zealanders think on this issue. In fact the majority of people think that this bill should not be passed. That is why there will not be a referendum. 
This Labour Government sees itself as a Government that should legislate for minorities. It wants to be elected by the majority it seeks the vote of the majority then having got that vote it sees its role its only role as legislating for minorities. I will not go through the list of legislation that has been passed under that thought process because everybody in this Parliament and in the country knows that is what has happened over the past few years. So this legislation is not about what the people think; this is not about what the majority thinks; this is about what this particular Government thinks. 
It is even more than that because under an MMP way of governing there are not only constituencies but also interest groups. The people who are affected by this bill are an interest group that the Labour Party in particular sees as its own. So it is in the Labour Government’s interest to pass this legislation not just for all the wonderful reasons we hear the proponents of this bill putting forward in the House not only for the good of the country but for their own particular votes. This is an area that the Government sees itself as having locked up for itself. Labour has pandered to this group of people and it now has to deliver to this group of people. That is the way it is. Whether that is right or wrong depends on one’s view. I do not view it as being right. I view it as being wrong and I am voting against this bill for that reason and a number of others. 
New Zealand First believes that these sorts of issues should be put to a referendum—indeed a binding referendum—and we have gone so far as to adopt that as policy. But because the Government knows that it would not like the result it is not interested in that course of action. Then we could have a great big philosophical debate about whether the Government is governing in the interests of the majority for the minority or whether it is governing in the interests of the majority for the majority or whether it is governing in its own interests. I suggest that it is certainly not governing in the interests of the majority. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I want to speak in this debate in support of the Civil Union Bill and as I do so I want to approach what I consider to be the most intelligent and powerful opposition to the bill and that is that which comes from the Catholic Church. On Sunday the Church sent a message to a number of its parishes indicating that parishioners should look at the voting patterns of MPs. That suggested some form of electoral threat or electoral suicide and I feared that might have been in the place of logic. 
However I looked further at what the bishops said and they criticised a bill that allows same-sex couples to form relationships with the same legal standing as marriage. I have heard during the debate in the House a lot of reference to marriage but no one really defines what it is. It certainly is a union that is confirmed in law—the Marriage Act—and as we have heard it is not meddled with. In the dictionary “marriage” is defined as a formal agreement between a man and a woman to live together according to the customs of their religion or society. Well the customs of marriage in the Roman Catholic Church include an additional requirement—that is an undertaking that one will have children. One assumes that if people do not complete that undertaking they cannot get married in the Catholic Church. So that is an additional aspect of marriage in the Catholic Church. 
But I am interested in the reports of the Catholic bishops’ letter and the preaching on Sunday because as members will have heard 4 years ago the bishops took a stand on same-sex relationships and in so doing they appeared to answer the cry we hear from Marc Alexander and others saying: “Where is the need?” and “Why do we need this legislation?”. In May 2000 the bishops in their national newspaper the  
National Catholic Reporter 
 opened the report by stating: “New Zealand Catholic Bishops support legal registration of same-sex unions though not as a stepping stone to legal marriage.” That position contrasts with recent statements made by Pope John Paul II condemning civic unions. 
That statement and the following article seem to have set the Catholic Church in a bit of a tizz and in August of the same year Bishop Cullinane speaking for New Zealand Catholic Bishops put out a 4-page explanation of the bishops’ position. It makes very difficult reading but it is probably summarised best in the final paragraph: “Our position comes down to this. We support legislation that protects the actual rights of people in homosexual relationships. We do not support legislation that makes the homosexual relationship the basis of their rights. In this respect their relationship is different from marriage.” I do not know what that means unless it means that if the legal relationship is based on their sexual activity—and their sexual activity is homosexual—then the bishops do not condone that. If that is what they are saying that is a fairly candid position. Most people would see it as homophobic but if it is a faith-based objection to homosexual activity I can accept that. 
But a civil union is not determined by the sexual activity of the partners. A civil union is available to two people who want to express publicly their commitment to one another in a long-term relationship. Whether or not they engage in sex at all is a private matter not a matter for anybody else at all. Whether they be heterosexual or homosexual does not imply sexual activity. A civil union is a case of two people wanting to share the benefits as defined in the dictionary of a union according to the customs of their religion or society. If one has a religion that is opposed on a faith basis to homosexuality then one would preclude homosexuals from marriage under the Marriage Act but one would not preclude them from a civil union which this bill provides. 
So I think the Catholic Church has been a little inconsistent in its public utterances on this matter but perhaps that is the way it has been reported and perhaps the real objection is to the condition of homosexuality it being a basic sin that the Church can never bring itself to endorse and embrace. If that is the Church’s position let us accept that but that does not imply that it speaks against civil unions. In fact implicit in the Church’s view is that it endorses civil unions but not if that is seen to be condoning homosexuality. So we have a slight difference and that is on this question of the sexual activity of the partners. 
The other aspect that the Church is seen to oppose is the vows that are taken in a civil union although the word “vow” is not really used; it is a promise that is provided for in the second part of this bill. It is a promise between two people made formally which then has legal standing—as opposed to Mr Ardern’s interpretation of it—that is unchallengeable. They are in a civil union and are therefore linked as partners in that union. That then is the short key to identifying the lack of discrimination that follows in all other legislation. We cannot have the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill without the Civil Union Bill. 
DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) 
: 
 I voted against this bill up until the Committee stage and now I am voting in favour of it. I still stand by the reasons why I voted against it. I think it is discriminatory. I think it is politically correct in its language and in its drafting. I think many of those promoting it are using nauseatingly politically correct language. I would rather have seen a situation where gay people could marry each other in the same way as heterosexual people can and where the only barrier to their marrying each other would be the right of the institution to say no—a church or a celebrant or a venue that might not wish to marry gay people or might not wish to marry heterosexual people. But unfortunately they already cannot do that and they will further be barred from doing that because of human rights legislation. There will be unintended consequences from the legislation because of the banning of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation which we have in the human rights legislation and that legislation I believe should be repealed. 
So I took an all-or-nothing attitude when I voted against this bill. I did not oppose it on the spurious grounds that we have heard—that marriage should be a loving relationship between a man and a woman. There are many marriages between men and women that are anything but loving. I did not oppose the bill on the ground that it does not protect children. There are heterosexual couples who should never be anywhere near children. I have done numerous stories as a journalist on child abuse and the ones who were beaten to death were always beaten to death when they were in the care of people in a so-called loving heterosexual relationship. I have done much research on sex offenders and paedophiles and there is nothing in that research that shows that homosexual men can be likened to paedophiles or sex offenders. They do not prey on children—that is mostly done by heterosexual men and paedophiles. So this bill is not a threat to the fabric of society as many are claiming. 
The damage to children is horrendous if any relationship falls to pieces and most parents I believe do everything they can to prevent the fall-out for children when relationships fall apart whether those parents are gay heterosexual or single. Nobody is perfect. We have heard talk about the next step being gay people being allowed to adopt children. What is wrong with anyone wanting to adopt children? It is better that children are adopted by people who want one so much that they will give it a loving home. 
I am personally painfully aware of the damage that can be done to children when relationships fail and fall apart. It is probably because I know about that damage that the strongest voice I have heard in this debate the voice that has made me rethink the way I am voting is the voice of my own children. I am not saying that they dictate what I do—Lord knows we would all be bankrupt if we did what our children dictated—but my youngest daughter who will be a first-time voter at the next election took huge flak for the fact that I voted against this bill. I tried to explain to her the reasons why I was voting against it. I realised when I went into a discussion with her that it was not about me. I am over 50; this bill is not going to affect me. I might like to marry again or I might not. The point is that I can; I have that choice. She said to me that her friends will not have that choice. Many of her gay friends do not have that choice. They might like to get married in the future. Who knows? They know that this bill is not perfect but it is the best they can have and they might like to have a civil union. Without this bill they cannot have that. 
So I am voting for this bill now. I am also supporting the amendment calling for a referendum so that this issue can go to the country and the country can decide before the bill receives the royal assent. But I am voting for it because I think this is essentially a young person’s issue. It is not about boring old biddies like me. We have our choices. When I sent a text message to my daughter yesterday and told her I would be voting for the bill she sent a message back: “Yea! Well done mum. I’m so proud of you.” 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to be taking a call because I am delighted to follow Deborah Coddington. With due respect to her I say that she has flip-flopped a bit but she qualified her outlook on this bill right at the end when she said she would support a public referendum. That is exactly my position and exactly the position of all my New Zealand First colleagues. 
This bill causes me quite some discomfort. I cannot vote for this bill and push it through knowing that significant numbers of New Zealanders oppose it and oppose it for very good reasons. This bill it is alleged undermines the social fabric of this country. I tend to support that view. Maybe I am in the same category as my colleague Dail Jones who described himself as a conservative redneck. I would not describe myself as that but I feel quite uncomfortable about this bill. 
There has been much discussion coming from MPs about their personal experiences. Those experiences have all been very interesting but with all due respect they are irrelevant to this bill. Some say that this legislation will not undermine their marriages. They might well be correct. Some say it will not undermine the institution of marriage. I would challenge that view. I believe it does undermine the institution of marriage in as much as it gives another choice a cheaper choice that weakens the institution of marriage—and the word “weaken” is in the definition of the word “undermine”. 
Let me talk about individuals. I think that even my colleague Brian Donnelly said he could not see that this bill would have any effect on his daughter who is getting married very soon. That idea does not occur to him one iota. Well the bill might affect her. He does not know. How do I know that when I walk home one night my wife will not say: “I’m sick of this marriage. You’re always down in Wellington. I want a civil union.” How do I know she will not? [ 
Interruption 
] I know that because I have known her for many years. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Just ask her for goodness’ sake! 
PETER BROWN 
: The member puts her nose in the air. I can tell her that there will be New Zealanders who will walk home one night and find their marriages will be ended and their partners will want civil unions as a result of this bill. If that is not going to be the case why should we put the clause in here? Members know that that will occur. Why should we put the clause in otherwise? 
This legislation is a significant change to the structure the fabric of New Zealand society. I listened very carefully to the honourable member over there and he made some very good points. He was wrong on some occasions but he made some very good points. Yet I believe that this bill will change society and many New Zealanders believe that. 
We have been told by Government members how great New Zealanders are how fair they are how tolerant they are and how understanding they are. I agree with that 100 percent. New Zealanders are very tolerant fair and objective. So New Zealand First says and I say that we should put this issue to the public. We have heard Government members saying that the public supports the bill holus-bolus. Well let them have their opportunity. It is neither fair nor reasonable and nor does it show tolerance to say that 120 of us know better than the 2.5 million of the voting public out there. That is not fair that is not tolerant and that does not show understanding. This is the sort of legislation that should go to the public for a binding referendum. 
I say to Government members that if the amendment in the name of my colleague the Hon Brian Donnelly is agreed to they might find that 13 New Zealand First members vote for the bill. They might find that we are 100 percent behind the bill if it is allowed to go to the public for a referendum. 
This bill will affect marriage in the negative and it will affect people’s attitude to marriage. I am a little bit old-fashioned. I know members over there cannot tell that from where they are sitting. 
Darren Hughes 
: The member’s dress sense gives it away. 
PETER BROWN 
: The member has woken up! If I had my way I would put marriage on a pedestal because it is a commitment between a man and a woman based around creating enhancing and developing a family and that is something really special. But we have downgraded it bit by bit and this legislation will downgrade it even further. I am sad that the bill is going through in the way it is. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the bill. It is incredibly important to me. I really welcomed Deborah Coddington’s comments about the response to her children’s point of view. I too have post - 21-year-old children who share their views of society as they know it in their age—views that are pretty similar to those of Deborah Coddington’s kids as well. So I really appreciate those views and I have shared in some of those discussions. 
First of all I want to make quite clear why I am supporting the bill. I am supporting it on a conscience vote. I have watched and listened to the debate as it has gone on and I believe that there are some in the Opposition who are trying to play party politics with the legislation. This is a matter of conscience. It is a matter for me that has been a matter of conscience since I made my first speech on homosexual law reform at my first Labour conference in 1971. The vote at that particular time happened to be lost but I made my first speech then on the issue. This is very personal and very real to me. So I am making this speech and casting my vote not as a member of the Labour Party of which I am particularly proud but as Marian Hobbs an individual exercising her conscience. 
That is not because I am seeking promotion as was said by Dr Nick Smith last night who cast aspersions on all of us that we were following a particular way because we were people who wanted to curry favour. No I support it because of my own personal conscience not because I am pandering to one sector of the community. This bill honours people from whatever sector of the community they come rainbow or straight in relation to what is being offered—which was the issue raised before by Doug Woolerton. 
I also comment that this is not rushed legislation. Well over a year ago as this legislation was being debated and argued through and as the bills were being written I went to my Wellington Central electorate which I am extremely proud of and in my normal newsletter to electorate members I asked for their comments on the proposed legislation. I got back an overwhelming response supporting it. I have had letters and I have had visits and I have dealt with all of those. 
I really loved the story Mark Peck told yesterday about having a woman in his office who strongly believed that homosexuality was wrong. I have also had people in my office who strongly believe that homosexuality is wrong and that this legislation will affect the faith of the country. Mark Peck told the woman that the bill had a conscience vote and asked her whether if she were in his place she would vote according to what he wanted. But she said “No way! I’ll vote my way.” Well that is what I am doing; I am voting my way. 
However I have listened and as I said I know that my electorate supports my point of view. My emails which are absolutely taking off at the moment are running a hundred to one in favour of the legislation. My emails are just taking off. I know I have been out of the country for a week but I am still desperately clearing through them. They are a hundred to one in favour of this legislation. 
Why do I support civil union? I support civil union because it gives choice to New Zealanders. When it comes to the notion of civil union and State recognition of a relationship I rather enjoy the notion of the European practice which is that one signs and then it is acknowledged that one has joined in a relationship as regards the State. There is an optional church ceremony and the blending of the two is kept far apart. I really like the notion of separation of church and State. 
That is why I took some exception to the comments of Judy Turner last night when she said that marriage was about breeding units and she therefore opposed the recognition by the State of non-breeding units. Frankly I found that fairly offensive and I also found it a very limiting view of a relationship. 
I was brought up in the Catholic church. My mother was a nun and my father was a Jesuit seminarian. I come from a strong Catholic family. I have a sister who was a nun and a brother who was a seminarian so gee I have had it in my head all my life. But it was that limiting view which dictated that marriage was about breeding units that said to me as a young married that I could not use contraceptives within my marriage. I was detailed to be “a breeding unit” and I was not therefore able to control how I managed the children coming into my family. I now have a very different view of relationships and I strongly support this bill. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 One of the problems with the Civil Union Bill is that the solution the Government has come up with creates two types of relationships—two types in my view of marriage. That will create quite unintentional consequences particularly in international situations. Whilst within New Zealand we have a provision in the Civil Union Bill that states that one cannot be both married and in a civil union situations can readily arise on the international scene where that is exactly what will happen. I give the example of a man and a woman who enter into a civil union in New Zealand and then travel overseas to a jurisdiction that does not recognise civil unions—perhaps to the United States of America. As far the United States is concerned they are single people. They then split up and the man gets married in the United States and then returns with his new wife to New Zealand. 
What is the situation in New Zealand? The situation is that the man has a civil union with one partner in New Zealand and because New Zealand recognises all marriages overseas and people do not have to go through any registration process for it New Zealand also recognises the United States marriage. Therefore a person can be in a civil union relationship and in a marriage relationship and both are recognised as valid within New Zealand. What sort of situation will we have then? 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Bigamy. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: No it is not bigamy as the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope seems to suggest because that person has married legitimately in a different jurisdiction. The fact that the person has returned to New Zealand would not suddenly make the second relationship bigamous given that it was not bigamous at the time it was entered into. So we will have that sort of problem. 
The recognition of overseas relationships in the bill in clause 34 “Regulations” will also create problems. In all but two countries the registration process is a lesser process than the one we are looking at. There is simply a registration process without the ceremonial aspects and without the extent of rights that the Government intends to provide for people who have a civil union so that when people who enter into a civil union overseas come to New Zealand they will automatically gain substantially more rights in New Zealand than they had in the overseas jurisdiction in which they entered into the union. That will create complications in terms of overseas property issues. Whereas overseas those people may not have certain rights to property that a married couple might have when they come to New Zealand they will have those rights. They will have rights in respect of property overseas that stem from the recognition of their relationship within New Zealand which they would not have if they tried to enforce those rights overseas. 
 That in itself will also create huge complications. It has been created because this Government has insisted on making at the very best two parallel types of relationship instead of facing the issue directly and simply trying to get through the House amendments to the Marriage Act to provide for same-sex relationships. Whenever we try to get parallel forms that are almost identical we will inevitably get those complications. 
If this is not same-sex marriage then my colleague Larry Baldock’s amendment ought to be adopted by the Committee. That amendment makes it very clear that a couple cannot convert their civil union into marriage unless it consists of a man and a woman. If this Government and the supporters of this bill are serious about preserving marriage for a man and a woman then here is their opportunity to put that on the line. Here is the opportunity to make the clear declaration that marriage will not be changed to make it available for people of the same sex. I will be very interested to see how people vote on that issue. This is an amendment for honesty. This amendment tests the honesty of the opponents who say that effectively marriage will be preserved for a man and a woman only. Let us see whether they live up to that expectation. 
The lesson we learn from this procedure is that we need to hear the concerns of minority groups and address their needs not their wants. The needs of the homosexual community in particular have been akin to next-of-kin criteria. Their wants are acceptance by society that homosexual relationships be provided with exactly the same benefits as heterosexual relationships. I do not agree that that is the case. The only reason the Government and society get involved in endorsing marriage is the importance of protecting and nurturing the circumstances in which the next generation will be raised. Homosexual relationships do not do that. 
HELEN DUNCAN (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 I appreciate being able to take a call on Part 2. I say to the Committee that this bill should be called the “We Don’t Care What You Think Because We Will Do What We Want and Push Through Our Liberal Leftie Agenda Bill” because that is what this Government is doing. We asked the members on the opposite side of the Chamber and the Green members why they did not support a referendum; why if they are really that confident that this bill will pass they would not support the referendum that New Zealand First has proposed. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They don’t like democracy. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: Labour does not like democracy. Labour is a party for the minority. It is not a party for the people. That is what New Zealand First is saying. Labour should stop being a party of the minority and start being a party of the people. All members of Parliament would like to think they are politicians for the people. Well this Government is not showing that. Ministers and members of Parliament who have stood up in the last couple of days to speak on this bill have gone about slagging the US Government and the people in 11 different states of the United States who have voted against civil union and gay marriage. Members have said that those people basically are intolerant and are bigots because they do not agree with their view. That is what this Government is saying. This is a poll-driven Government—we all know that. It has done the numbers. 
R Doug Woolerton 
: You are right. 
CRAIG McNAIR 
: The member says I am right. Everybody knows that this is a poll-driven Government and it has done the numbers. The Government knows that it would lose this. 
When I spoke to the Committee on Part 1 I brought up the scenario of the state of Oregon which is probably more like us as a country. It is a more liberal state. It is on the west coast—it is close to Hollywood and California—and it is not a Bible Belt state but even Oregon voted against this issue. We saw the TV3 poll last week. As the voting comes to the crunch people are starting to think about the whole issue and are asking themselves how this will affect our nation not in 10 20 or 30 years but in 50 or 100 years. They are asking what is best for this nation. At the end of the day the New Zealand voter will go into a polling booth and say that this will not be good for our nation in the future. That is what the Labour Government the Green Party and the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope are afraid of. Those “Fui” posters are really true: they say that civil unions are not gay marriage—“Yeah Right”. We know that this is gay marriage. This bill is basically taken out of the Marriage Act. It is the same thing. People are just fooling themselves if they think this is not gay marriage. 
The reason I want to talk about a referendum and why we should let the people decide on this one is that many people out there have a lot of concerns. Those people would like to have their say. David and Christine Sloane wrote to me and said: “Dear Mr McNair we are very concerned about the current Civil Union Bill and the relationship bill before Parliament and we thank you for your continued opposition to these bills. We oppose these bills in their entirety and we hope you will receive support and encouragement from the views of the many thousands of people who made submissions that were strongly against the introduction of these bills. We believe that marriage needs to be protected and promoted in law because it offers unique benefits to children and society. These bills effectively say that marriage has no special value to New Zealand. It is a well-known fact that good marriage relationships are instrumental in developing stable family life for children to grow up in as well as being the foundation for communities and society to build upon. We believe the majority of New Zealanders do not want the Civil Union Bill or the relationships bill introduced and we urge you to use any influence you have in giving support with the aim of defeating these bills. New Zealanders from all walks of life are proud of their history their culture their values and the way we all contribute to society. We urge you not to be part of any process that devalues or waters down any of the foundations or principles we value. Please continue to vote against the introduction of the Civil Union Bill and the relationships bill.” 
JILL PETTIS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8. 
Motion agreed to. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 Mr Chairperson just before you start putting the questions to the Committee and further to the conversations that have been held with whips from the other parties in the Chamber I seek leave for voting to be suspended between the hours of 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to the headings of Part 2 and subpart 1 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff  
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander  
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Franks  
Power  
Wang  
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
Mapp(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M 
Connell  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
McNair  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven  
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson  
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia  
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora  
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide  
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly  
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan  
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 8 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
Tisch  
Alexander  
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang  
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Shirley (P) 
Coddington  
Mapp(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith M 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Power  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson  
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother  
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs  
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald  
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan  
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
ROD DONALD (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to correct the previous vote. I have failed to cast a vote for Tariana Turia. She has confirmed with me that she wanted to vote against that previous amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It is altered accordingly. On that particular vote the Noes are now 74. 
Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to the heading of clause 8A be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks (P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere (P) 
Beyer (P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully (P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel (P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 8A be agreed to: 
to omit the words “entering into a civil union” wherever they appear in this clause and substitute the words “registering a civil relationship”. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson  
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field (P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 8A be agreed to: 
to omit the words “(except by changing the form of their relationship in accordance with section 18)”. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson  
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 9 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban (P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 10 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker (P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit and substitute clause 11 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The first five amendments to clause 12 in the name of Richard Worth on Supplementary Order Paper 314 have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 12 be agreed to: 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark  
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment in the name of Richard Worth to insert new clause 12A set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 13 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu  
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark (P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
GORDON COPELAND (Whip—United Future) 
: 
 I seek the leave of the Committee to take the remaining votes on Richard Worth’s Supplementary Order Paper 314 as one single personal vote. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 14 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon (P) 
Power(P) 
Wang  
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble  
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu (P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark (P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 15 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair  
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone (P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope(P) 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 16 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone (P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward (P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit the heading before clause 17 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner  
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck  
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 312 in the name of Marc Alexander to omit clauses 17 and 18 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner (P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown  
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff  
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark 
Turei 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck (P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clauses 17 and 18 have been ruled out of order because they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 313 in the name of Larry Baldock to clause 18 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 36 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks  
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Mark  
Shirley(P) 
Connell(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 82 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff (P) 
McCully(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Turia(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Parker(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Peck(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Perry(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Wong(P) 
Collins(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove (P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Power(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Key(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendments to clauses 19 and 20 the amendment to the heading of clause 21 and the amendments to subclauses (1) and (4) of clause 21 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth have been ruled out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 21 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (5). 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie (P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to subclauses (1) to (3) of clause 22 to omit and substitute text the amendment to the heading before clause 23 and the amendments to subclauses (2) and (3) of clause 23 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth are out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 23 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (1).  
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 24 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis (P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 24A be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander (P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Jones 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Collins(P) 
McNair (P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Baldock  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson (P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendment in the name of Richard Worth to insert new clause 24B set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit subpart 2 of Part 2 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock  
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa (P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui (P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to the heading and to subclause (1) of clause 29 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth are out of order because they are inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 29 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington(P) 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The next amendment is to omit words from subclause (3) of clause 29 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth. It is out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 29 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (4). 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 30 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington 
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Copeland  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson (P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora (P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia (P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson (P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We now come to an amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit and substitute words in clause 31. The amendment is out of order because it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 34 be agreed to: 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 34(1)(a) and clause 34(1)(c) are out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 34 be agreed to: 
to omit subclause (2). 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble(P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich (P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street (P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clause 36 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power(P) 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments to clause 37 in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 to omit subclause (1) and to omit and substitute words in subclauses (2) and (3) are out of order because they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. The amendment to omit and substitute clause 38 in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 is also out of order as it is inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to omit clauses 38A to 43 be agreed to. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Before you declare the vote an interesting point has been drawn to my attention that I think it requires a ruling from you. We are doing a personal vote under Standing Order 146 which sets out the procedure. It states: “(1)(d) all members present within the Chamber or the lobbies when the doors are locked must vote or record their abstentions:”. This goes back to a similar Standing Order that has existed in the House for over a hundred years which is that members cannot just sit in their seats; they must vote. 
It has been drawn to my attention that some members continue to sit in their seats in the Chamber in the belief they can vote by proxy. On a personal vote I do not believe that a member can do that. I understand that four members have been put down as a proxy vote on this vote and I think their votes must be recorded in person. As they failed to do that then under those Standing Orders their votes get recorded in the opposite lobby. I believe that is what should happen in this case. That is what the old rule was. If a member went into the wrong lobby his or her vote got recorded in the opposite lobby as an encouragement not to do that again. 
I understand there are four members—there may be more—who cast proxy votes in this vote when they were present in the Chamber. Those votes certainly should be declared invalid and perhaps recorded in the opposite lobby. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that issue. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 Perhaps I could speak to the point of order. It is an interesting issue. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: It is an interesting issue and the member is absolutely right. I was about to ask the member what he suggests we should do about it. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Although obviously it is in your province to make a judgment on this matter Mr Chairman now that it has been raised surely the thing of most import to the Committee is that the intent of members is clear and that their vote is appropriately recorded. If a whip is holding a proxy for a member then the member’s intent is clear. It seems to me it would be quite inappropriate if the end result were that the member’s vote either was recorded opposite to his or her clear intent or was not counted at all when he or she had properly indicated his or her intention to the whip. Although Mr Prebble has raised an interesting point I think good sense and natural justice would suggest that—even if from this point forward you determine that a different practice should be followed—it would be a gross injustice to overturn the obvious intention of a member in casting his or her vote. 
SIMON POWER (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek clarification on the point of order. Certainly in the votes I have been involved with in the Ayes lobby proxies for people who were either in the queue to vote or in the Chamber were not recorded as proxy votes. If indeed in some cases they were then when the member arrived at the point of casting the personal vote the vote was amended on the sheet to record that it was not a proxy vote. In other words if the member was present in either the lobby or the Chamber that was certainly taken into account in the way the votes were tallied in the Ayes lobby. In fact earlier in the day when voting was taking place with considerably more members in the Chamber—if I am able to say that—we took some care to make sure that when party whips or representatives of the whips cast those votes and the teller saw those members in the queue then their vote was not recorded as a proxy and we waited for them to reach the teller. That was my understanding as to how those votes were to be recorded in accordance with the advice that has been given by the Hon Richard Prebble. 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I think there is quite a simple solution to this. It seems to me that the House recognises votes that are either cast in person or by proxy. I think that the Standing Order refers to people sitting in this Chamber and not declaring themselves for against or as an abstention. I believe that the House does recognise a proxy vote as being the same as the member having voted. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I can give my own experience. A short while ago I was in the Chamber. Gordon Copeland knew I was here and he would not accept the fact that I had not come up to the queue. I was asked to go and cross my name off the list because Gordon Copeland knew I was here. That is what I did even though my whip held a proxy for me. So at least as far as this side of the voting is concerned the rule as it is in the Standing Orders has been carried out because we have all understood that to be the rule. If perhaps the other side has not understood that to be the rule well four votes off will make no difference on this occasion. However the lesson will be well and truly learnt. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for their assistance. The point was properly raised. If that had been happening it is against the Standing Orders. There is no doubt about that. The votes have been declared— 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is not right. We made it quite clear. You were about to say something and we knew the rule. Mr Prebble raised a point of order before you declared the vote. It was very very clear. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Yes that is exactly what I am saying. I am dealing with other votes. I am not sure which ones Mr Prebble is referring to. This vote has not been declared. Because of that I intend to ask the tellers to come back and look at their lists for this particular vote and ask whether there are any other members present who wish to have their votes counted. It has been my understanding that up till now the proper course has been followed and I trust the whips completely. But in respect of this vote— 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. If you are going to do that then I think it might be an appropriate course to do the vote again; to just allow members to go into the lobbies and if there are members here who have not voted—I understand there are four—to allow them to go and cast their votes correctly. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We can do that and we will proceed along those lines. We will go back to redo the vote. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
English(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch  
Alexander(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Heatley(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Dunne(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Eckhoff(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Connell  
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Mackey J  
Sutton(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey M (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Maharey  
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton  
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis  
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Hughes 
Amendment not agreed to. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. We now have a further dilemma in that there are previous votes that have been recorded and apparently acknowledged incorrectly. I have been looking at the Standing Orders to see what the result of that is and I find there are a number of alternatives some of which are rather wearying. One is in Standing Order 153 “Errors and mistakes” states: “(1) In the case of confusion or error concerning the result of a vote the House unless any error can be otherwise corrected proceeds to a second vote.” We have had a number of votes where members’ votes have been recorded by proxy when they were present. 
The next dilemma is this: Speaker’s ruling 64/2 states: “No convention or Standing Order requires a member (present within the Chamber or lobbies) who fails to vote should cast the vote one way or the other. The Standing Order allowing the Speaker to correct the voting list does not apply in this sort of situation.” Speaker’s ruling 63/5 states: “The voting lists as given to the Speaker by the tellers are absolute evidence of the members who have voted.” It would appear to me that as a minimum those members who allowed their names to be recorded as having voted and did so by proxy should seek leave for the voting record to be amended. That would appear to me to be the minimum. The other possibility is that if there are such votes then under the Standing Orders those votes ought to be conducted again. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Deputy Leader of the House) 
: 
 I think perhaps the pertinent point is that where the situation was clear as it was with the vote we have just retaken then the appropriate action was taken. I am not aware of any other vote that is affected similarly. For my part as one of the parties affected by that last vote—I had just arrived in the Chamber so it was in fact the first vote that had taken place while I was present—I am certainly not aware of any other specific case affected. However the matter has clearly been drawn to the attention of members. Having had that reminder I am sure it will assist them to vote in an appropriate manner in future votes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank members for that and particularly Mr Prebble for raising the matter. Members will be in no doubt now if they were before—and I am not saying they were; but if they were—that if they are present in the Chamber or the lobbies they must vote. They absolutely must vote. 
The results of the votes have been declared and if members had points to raise they should have raised them before that. At this point all votes have been declared and accepted. I have no evidence that any of those votes contravenes any of our procedures. But in respect of the last vote and the revote on it I believe that was correctly done. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That Part 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart  
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Part 2 agreed to. 
Schedules 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: The amendments in the name of Richard Worth set out Supplementary Order Paper 314 to omit schedules 1 2 2A and 2B are out of order as each is a direct negation of a question. They signal the member’s intention to vote against those schedules. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 1 agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 2 agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2A be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington (P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan  
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 2A agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 2B be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Simich (P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton  
Gosche (P) 
Mark(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Okeroa 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pettis 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Mackey M 
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor (P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 2B agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Supplementary Order Paper 314 sets out a number of amendments to schedule 3 all in the name of Richard Worth. The first second third fourth fifth seventh ninth and tenth amendments to Part 1 of schedule 3 and the second and third amendments to Part 2 of schedule 3 are out of order as they are inconsistent with previous decisions of the committee. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to schedule 3 be agreed to. 
to omit from Part 1 the item relating to the Care of Children Act 2004. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to 
. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Jones 
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos (P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from Part 1 the item relating to the Privacy Act 1993. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Jones 
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
The question was put that the following amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to schedule 3 be agreed to: 
to omit from Part 2 the item relating to the Domestic Violence (Public Registers) Regulations 1998. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 46 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Tisch (P) 
Alexander(P) 
English(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Turner(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Franks(P) 
Power 
Wang(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Prebble 
Williamson(P) 
Brown (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Coddington  
McNair 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart (P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Perry (P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Jones 
Noes 74 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker 
Ewen-Street  
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mark(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C(P) 
Goudie(P) 
McCully(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hartley(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui 
Donald(P) 
Hughes 
Robertson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis 
Amendment not agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That schedule 3 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker  
Ewen-Street 
Locke(P) 
Simich(P) 
Barnett(P) 
Fairbrother(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley(P) 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick(P) 
Hawkins 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Coddington  
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen(P) 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel(P) 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Tisch(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Peters J (P) 
Turner(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Ryall(P) 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Scott(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Copeland  
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
O'Connor(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Jones  
Schedule 3 agreed to. 
Clauses 1 and 2 
Sitting suspended from 6.05 p.m. to 7 p.m. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Parliament is in urgency to debate the Civil Union Bill which should be called the “Gay Marriage Bill”. The first point I wish to make is why on earth it is necessary to pass such radical social legislation in a mad rush before Christmas. Why is it that Parliament is in urgency to deal with something that has no urgency about it at all except that the Government wants to get controversial legislation off the agenda before the election next year? 
The second point I wish to make is that this bill is all about gay marriage. No amount of sophistry and no amount of spin doctoring will change the fact that this bill is about gay marriage. We know that because that is what Tim Barnett said in a gay magazine. We know it is what the Prime Minister said when she said how proud she was that her Government was passing gay marriage legislation. But when it comes to the mainstream media the Government immediately changes its tune. There will be 1043 law changes affecting every one of the major statutes whether it be on education health superannuation or whatever else it is on and in every single one of those statutes civil union and marriage are to be identical. Civil union is only an exercise in spin that has a different name from marriage and the Government is being quite dishonest with the public of New Zealand in that regard. 
The third point I take objection to is that we are not debating the companion bill simultaneously with this legislation. Why is it that that bill has been put on hold while this one is being rushed through? The reality is that we have the building frame without any of the cladding. We do not know the substance of what is behind this bill and I simply cannot believe that members are voting for something without knowing the detail of it. 
I particularly want to focus on why on earth this Parliament wants to create a new institution called civil union that is absolutely identical to marriage in every single statutory reference. That is what the Government proposes and I ask why that is. It is proposed in this bill that civil union will be available to men and women just like a marriage. I have yet to hear in these hours of debate why it is that we need to create a new name. Some members have said that marriage has religious connotations. Well it probably still will after this. We are lawmakers. There is no reference to religion at all in the Marriage Act. What is there about the institution of marriage and its heritage that makes Government members want to dump on it? Why do we have to create a new name? We do not do that in other areas. Do we create a new name and a whole lot of other statutes for other things that are identical? It is a ridiculous— 
Darren Hughes 
: But we are protecting marriage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who does the member for Otaki think he is fooling? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: His colleagues. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He may be fooling his colleagues but he certainly is not fooling the people of New Zealand. He is not fooling the thousands and thousands of people who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee which have been completely ignored. What is really going on here is an exercise whereby the Government wants to change culture by statute and that is not done. Yes marriage is an evolving institution. It has been changing for hundreds of years and it will continue to change. But it is not for this Parliament to pretend that it can completely change it create a new beastie called a civil union and then give that exactly the same legal elements as there are for a marriage. 
This Government is undermining marriage. This bill should be defeated. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 On 16 May this year the people of Switzerland were confronted with a referendum on a proposal to reduce income taxes. The people voted the proposal down. I kid members not; they voted against a proposal to reduce taxes. The Swiss are used to referenda. Indeed their system is built upon binding referenda a system that formally goes back to 1848 when the Swiss federation was being established. So fiercely independent were the cantons that they would not agree to federation unless all powers rested with the cantons unless specifically stated in the constitution and more important the constitution could not be changed unless changes were agreed to by the people. Indeed a double majority is required: a referendum has to be won by a majority of the people and a majority of the cantons. But the Swiss also have what is known as legislative or facultative referenda. Any law that is passed by the Swiss Parliament has to go to a referendum if 50000 people sign a petition within 90 days of the law being passed. Karl Buerkli the father of the legislative referenda that started in 1874 said: “The people will find the right way to social freedom because they feel themselves its daily sorrows and the need for change.” 
Earlier this year I did a week’s study tour examining the way the Swiss use the referenda. One of the people I met was Yves Christen a Mayor of the city of Vevey for 16 years and an ex-Speaker of the Swiss Parliament. When talking of referenda he said time and time again: “The people are very clever.” What he meant was that if we trust them the people will get it right. 
That brings me to my amendment the effect of which will be that this law will not come into effect presuming the bill is passed unless it passes a referendum at the next election. It is my contention that this bill to create civil unions changes the nature of our society. Therefore it should go to a national referendum. The people should have the opportunity to have their consciences recorded on this issue. I can understand why some people do not want to have a referendum. I can understand that it would enable another round of blatant bigotry from some quarters. However I am convinced that a referendum would uncover the true face of New Zealand and that it is a face of tolerance and acceptance of difference. The sad feature of the passage of this bill is that the true face of our people is not being exposed. I have faith in the people of New Zealand and in their sense of fairness. The reason that no MP who opposes this bill has put up a bill to recriminalise homosexuality is that MPs know that there is no such call from the community. 
I respect the consciences of those who oppose this bill. In most cases it is not hostility towards homosexuality that drives their actions. However it would seem to me that all those who oppose the bill would logically vote for the referendum clause because if they genuinely believe the bill should not become law then that is the only way to prevent such an outcome. So I call upon Taito Phillip Field John Tamihere Clayton Cosgrove and Damien O’Connor to vote for my amendment. If they are to be true to their consciences they will vote for the referendum clause and if they do so it will be won. The ultimate power lies in their hands and it is their voting on the referendum clause that will determine the result. The question is: are they being whipped over this vote? If they are being whipped then it makes a mockery of the conscience vote. 
I come back to the statement by Buerkli: “The people will find the right way to social freedom because they feel themselves its daily sorrows and the need for change.” I have been overwhelmed by the response to my speech yesterday from a number of people who have recounted similar family experiences to mine. I say to them and to this Committee: have faith in the people. If we put our faith in the people they will get it right. I believe that they will support this legislation and that that will put the matter to rest forever more. 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I look forward to finding out what some of the Labour Government members who were referred to by the Hon Brian Donnelly will be doing on this bill and what their attitude will be to a referendum provision. A referendum is an important part of New Zealand First policy. It is a policy that one can say is direct democracy with a conscience vote attached to it. A referendum allows the people of New Zealand to express their own consciences on an issue. That conscience vote is not limited solely to members of Parliament. It is a conscience vote that allows all the people of New Zealand to say whether they support a particular issue. I was surprised I suppose—but knowing the Swiss I should not have been—that the Swiss voted against a reduction in taxes. I understand that they took the view that things like roading and suchlike must come first before taxes are reduced and that is the sort of thing one would expect from a responsible society. Just as the people of Switzerland are responsible I am sure that the people of New Zealand would be responsible too in a referendum. 
I ask the Labour Government why it does not allow this issue to go to a referendum. There has been a lot of criticism of the Republicans from the trendy lefty liberals of New Zealand and of the world—all those people who would have liked to see the Democrat candidate become the President of the United States. But who gave the people of the United States the opportunity to vote on issues in a referendum at the last United States general election? It was the Republicans. The Republicans had issues such as this on the voting paper at the last election. The Republicans the so-called right-wing conservative off-this-planet rednecked type of people gave the people of the United States the opportunity to vote on whether gay marriages should be legal. After the Republicans did that the people of the United States spoke and their answer was given. Whatever the answer was is irrelevant; the fact is that the United States had a referendum. If all the trendy lefties who have their fun from abusing the Republicans want to continue to do so they should at least give credit to the Republicans for having a referendum and follow the Republicans in having one. 
But no it seems that this Labour Government does not want to support a referendum although I have yet to hear from the members of the Labour Government who have been valiant and brave and who have exercised their consciences—I should not use the words “crossed the floor”—and voted from time to time against this bill. Full credit goes to them all—to the likes of John Tamihere and Clayton Cosgrove for example not to mention another member or two who may be in the Chamber at this present time. 
It is extremely important that the people of New Zealand be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum. We can rant and rave about whether this bill is a gay marriage bill a close-to-gay marriage bill or is not a gay marriage bill—whatever it may be. However I am sure that if a properly run referendum was held—and New Zealand First has a policy of direct democracy—by the time we had that referendum the people of New Zealand would be fully informed as to what they were voting for. Of course the best time to have it and the most economic time to have it would be at a general election. It is not unusual to have a referendum at a general election. The one that most of us who were having their first drink illegally in the 1960s will remember was at the 1967 general election when the drinking hours were extended from 6 o’clock. It was like when President Kennedy was killed—where one was in 1967 when the referendum took place for the extension of the drinking hours from 6 p.m. to 10 o’clock and to 11 o’clock on Saturdays. What a bold move that was. Yet that was put to a referendum and New Zealanders made a decision. 
Pansy Wong 
: 9 October 1967. 
DAIL JONES 
: I am surprised Pansy Wong can remember that because I am sure that she was not even born then. 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I start off by registering my respect for the very consistent position of New Zealand First in support of the concept of holding referenda on issues such as this. That does contrast somewhat with the position of some other parties and individuals in this Parliament who suddenly have leapt on the bandwagon of referenda because they think that is another way to try to defeat this legislation. I thank New Zealand First and its speakers to date on this issue for that. 
As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee which dealt with the Civil Union Bill I can report that we looked at the issue of holding a referendum very seriously. In doing that we looked at a number of criteria because we are a nation with some history—a bit of a ragged history—of having referenda. The first issue is the legal responsibility of the Government. Back in 1993 this Parliament made a series of crucial decisions to add a number of grounds to our Human Rights Act. I think on looking back that those decisions were of constitutional importance. Our Human Rights Act sits absolutely crucially side by side with our electoral legislation our Bill of Rights legislation and other key laws as being New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements. That decision was made and although the enforcement of that law on the Government was delayed for a few years—and the previous National Government tried to delay it a bit longer—it is now actually taking effect. So that law applies to the whole nation—to the voluntary sector the private sector and also the Government. Once that decision was made the duty of the Government was to implement it. It does not mean to say that we will have same-sex marriage. What it does mean to say is that since the State provides marriage as effectively a service to the people of the country it should provide a form of legal recognition to people who are unable to marry. So I think that the first key point in terms of referenda is that the State has the legal responsibility to address the issues that this bill addresses. Any referendum should have taken place at the time that the grounds of the Human Rights Act were extended. 
Second the point of minority rights and majority votes is very real since this legislation has an effect only on those people who are likely to access it. The question is then who should be voting in a referendum? If there is any legislation that will benefit a certain group of people in heterosexual de facto or same-sex relationships who is to decide who should vote in a referendum on it? The third point is that when we look around the world where about 20 or 25 countries have agreed on similar legislation—and many of those are countries with a much more significant tradition of referenda than we have—we see not one of those countries has held a referendum on the issue of introducing civil unions. Fourth on the issue of the mandate for this legislation three parties in this Parliament—namely Labour the Progressives and the Greens—indicated at the last election that they would support the introduction of such legislation to the House and allow a free vote for their MPs. They considered it was a mandate for the debate that is happening this evening and over these days. Fifth there was the issue of public opinion. A series of public opinion polls have shown quite significant majority support for the legislation. 
Lastly and maybe this is the most fundamental point I think that if we are to move to a situation of holding regular referenda there is a debate to be had about what kind of model of democracy we operate in this country. I looked through the lobbying I have received on controversial issues over the last 2 years and saw that people have called for referenda on about 20 issues as varied as tolls on roads and the docking of dogs’ tails. Where do we draw the line between what is a significant issue and what is a small issue? I tell Mr Connell that some people do want referenda on those issues because to them they are big issues. So the last point I want to make is that if we go to a situation of having regular referenda on a whole range of issues that some regard as controversial but as a new model of democracy we need to redesign our current parliamentary system in order to fit that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 That was the weakest defence I have ever heard for denying the people of this country a say in their own affairs on a very major and substantial institution in our society. This referendum clause that my colleague is putting up is to ensure there is a check on this bill by the people of this country who are most affected by it. It is democratic it will establish a consensus and if the bill is right the people of New Zealand will say so. If the bill is correct the people of this country will say so. If the bill is needed they will say so. If the bill is desired the people of this country will say so—not a few temporarily empowered politicians who are shortly to go from this place. 
The Labour Party has the whip out on this issue and that is very clear. Labour will oppose the use of a referendum vote on this bill. That is very clear. My question and the question New Zealand First members are asking—all 13 of us—is: why is that? Is it because Labour members were sent here to make decisions and to govern as has been claimed by a number of members in the Chamber today? They said: “I was sent here to make decisions and to govern.” I want those members to cast their minds back to the Labour Government of 1984 to 1990. That Government sold off billions and billions of dollars worth of this country’s assets. All those members on the back benches then some of whom are now on the front benches sat there and did nothing. They would not even raise a finger to the catastrophe that was happening to the Labour Party and to our nation. Labour went out in 1990 with the biggest defeat ever. 
What do those members now say about the shambles of the State asset sales process that happened in those years 1984 to 1990? Do they still argue: “I’m sent here to govern. I am still here to make decisions.”? Well they thought that back then in 1984 too. They sold billions of dollars worth of assets—the people’s assets. They flogged off the taxpayers’ legacy to the highest bidder and particularly to the bidder that was foreign. If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept the people’s will then why cannot they? If we in New Zealand First are prepared to accept what the people say in a vote then why cannot Labour? If we in New Zealand First can believe in the people’s voice then why cannot the Labour Party also believe in the people’s voice as it will be expressed in a referendum? If we in New Zealand First respect the people’s wish then why cannot Labour on this matter? 
I will tell members why the Labour Party has the whip out on this issue. It is because it knows that it would not win unless it brought in the jackboot of a whip’s decision in the party. That is what is going on here. The reason why Mr Barnett and his cohorts do not want a referendum across this nation amongst every adult voter is that he knows he would not win. So in short he believes in hijacking democracy. He claimed that we cannot have this referendum process until we get used to it. It reminds me of when I was at primary school and a lady sent a note saying: “Henry can’t go into the water until he learns to swim.” It is ridiculous; it is pathetic. We should expect that this Parliament would be able to produce members who are smarter than that. But the member puts up this lousy excuse and says: “But who would vote?”. He literally argues that only homosexuals should have the vote. In short he says that no other New Zealander can see the issue the way they do. Is that right? There are many members of this House who do see the issue in a much more sympathetic way than he does and they do not believe they should not be entitled to have a vote. 
There is no free vote for Labour in respect of this referendum and that is dramatically wrong. To say that this issue is too big for the people is to portray a myth to portray a sham to engage in an exercise in deceit and to engage in an exercise in duplicity. It is that simple. I say to Mr Barnett that if you believe you are right why not trust the New Zealand people? What makes you smarter than them? What makes your perception more correct than theirs? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is bringing me into the debate. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Oh no this is about a referendum. If you do not understand that then I am sorry but you should read what my colleague has written by way of an amendment. He says to consult the people of this country. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The member is referring to the Chair. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: Well I am addressing the Chair but I will look where I feel like it with the greatest respect. I will have a lot less interruption from you with the greatest respect. I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Why did you interrupt me? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The reality is that the member referred to the Chair on three occasions. I let the first two go without interruption. But I had to pull the member up on the third occasion. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: You said that I had to address the Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: There is a longstanding convention that members cannot use the word “you” because it brings the Chair into the debate. I thank the member for raising that. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: I meant that enemy of democracy on the Government benches not you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. 
BRIAN CONNELL (National—Rakaia) 
: 
 I have been waiting to get a call for some time—in fact ever since Mr Peck took a call and challenged members of the Committee to identify those who are homosexual. I said that Mr Barnett is homosexual. Mr Barnett has acknowledged that fact—it is a matter of public record. But Mr Peck said that that is the only way we can know—because someone tells us. That is not so. I went to  
Express 
 magazine and on the first page I opened there are a couple of men engaged in a homosexual act. So I would say that they are probably homosexual and that is how we can tell. I say to Mr Peck that there is one answer to his question. 
The second question that I want to refer to concerns something Mr Barnett said. He came to the Chamber and read letters to the Committee from all the nasty people who have said nasty things about the people who want this law. I say to Mr Barnett that he has the advantage over me because the letters the hate mail I have received are so vile that I cannot read them to the Committee. They have come from people whom the member says do not engage in hate or hate language. I think that Mr Barnett should have a hard think about that. I think there are people on both sides of this debate who engage in hate mail. I do not think he should single out one side of the debate unfairly. 
Let us turn to the referendum issue. Mr Peters took a call. I can say to him that there are at least 13 plus one at least members in this Chamber whom I now know support the call for a binding referendum. I feel that there is deep hypocrisy amongst those who argue against a binding referendum particularly members of the Green Party. Those members have said that they absolutely will not touch this yet they are in this House by virtue of a binding referendum. They might want to reflect on that; so might Mr Barnett. 
Let me address some of the other issues that were raised. Mr Barnett’s defence as to why there should not be a binding referendum is weak because he is trying to defend the indefensible. He knows that when all the smoke is cleared away the reason this Government will not put this issue to the vote and let the general public have a say on it is that it would be lost and lost resoundingly. That is why he is objecting to it. He knows that when the question is put as to whether the New Zealand public want gay marriage they will say no. He knows that if this issue goes out into the public domain the spin doctors of the Labour Government will not be able to disguise the ultimate truth of what this legislation is all about and that is gay marriage. That is why he will not allow this question to be put into the public domain. He and his Government would lose the ability to manipulate the argument. They know that in this Chamber they can get the result they want. 
The idea of a conscience vote to the Labour Party is laughable. That member knows it I know it and members of this Chamber know it. What is even worse is that he knows that the general public of this country know it as well. So it is a bit of a sham that he is putting forward. Part of the reason that people are arguing for civil unions is that people should have the opportunity to protect their long-term loving relationships. What Government members do is roll out Chris Carter as the example of a long stable relationship. Mr Carter is in a long stable relationship but he is the exception to the rule. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I have listened very closely to the arguments put forward by the opposition. I have the Catholic bishops’ statement. I have it here. I have read it very closely. The arguments of the opposition and the bishops seem to boil down to three basic viewpoints: firstly that the passage of this legislation—the recognition of civil unions—will erode the special and unique position of marriage and the family in our society; secondly that it will create a slippery slope that will undermine our social and moral values and lead to social decay in our society; and thirdly that it will undermine the well-being and stability of society. 
I believe that as legislators we have an obligation to test these claims to see whether they have a rational basis or are just irrational fears. New Zealand is in the fortunate position of being able to look at other societies that have introduced registered same-sex partnerships. That has been the law in Sweden for 20 years in Denmark for 15 years and in Norway since 1993. If the arguments of the opponents are correct then it is inevitable that we would see in those societies evidence of the undermining of the stability of society evidence of the erosion of the special and unique position of marriage and the family and evidence of social decay. The statistics show that marriage far from being eroded and undermined has actually remained stable in those societies. Indeed in places like Denmark the number of marriages has gone up by a small amount. In 1990 it was 6.1 marriages per 1000 residents. Now it is 6.8 marriages per 1000 residents. So the statistics are very clear: there has been no erosion of the institution of marriage in those societies and no evidence of social and moral decay. Keith Locke has just visited Sweden. He reported to us that very thankfully he was not able to see any evidence of social or moral decay. [ 
Interruption 
] He said Sweden is a robust—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I remind members on the cross benches of the convention that they do not interject from there because it affects the microphone. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: Thank you for your protection Mr Chair. Sweden is a robust healthy stable tolerant and inclusive democracy. It is the sort of society that New Zealand should be seeking to emulate. The same can be said of Denmark a society of approximately 4 million people. It is a role model for us in terms of social justice tolerance and inclusiveness. 
I have spoken not only to Keith Locke but to other people who have relatives in or have visited Denmark and Norway and Sweden in particular over recent years. They all say that there is not one shred of evidence in those societies that any of the claims made by the opponents of this bill are a reality. So I challenge the opponents of this bill to produce some shred of evidence tonight for their claims that there has been an undermining of the special and unique position of marriage and the family in any one of those three societies or a decline and undermining of social and moral standards or an erosion of well-being and stability. I challenge other speakers tonight to produce one shred of evidence. The truth is that there is no evidence and that leads us to believe that our community has irrational fears about this bill but those fears have no rational basis. If any member can produce some evidence I for one will listen with great interest and respect. 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 If Ms Kedgley thinks that locking pastors up in Sweden simply because they quote passages from the Bible against homosexuality is not something that shows a decay in that society then obviously we have quite a different point of view. As my colleague says tolerance goes out the window in societies that are opening up the whole issue of so-called human rights. 
I also want to respond to Tim Barnett’s comments because they cannot be left unchallenged. Although he and I have a healthy respect for each other’s positions I feel that he made a couple of statements that were quite wrong. First he indicated there was clear public support for this bill in polls that have been taken. Well all the polls I have seen have had support fluctuating between 40 and 60 percent and the results of the last two surveys we have available are similar. One survey conducted showed variance of 45 or 46 percent which hardly gives a clear majority for support and a survey last week by a television programme showed 76 percent opposition to this bill. I do not know where the member gets his figures from but it seems he is making a very selective choice. 
Secondly the member asked: if we were to put these sorts of issues to a referendum how would we decide what was a significant issue? I can tell him one thing—this issue is a significant issue. It seems to me that when we have issues that are as fundamental as the nature of marriage in our society and when there is such a strong public division on the issue there is a classic example of the need for a referendum. 
In this bill we are looking at the undermining of what has been the four cornerstones of marriage in society—namely that marriage is confined to two people that it is confined to people who have reached a certain age that it is confined to people who do not have relationships that are close in terms of blood ties and that it is confined to a man and a woman. In this bill we want to destroy one of those foundations without getting society’s view on the matter. We risk undermining the foundations of marriage as a result and that is a clear example where a referendum is necessary in terms of coming up with a mandate in order to make those changes. 
In fact I think that on any conscience issue this Parliament debates where there is less than 60 percent support the issue should automatically be put to a referendum. If we cannot get 60 percent support it demonstrates a clear division in society so that the issue should be decided on a much broader basis than simply by 120 members in the House. We need to give a greater say to the public. They are clamouring for it. We need to show them that we think there are certain issues in this country that ought to be decided beyond merely those issues that relate to the electoral system and beyond merely the 3-yearly vote. I think a referendum is an appropriate measure to do that. 
The lesson that we should learn through that procedure is that it is important we hear the concerns of minority groups within our society and most particularly the concerns where those minority groups represent interests that we may disagree with personally. What we need to do is to listen then to distinguish the genuine concerns that we ought to address from what are simply requests for wants rather than needs—wants that start undermining the fabric of our society. 
If we had addressed earlier the needs of the homosexual community in terms of issues such as next-of-kin rights then a measure such as the one Richard Worth promoted would have been the way to go. I am disappointed that even at this late stage we have not adopted that suggestion because that does genuinely address the needs we have been told about. 
It does not address the wants of the homosexual community who want same-sex relationships to be seen to be equivalent to opposite-sex relationships even though opposite-sex relationships have been a fundamental institution in terms of marriage and the rearing of children and continue to be so in our society. That demand for those wants which goes way beyond real needs is what a large proportion of this Committee does not accept as being legitimate. 
GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa) 
: 
 I cannot abide the kind of double standard I heard from the member who just resumed his seat. One becomes quite browbeaten from all sides of the Chamber I guess in this debate but I think I have been involved in one way or the other with fighting for not only my rights but hopefully for others’ human rights. To hear these things trivialised and to be treated as though there is some other being or person superior to some of us in society—where those who call for one law for all do not actually believe that in this particular instance—is most disturbing. It is most disturbing to hear that and that is all I wanted to say. 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 Two weeks ago I was invited back to Hong Kong to take part in a public seminar as part of the 50th anniversary celebration programme of my high-profile high school. In that speech I stated I was an above average student when I applied myself but most of the time I did not achieve to that standard during my time at high school. It was no surprise that principals and teachers struggled to recall this now high-profile alumni because it was my coming to New Zealand that brought about that change. New Zealand gives me the space the opportunity and the motivation to realise my potential. My pride as a member of the Asian ethnic minority community the determination to earn my rights as a New Zealander and the frustration of having to justify those rights stir up the dormant competitiveness inside me. 
I work relentlessly to reinforce the positive image of New Zealanders as fair-minded people who believe in giving others a fair go. Ours is a country where minorities will have space and rights as long as the rights of the majority are not eroded. Passing the Civil Union Bill does not take away any rights from a man and a woman who choose to commit to each other under the Marriage Act and who are legally entitled to address each other as husband and wife. Same-gender couples and heterosexual couples are given a separate legal framework when they choose to commit to each other. 
If this bill had made amendments to the Marriage Act to make room for same-gender couples I would not have supported it. It is important to accept that we do not live in a perfect world from every person’s perspective. Some will argue that this is a compromise and we do need to compromise in a society of collective membership. In my judgment that compromise means that minorities should be given space as long as the majority’s rights are not eroded. 
This Parliament in 1987 passed legislation to decriminalise homosexuality. I remember the bitter arguments and the images of hatred and frustration of those times. The legislation was passed and many now would say that of course it is not right to discriminate against gay members—which was not the case in 1987. Parliamentarians need to take into consideration the status quo preference of the majority against the need to bring about enlightened attitudes so that minorities in our society can go about their business without the shame and fear of being different. 
I would like to read an extract from one of the very many emails that I like many members of Parliament have received: “It’s not easy to discover that you are gay. Our society makes it very clear what it thinks of gay people. We all hear the terrible jokes the hurtful stereotypes and the wrong ideas that circulate about gay people. It is no wonder that one might choose to hide one’s gay feelings from others. One might even be tempted to hide them from oneself.” 
I have not supported the lowering of the drinking age prostitution reform or the voluntary euthanasia bill which hardly puts me in the liberal camp but I do support adults who choose to make a sincere commitment to each other. The passage of the Civil Union Bill will not undermine marriage. In the last 2 years we have seen statistics proving that the number of marriages has increased. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What about a referendum? 
PANSY WONG 
: If New Zealand First members want to take another call they are welcome to do that. In my speech I have stated very clearly that parliamentarians are elected here to make the hard decisions and to take into consideration not only the views of the majority who prefer the status quo but also the views of the minority. 
BRENT CATCHPOLE (NZ First) 
: 
 I have listened to this debate for many hours now and I have heard arguments from both sides of the Chamber. Much of it has been very emotional and some of it has been very personal but really what have we been listening to? We have heard one side stating that they want equality for people yet they turn round and promote the complete opposite. On the other side of the argument people are concerned that civil union will wreck marriage and then we hear them stating that it is not about marriage. But this bill is all about and is nothing more than marriage for gays. 
Let us look at what the promoters of this bill are trying to say. They are trying to promote that it will reduce the prejudice against them and provide them with all sorts of other legal and technical issues. None of that will change. This bill will not change any of those things. People will not find that prejudice suddenly melts away overnight. It will not happen under this bill at all. They will not have any additional rights to adopt children. Those rights already exist. People in de facto relationships can adopt children through the normal adoption processes now so what is this bill really about? It is nothing more than marriage for gay people. 
It is such an emotional issue so why will this Government not allow the people of this country to decide such an emotional and important issue? New Zealand First has offered a binding referendum to decide this issue but this Government is frightened of that. Why is it frightened? What is it frightened of? Why does the Government not give the people the opportunity to show that they care and that they have minds of their own? This Government does not believe that the people of New Zealand have minds of their own. It wants to protect them from making this decision. Well the people of New Zealand want to make the decision themselves and a binding referendum is the way for them to do that. 
We have heard such emotional statements from both sides that it is obvious members of Parliament do not have the ability to be objective about this issue. They cannot make the decision for the majority of people. Most deny the polling that has been going on with regard to this issue. 
 Some will deny that there is a huge majority against the bill and some will claim that there is a huge majority for it. If that is the case then let us ask the people in a referendum to make their decision. There is no point in polling people between elections to see who will govern the country. It is the poll held at election time that really decides who will govern the country so let the people of New Zealand decide in a referendum at the next election whether gay marriage is to be the norm and whether this legislation is wanted by the majority of people. If it is allowed to go to the public and if they decide to go with it well and good. That would be the decision of the people not of the emotional members of this House. So it should be allowed to go to a referendum. 
Why is the Government so frightened of that? Why will it not allow the people to decide? Is it because the Government knows that the people have minds of their own and that they know how to make decisions on these sorts of things? We have heard the excuse that we should not allow the people to make decisions through referenda because they are not used to them. As the Rt Hon Winston Peters said the only way to learn how to swim is to get into the water. So why cannot the Government allow the people of New Zealand to use a referendum to make their own decisions—to decide what they want to have in place? 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I apologise to members and to those listening to the debate for the quality of my voice; it is not that I have talked myself out. But I will do the best I can to make a final speech on this very important debate. 
We are addressing the Civil Union Bill. I believe that a better title would be “Civil Relationship Bill” as provided for in Richard Worth’s amendment which I voted for. It is a shame that the bill is not to be entitled “Civil Relationship Bill” because I believe that most members would be supportive of legislation that addresses the issues that were raised as the very basis of the bill—the issues that we have always called the “next-of-kin rights” which in some instances may be denied some same-sex couples in this country. 
We have discovered through this process particularly as a result of some of the excellent submissions that were made to the select committee and one in particular from the Maxim Institute—which took the lid off the next-of-kin rights because the institute went to many hospitals and places around New Zealand to find out exactly what was happening in regard to next-of-kin rights—that in very few cases at all was real discrimination taking place and that in most cases the rights of same-sex couples are being addressed. It is really not a case of bad law but of bad policy operating in many places that results in some instances of injustice occurring. 
We have always said that we are supportive of addressing those issues because they are issues of rights. As I said in my first speech on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I believe that those rights apply not just to couples who have sexual relationships but also to other relationships in society in which people take care of each other without having a sexual relationship. We could have addressed their need for a recognition of that relationship and of next-of-kin rights in the amendment promoted by Richard Worth. That would have been covered by the “Civil Relationship Bill” concept. It is regrettable because the Committee is divided and the vote on the third reading will be very close. 
Again many who have opposed the legislation will be called homophobic and not concerned about homosexual people which is not the truth. We are simply concerned about the erosion of marriage and the desire for those couples to gain acceptance from Parliament for their relationships by having a civil union that is seen as the same as marriage in all but name. 
I will also address the issue regarding the amendments to clause 2 calling for a referendum before the legislation becomes law. I personally would support that it ought to go to a referendum in New Zealand and as my colleague said earlier I believe that matters dealt with by conscience in this House should go to a referendum when the House does not have at least a 60 percent majority. If we are not clear on the matter in this place we should submit it to the people of New Zealand so they can have a say on the issue. 
Personally Gordon Copeland and I have been involved in a citizens initiated referendum to deal with the fiasco from the Prostitution Reform Bill of a year ago which passed because of one abstention by Ashraf Choudhary a man who could not make up his mind— 
Peter Brown 
: No you’ve just had the Leader of the Opposition say he voted the wrong way. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I think most of the Muslim community think he voted the wrong way. He is certainly voting the wrong way this time as well. That bill ought not to have passed into law on the basis of one abstention. That is a very good example of something that should have gone to a referendum instead of us having to go around the country to gather the necessary signatures in order to force a referendum on the issue. 
I have just returned from the Muslim world. I was in Doha last week at a meeting on the Doha Declaration dealing with family values and issues that has been signed up to by 139 countries. Throughout the debate members have been quoting examples of the European nations that have been so forward in their thinking as to have gay marriage and civil unions. I tell members that they are still a very small minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of nations are opposed to seeing civil unions or gay marriage established in their nations. There were 139 signatory countries to the Doha Declaration. It was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly on Monday this week and has been adopted as a UN declaration. It is very interesting to read that declaration with its specific and clear statements about protecting marriage and upholding the natural family in our countries. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in the debate on clauses 1 and 2. I want to respond to one of the comments made by the previous speaker about hospitals being rung to ask them what their policy is when dealing with same-sex couples and if in fact they would deny a person in a same-sex couple access to his or her partner. Of course they do not do that and that was reiterated by the Nurses Organisation at the Justice and Electoral Committee. But the difficulty arises when there is some kind of disagreement between the family and the partner of a person in hospital who is unconscious or has been in an accident and is not in position to sign a next-of-kin form. 
Larry Baldock 
: And this doesn’t deal with it. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: How many times do I have to say this? If someone is in a civil union it is a legal recognised relationship under the law. When same-sex couples came to the committee they said that they know there are no next-of-kin laws. Mr Smith will remember that because to his credit he was there for all the submissions unlike many members of the committee who have come to the Chamber and pretended that they were there for all of them. What same-sex couples said was that if they were in a civil union it would be a legal recognised relationship and they could take their civil union certificate with them if need be and like a marriage certificate it would be evidence that the relationship was recognised under the law. That is how civil unions would be helpful for the next-of-kin issue in relation to people in hospital. The representatives from the Nurses Organisation themselves said that it would be very helpful and that it is not fair that nurses have to make the call between the disapproving family and the partner. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: So we’re doing it for the nurses now? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: We are doing it for the nurses. I feel that there are many areas that the bill helps and if we can make it easier— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What’s wrong with a referendum? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I will talk about the referendum soon I say to Mr Peters. If we can we should make it easier for hospital staff to implement their policy. I think same-sex couples should be given the right to choose to go into one of these relationships. Of course not all of them will and there will continue to be problems but if they have a choice we have fair legislation. 
Now just to keep Mr Peters happy I will talk about the issue of a referendum. I do not support referenda on issues like this. I will tell members why. If we had had a referendum on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill 18 years ago it would not have passed. How many people can honestly say that that law has changed their lives—that their lives are worse because 18 years ago that Act was passed? I wish we could have referenda on issues that actually affect people’s lives. I wish we had had a referendum on the student loan scheme. I would not have been old enough to vote but I would have felt much better if a referendum had been held on the student loan scheme and we could have had a say. That scheme affects my life. 
I am not opposed to the idea of referenda. However I think MPs are here to make decisions. Referenda are costly so they should be used sparingly. I do not have any problem with the concept of referenda but referenda on issues like this are the reason that in a country like Switzerland a progressive nation women did not get the vote until 1971. In 1956 a referendum was held in Switzerland and it failed. Women did not get the vote in 1956 in Switzerland because of the referendum system. It would be the same if a referendum was held here on an issue like this. I believe that referenda are useful when everyone voting on them is affected by what he or she is voting on. If people are affected by what they are voting on then a referendum may be a very useful tool if Parliament is unable to make up its mind or deems an issue serious enough to take to the people of this country. But we are paid to come here and do a job. In 20 years’ time no one will even blink at the way his or her life has changed because the Civil Union Bill passed into law. 
We could spend an awful lot of money on a referendum—and there would be posturing by a lot of people—but if we are serious about referenda why are we not putting them up for issues that really affect the lives of New Zealanders? Will it be New Zealand First that decides what we have referenda on? Will it decide the important issues? Who will decide? To be fair to New Zealand First I have to say that it is the one party in this Parliament that has a policy on referenda. I guarantee that if the opponents of this bill had the numbers to see this bill fail they would not be calling for a referendum. National Party members would not be calling for a referendum if they had the numbers to see this bill fail. I have no doubt about that. I do not believe that United Future as well would be calling for a referendum if it had the numbers to see this bill fail. At least I am consistent. I would not support a referendum even if we did not have the numbers to pass this bill into law because I do not believe that this is the right issue for a referendum. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Richard Worth. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry to interrupt the speaker before he has had a chance to start. The Committee spent the best part of 4 hours this afternoon voting on amendments moved by Richard Worth. I am afraid that my records are not quite up to date. Can you confirm Mr Chairman that this is the first call that Mr Worth has taken in the Committee stage of the Civil Union Bill? I think it is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. The member knows that that is not a point of order and that it can actually lead to disorder. I ask the member to desist. 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What a cheap shot that was from a cheap member! Like it or not this is quite serious legislation and when a young junior Government whip makes comments of that calibre I suggest that the thinking public can express real reservation as to where Labour is going on this bill. 
National members have made it clear from the outset that we have significant problems with this legislation. I have spoken about the strong opposition to it but in the context of what I will talk about in this speech I will put that aside. However this bill is being rushed through under urgency and there are quite clearly better ways of achieving the objective. 
This part of the debate is really concerned with two issues: the commencement date and also the title. I will talk for a moment about the title of the Civil Union Bill. In some respects it is the title and the implications behind it that caused 91 percent of the people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee to say that they did not want this bill. Ninety-one percent of 6000 people is a significant number in any setting of people seeking to be heard in submissions before a select committee. I was saddened by the comments of the previous speaker who clearly is not interested in and is not prepared to take any account at all of those who have heartfelt and sincere opposition to this proposal. 
I have had the opportunity—despite what the young Government whip has said—of contributing in a reasonably substantial way to this legislation. Not only have I had the opportunity of speaking in the Committee stage but also I have had the opportunity of moving a number of amendments to provide a realistic and viable alternative. I want for a moment to highlight the concerns of those who say that this is a bad title. 
Maybe on the numbers this legislation will pass. It may have to be revisited after a change of Government in 2005. But I want to talk about the fact that we are looking at an institution that is the equivalent—almost the verisimilitude—of marriage. Why is that? Well there are ceremonial requirements in respect of civil union that are the same as those of marriage. That is the first point. The second point is that there are dissolution arrangements that are wholly similar to marriage. The 2-year rule is an illustration of that. The third thing is that civil union and marriage are both registered under the same legislation—the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. It is a great pity that this legislation—and this Government will be judged by this—is in effect whatever others will say a commitment to a same-sex marriage regime. 
I will draw an analogy very quickly with what other countries are doing. In Australia the Federal Government at the Senate level has said that it does not want any part of this. In the United States presidential election a series of referenda in 11 states overwhelmingly indicated that there should be no commitment to no encouragement of same-sex marriage. On Friday we will see a very interesting thing I think when the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference from the Federal Government looks at that same issue. On Friday at 1 p.m. local time we will receive a very clear indication that New Zealand is moving against the trend. It is moving against the trend in a way that is so typical of this Government. If it is not: “Let’s ban smoking.” and if it is not: “Let’s encourage prostitution.” it is all about “Why not same-sex marriage?”. 
I think it is quite reasonable for Christian and non-Christian groups across a wide spectrum of the community to say that no this is not the Government they want and that this kind of political correctness should not characterise New Zealand society in its contemporary setting. I express a degree of sadness for those members who have not really seen the light and have steamed ahead under the directive of the Prime Minister to produce an outcome we should not have. 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the title and commencement clauses of the Civil Union Bill. It is interesting to follow Richard Worth. I was pleased finally to hear a contribution from him in the Committee stage particularly after we voted for so many hours on amendments that were proposed by him—not that I am necessarily saying they were drafted written or thought of by him but they were certainly lodged by him on the floor of the Chamber earlier today. One of the things Mr Worth tried to say was that somehow Labour Party members were not exercising a conscience on this bill. I think that is a particularly low thing to say. It is true that the majority of Labour members of Parliament are voting in favour of this bill. A number are not; about six of our colleagues have said they will not support the bill just as in the National Party the majority oppose the bill apart from three members who support it. So in the two major parties there is a majority view one way with a small group doing the opposite of their colleagues. We do not make a big point about that. We just recognise that that is a matter of conscience so I do not think that is a fair thing for him to say. 
In terms of the title the bill is called the Civil Union Bill. However we have not spent much time in Committee talking about civil unions. Opponents of the bill have spent most of the time talking about marriage and about the great damage that they believe this bill causes to marriage. I do not share that view at all. The Government was very clear that it would protect marriage and that it would be available only to men and women in heterosexual relationships because of some of the very specific concerns that members have been raising in this debate about the institution of marriage. The Government went away and looked at creating a new institution of civil union that would be open not just to heterosexual de facto couples but also to same-sex couples. This has not been done as some great attack on marriage yet a number of MPs have only been able to talk about marriage as though somehow this bill is an amendment to the Marriage Act. I ask members to reflect on that because we are protecting marriage and keeping it in its current form but we are saying that given there are 320000 New Zealanders in loving and committed relationships that are not marriages—either because they have chosen for them not to be or because the law prohibits them from being recognised in law—we are creating a new institution and calling it civil union. 
I welcome the title of the bill. I wish members would focus on that because it does not hurt anybody. There is not one married member of Parliament in this Chamber whose marriage is in anyway demeaned degraded or abused by the fact that we will allow other New Zealanders in committed relationships to have the law recognise their relationships. Some members of Parliament are saying they would rather have gay couples treated as legal strangers because somehow that enhances their own marriages. It has nothing to do with it at all. People’s relationships are highly individual and unique. If a married couple lives in a street next door to another married couple and their neighbours’ marriage breaks up—if there is an affair or a divorce—it does not demean their own marriage. We do not say that because we both had marriages and that because next door’s marriage busted up my marriage has somehow been degraded. I think people are forgetting what relationships are. I do not think it is fair that we should say there should be no legal avenue at all for people who are gay or who are in de facto relationships and who choose not to marry. I cannot see how anybody is made a better person or how anyone’s relationship is really better because they have denied their neighbour—or someone who lives four or five streets away or in another city town or village—the right to have their relationship recognised. Nobody has been able to explain that at all. 
In terms of the commencement clause although I respect the amendment Brian Donnelly is putting forward because it is consistent with New Zealand First’s policy on referendum I will not be voting for his amendment. In defence of Brian Donnelly I think the way that some members of Parliament have hijacked the New Zealand First policy as a way of trying to hide their own bankrupt positions on this bill is outrageous. Because they see the bill coming to a very close stage they say “Hang on our arguments have not worked so how can we try to delay it? I know we’ll jump on to the New Zealand First bandwagon.” I think that is wrong. The person who is most wrong in that regard is the Leader of the Opposition because he cast a personal vote in favour of the Prostitution Reform Bill which went through Parliament with a much tighter margin than this bill looks likely to do and did not at any point call for a referendum. In fact the Leader of the Opposition voted for the Prostitution Reform Bill and never had this great call of conscience in terms of a referendum. But New Zealand First by contrast has always done that. 
I was very disappointed that another leader in this Chamber has called for a referendum which came as a surprise and that was the leader of the Maori Party Tariana Turia. She now I understand believes that important matters ought to be decided for minorities by referendum. That is not her view of course on the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand. That is not her view on whether New Zealand should have Maori seats. She does not want to put those issues to the popular vote because she will not expose minorities to that. I think positions have to be consistent. I support the bill. 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate and I do so not from a pious moral position I might add but because I am a beneficiary of a binding referendum which was taken some time ago. While I am not permitted to label members in this Chamber with the “h” word I ought to say that in terms of the “h” word some people’s actions within this Chamber ought to be called into question. However I will comment on a number of points made by some members of this Chamber during the debate so far. 
The first question I ask is why we are in urgency. What is it about this very issue that demands that we have to deal with it under urgency? I have heard some people in this Chamber say that it is a matter of intolerance of one part of our society towards another group. If that is the case then I want to talk about homosexual law reform which took place in the 1980s where the introduction of that legislation was based on the same argument—the intolerance of one part of our community towards another. After that legislation—and it is almost 20 years ago—the intolerance is still there. I do not believe for one minute that this bill will remove the intolerance that exists in this society. The enactment of this legislation will not in any way remove the intolerance that people have been talking about. 
Earlier today a member mentioned that one of her offspring had been given a rough time by friends because of the member’s opposition to the bill. I do not know whether that was the reason why that particular member has since changed her view and declared her support for the bill but I say to that member that if those are the sorts of friends her offspring has then they are not really friends. 
I also noted that that member concluded by saying that this legislation is for young people. Therein I believe lies the crux of the concerns that are coming from what may be seen to be a pious moral position in terms of the future of young people. I say that the urgency given this bill will not address that matter in any way. At the end of the day it is a matter of attitude and the changing of people’s attitudes cannot be achieved by mere legislation. I will suggest to members of this House that in 15 or 20 years’ time the attitude that some people hold towards the intent of this bill will not have changed. If there is to be a change in this area then the people need to be given the opportunity to participate in the debate. 
New Zealand First as a consequence of its policy of supporting binding referenda addresses that issue. A referendum provides that opportunity. For those members in the Chamber who are denying that opportunity it can be only because they fear that the people of New Zealand do not have the capabilities to make the right decisions concerning them. 
There are a number of members on the Government’s side who oppose the bill but do not support the idea of a binding referendum. I say to the members from Mangere Waimakariri West Coast - Tasman and from Tamaki Makaurau that if they are true to their beliefs in opposing this bill then they ought to consider supporting New Zealand First’s stance in calling for a referendum. I want to say also to the member for Tamaki Makaurau that if he wants to make a koha and if he understands the real meaning of koha this is an opportunity to support binding referenda. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 This is the second speech on this bill that I have given and I am pleased to do so. When I took my first call earlier today I focused a lot on the statement that somebody had quoted that marriage was a “breeding unit” and my objection to that term particularly as someone who was as I detailed brought up in the Catholic Church. Because I believe that relationships are not confined to having children otherwise why would we allow 70-year-olds to marry. If marriage is about those sorts of issues why— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Because they are lonely that’s why. 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS 
: Yes. Marriage is not the only model of a loving relationship. I do not want to use my own words because many people who have written to us in the last few days have said this much better. One person wrote: “Love is still love at the end of the day and this is extremely important and does not become any less strong because the couple are lesbian or gay.” 
Others have been saying that people are worried about the erosion that this may cause to their concept of marriage. “I agree” says one writer “with many opponents to this bill who are worried about the erosion of the two-parent family. But the experience of my siblings who are all adopted and who came through from abuse and abandonment remind me that no institution marriage or civil union alone ensures the quality of a family’s care for its members.” 
Another person wrote: “Civil unions do not affect marriage. If we are addressing the sanctity of marriage we should be looking at shotgun weddings reality media weddings green card weddings extramarital affairs and divorce rates.” So members should not come in here and quote the sanctity of marriage and say that that is the only way relationships can go. 
Why do I support this bill? I support it because it gives people some options some choice. Some people here keep saying that these are only options for the rainbow community. That is not so. I have two letters on this. One says: “My partner and I have a beautiful baby girl”—they are a male and a female for those members who are going to get excited—“and we are a family despite what the Church and some of you would say. However in the current legislative climate we either have to be married or sign powers of attorney just to find out how one of us is going in hospital. The Civil Union Bill will help us with that.” 
Another person writes: “There have been many assertions by opponents of the bill that people in heterosexual relationships who do not wish to marry in a church can opt out of that by marriage in a civil ceremony. But that does not address the fundamental issue which is important to many modern people. We do not wish to be married with all of that institution’s traditional assumptions. We have formed a better more equal sort of relationship than that modelled by our parents’ generation with all its failings.” 
These heterosexual couples are beginning to say: “Civil union is an option for us.” 
Now I come to something that for me is really important. The thing that really moves me in this kaupapa is that I have seen during this debate and over the years since we have been fighting this issue absolute damage done to the gay and lesbian community. I have known that as a school principal and I have seen the hurt that has come into kids’ eyes. If people deny this particular legislation going through they will send the message: “You in the gay and lesbian community are not fit to form partnerships that are recognised by the State.” They will send the message to adolescents who already have an extremely high suicide rate in the gay community: “You are not worth being recognised.” That is not something I want to stand up for or have responsibility for. I want us to recognise and nurture all those people in their loving relationships and to have those relationships recognised by the State. 
I have a lovely quote here from a cleric: “Kia ora. I write to strongly support the passing of the Civil Union Bill. As a long-time educator and a Presbyterian minister of people in the caring professions and having been a chaplain in a psychiatric hospital I have had the opportunity to see the hurt and damage that has been caused by prejudice against homosexuals and the range of restrictions placed on them by a society only beginning to show loving and humanity in its collective actions and legislative enactments. It was a wonderful move made in the passing of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill almost two decades ago. Please ensure that we continue to move towards a healthy society.” 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 I ask members whether any of them recall these dates. In March 1949 there was a referendum on off-course betting and the gaming Act. People say that New Zealanders do not understand referenda and cannot handle them—cannot get their heads around them. That is interesting. That referendum asked two questions and the country voted 68 percent in favour of off-course betting. In August 1949 there was another referendum on compulsory military training. How controversial that was in those days! And the country still got its head around it with 77.9 percent of the population voting “Yes” to compulsory military training. 
On 23 September 1967 people were asked a question regarding the term of Parliament—3 years or 4 years. Sixty-eight percent of them got their heads around the question and said “3 years”. In October 1990 there was another referendum on the term of Parliament—the same thing again—and 69 percent confirmed that they wanted it to be 3 years. On 19 September 1992 a very complex two-part referendum asked firstly whether people wished to retain first past the post or whether they wished to change the voting system. Eighty-four percent of them got their heads around the complexities of that question and said they wanted to change the voting system. 
The second question asked which voting system they preferred and gave a range of choices—supplementary-member representation system single transferable vote MMP and preferential voting. And what did we get? We got 70.5 percent working their way through the complexities of the arguments and making a decision. They said they wanted MMP. 
That was followed up with another referendum between MMP and first past the post. The country was bombarded with paper bags on heads and all sorts of strange advertisements. People still got their heads around the question and 53.9 percent said they wanted MMP which is the system we have today. 
In September 1997 on the compulsory retirement savings scheme 91.8 percent got their heads around the complexities of the referendum New Zealand First put up—again establishing our very long-held belief in the use of referenda—and rejected the compulsory savings scheme. 
In December 1995 there was a referendum on whether the number of professional firefighters employed in the full-time New Zealand service should be reduced. Labour campaigned on championed and hailed this referendum as something they could beat the National Party up with. And what did we get? We got 87.8 percent getting their heads around that complex issue and saying: “Don’t reduce the number of firefighters.” 
In 1999 a referendum asked whether the House of Representatives should be reduced from 120 members to 99. Mrs Robertson received 81.5 percent support from the population who said: “Too right. We don’t like the voting system and now we just want you to know we don’t like having too many MPS; get the numbers down.” Did this place listen? No. It has a fine track record of not listening in recent years. 
On 27 November 1999 we had another referendum the Withers referendum dealing with longer and harsher penalties and 91.8 percent of the people clearly got their heads around that question and said they wanted tougher and longer sentences. 
So what is the problem? Here we have a situation where Labour is standing up and saying: “We won. You lost. Eat that! We’re going to make the decisions. We are the ones who know better.” But do they know better? Did National know better when Jenny Shipley declared we were living in a café society and everybody should be able to buy alcohol. That was just after she launched the Hero Parade in Auckland I think. The result was that Parliament lowered the drinking age. 
What is the result now? People said it was wrong. They said they wanted a choice. Now there has been an 87.4 percent increase in hospitalisation of children aged 14 to 19 because of the drinking problem. The medical experts the medical professionals—even Matt Robson who voted to lower the drinking age now says he was wrong and Parliament was wrong. He is out there campaigning for a member’s bill that he has put together copying mine. Parliament does not know better. This should be a referendum issue. 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to the title clause—because that is what we are supposed to be speaking to—I recall the title put forward by Larry Baldock: “Civil Relationships Act”. I suggest that the title could actually be “Anything Goes Act”. If one sees the premise of the Civil Union Bill as being based on human rights and loving relationships one has to ask oneself why then one would not support polygamy and having multiple partners a husband having multiple wives or a wife having multiple husbands or even support incestuous relationships. After all people could say that it is their human right and their loving relationship. 
Darren Hughes said that people’s relationships are unique and Marian Hobbs talked about options and choice. That is what they see as the premise of this bill so why should the title not be “Anything Goes”? Where do we set the benchmark for society? At what point do we say that this is a fundamental pillar of society and is what we need to nurture rather than go to an “anything goes” premise based on human rights and loving relationships? 
People have been asking why we in this place are doing this so quickly—why we are not going to public referendum. I fully support Brian Donnelly’s call for a public referendum—absolutely unequivocally. I could not believe it when I heard Tim Barnett who is really the driving force behind this bill actually say he did not believe that the rest of New Zealand other than those who were affected by this bill should have the right to have a say in it. That is my understanding of what he said and I have heard that said also by others in this Parliament. I absolutely deplore that. Every voting New Zealander should have an opportunity to decide what they see as the parameter for New Zealand society and that is what this is about. 
I will tell members why we are in urgency. I have a number of papers here and one of them the homosexual newspaper  
Express 
 points out that when Tim Barnett was invited to give his vision for the future he said: “We will not have a queer-friendly Government forever.” He also said: “I believe there is a real urgency to completing the equal rights agenda.” That is what was said—“We will not have a queer-friendly Government forever.” I find that terminology offensive and I am surprised that the paper itself did not find it offensive. We can look at others of the many bits of paper I have here. There is the MSN news poll in which 1337 were in support of the bill and 4441 were opposed to it. 
It is no wonder the Government did not want a referendum because the New Zealand public would have resoundingly and completely dumped this bill. The Government brought the bill to this Committee of the whole House under urgency and we know the reason: it wants to pass it while it has the opportunity because that opportunity will never come again. We have to wonder about what this Government really does because another of the pieces of information that came across my desk stated that on 29 September 2003 Ms Dalziel while still a Minister announced that new immigration partnership rules were to take immediate effect. That meant that marriage relationships were for the first time to be treated as exact equivalents to de facto heterosexual and same-sex partnerships in terms of applications for permanent resident status in New Zealand. So they have already started. 
I refer now to something Ian Wishart said because we do not know what we have until it has gone. When a fundamental change like this is made it is a fundamental change to society and we have to think really carefully about what we do. Therefore another reason why a referendum is needed is so the whole of society can say what it thinks the potential effects will be. We do not know what will be in place in 20 years’ time or what the effects will be. There will be enormous amounts of effects. Ian Wishart asks whether we really believe that humanity has suddenly become so enlightened. As members heard from a previous speaker society’s answer to that would be a resounding no. Do we believe that a select group of New Zealand parliamentarians know better than the collective human wisdom of New Zealand society? The answer would have to be absolutely and categorically no. 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 I am supporting the strike-down referendum proposal in this part of the debate the title debate for two reasons: first it might give the population a chance to find out what the bill really does which is almost nothing except to direct a pantomime ceremony and second it takes at face value the claims of its supporters. We have heard them tonight. In fact we have heard them all day arguing that this bill is about respecting our fellow New Zealanders. This bill is about not denigrating people’s lifestyle choices or if they are not choices the way they are born. 
If this bill is passed by this House which is not hugely respected it will not carry the respect of the community. The respect of the community would come if the bill is passed because New Zealanders say they wanted to confer that endorsement. I think there might be a lot of New Zealanders who would do that. I suspect if that had been a requirement the bill would be quite different. It would actually do what claimants said it will do—remove disabilities and recognise that people who choose to live together in a sharing and stable committed relationship do deserve to be able to opt in to the rights presently enjoyed by married couples. 
But this bill does not do anything of that. It does not require any kind of stable long-term commitment to a shared life. In that respect that is because marriage has been gutted and that is because the State now says that marriage is just one of the few contracts that is absolutely unenforceable. It is one of the few contracts where the State will not even allow spouses to contract about damages until each has spent about $500 or $600 on lawyers and even then the State will overturn it. 
So this bill and the debate about it are about different visions of morality or respect. I think that if New Zealanders had a chance to vote the leader writers in the papers might actually do a bit more research and see what it really is about. But what has driven me to speak yet again is the contempt for morality that I have seen from the bill’s proponents. I say that not because I share the concern that this bill will make any difference whatsoever to my marriage or to anyone else’s marriage—I think marriage now has been emptied of content for a very long time—but because of what the Labour Party claims here. Morality and culture matter enormously and we do not really know how they are created and what erodes them. Unless one is racist one does not think that a 38-year life expectancy in Botswana Rhodesia Zimbabwe South Africa or any other African country is a result of Blacks being somehow inferior or more susceptible. It is very clear that it is because the cultural norms in those countries have contributed to corruption to an inability to govern and to a huge spread of AIDS—people’s sexual morality also contributes. Promiscuity and prostitution as a norm actually make for Africa’s condemnation. It is serious. It is a dreadful price to pay to have that kind of outcome. There are millions of orphans. That situation comes because of culture and we do not know why it is so much more severe in Africa than elsewhere. We do know that there ought to be a bit of humility about what contributes to cultural norms how they are built and how they get destroyed. 
Here on my right are the Greens who are terrified of a little bit of contamination with GE. That is basically superstitious because science does not support them. Yet these people with Sue Kedgley beside me were scoffing at what she saw was superstition on the part of Christians who fear the impact of this bill. As I said I do not share that fear but I believe fervently that they have every right to continue to express it. What I do fear is the agenda that lies behind this bill which is: “When we get this bill passed we will make it impossible for people to express those views.” That is what lies behind this bill. This is the hate-speech thing; this is the Human Rights Act thing. Once this bill is through a church will not be able to refuse to hire out its hall for one of those ceremonies. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Absolute rubbish! 
STEPHEN FRANKS 
: The member should read the Human Rights Act. When I asked to have an assurance that if this bill went through we would have some protection from that kind of outcome Labour Party members said no. 
BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to speak to clause 1 and to support Brian Donnelly’s amendment to have a referendum on civil unions in New Zealand. At the moment our form of democracy consists of placing ticks in boxes only once every 3 years. 
Hon Dr Michael Cullen 
: Two ticks. 
BARBARA STEWART 
: We get to place two ticks only once every 3 years. We have the right of free speech but most of the time nobody is listening. Most of the time most people are left either muttering to themselves or complaining to talkback radio. Often we even hear politicians on talkback radio. On this issue of civil unions the voice of ordinary New Zealanders is being lost. Like all MPs I have received hundreds of emails and letters showing that the people of New Zealand definitely have some thoughts on this issue. A binding referendum would ensure that the voice of New Zealanders is heard on this issue. 
Right throughout this entire debate we have heard many different statistics on whether civil unions should proceed. Who knows which is the correct set of statistics? Are both sets of statistics right? Who really knows? Why not let the people of New Zealand choose? After all members are here in Parliament basically to serve the people. We need to and we can trust the people and rely on their goodwill and common sense. I know that the statistics on previous referendums that my colleague Ron Mark read out earlier show that the people do understand what referendums are all about. 
Ron Mark 
: Labour thinks they are thick! 
BARBARA STEWART 
: New Zealanders are definitely not thick; they do know what this issue is about. We are saying that democracy is far too important to be left solely to politicians. We say that it is far better to rely on the common sense of ordinary people to make decisions on some of the issues that are facing New Zealand. Why? Because politicians cannot be relied on to do the right thing and to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority. When people elect a Government to safeguard their society culture liberty and future the elected representatives have an obligation to listen to them. Democracy is totally lost when that elected Government and its officials fail to hear the voice of the people. That is what the Government is doing in this particular instance. The major benefit of binding citizens initiated referenda would be to end a political system whereby the inner circle of various Governments—as my colleague pointed out earlier there have been many Governments that have initiated referenda—comes up with an agenda and the Government’s MPs are forced basically to fall into line. 
We know that citizens initiated referenda are not new. They are very common in Switzerland where the people have voted on 300 issues over the past 100 years and Brian Donnelly talked about that earlier. To give an example of citizens initiated referenda there Switzerland recently had a referendum on spending money to upgrade the roading system and it failed because the voters over there wanted their hospitals upgraded first. When the hospitals were completed they then voted to upgrade the roads. So referenda can be used by a Government to seek endorsement of or a veto on issues or other policy matters. 
I would say that the people of New Zealand would definitely know what they were voting for when it came to this particular referendum. It is more than just a moral issue. We believe that New Zealanders can make a decision so let them have a voice on this particular issue. The bottom line is that opportunities to let them have a voice are often missed because all of us politicians are talking when really we should be listening. We have heard from Ron Mark that the people of New Zealand can participate successfully in referenda. They have done so in the past so why not ask them to participate in a referendum on this particular issue? It can be done. The people of New Zealand are not thick. They need to have a say. This bill did not need to be pushed through in urgency. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement date of this very important and controversial bill. 
In this debate I think there has been very little discussion on the evolution over historical time—and I am looking at Dr Cullen as I say this—of this bill. I accept that the argument that this bill is being hurried through is not true; in New Zealand parliamentary terms there has been a fair amount of discussion about this bill. But in historical evolutionary terms the genesis of this bill is very short. 
I heard Nandor Tanczos say the other night on television—and I have to be careful to quote him right—“The principle is simple. It’s about whether people should have equal civil rights.” But surely in an ideal world the principle is about freedom of choice; surely liberal philosophy would say that as much freedom as possible is ideal provided that it does no harm; and surely the freedom to be able to shape the framework of one’s own relationship is the ideal. Here in New Zealand we have a common law that can underpin that. 
Last night I had spoken along those lines in this Chamber and much to my surprise I had a variety of emails with one from none other than a former Labour Party member Judy Keall who said: “Isn’t the logical conclusion of your argument that the Marriage Act is not needed in New Zealand?”. I say to Judy Keall that important enduring institutions such as marriage will survive through the centuries irrespective of legislation. 
The point that I really want to make is this. Over the last 60 years we have seen huge changes in civil rights and human rights for same-gender relationships. I welcome them and I celebrate them but— 
Darren Hughes 
: But you are voting against it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Not at all. I say once again that biologically there are huge differences between men and women. As a former gynaecologist I certainly have had a little bit of experience of that very point. Biologically there are huge differences between same-sex unions and heterosexual unions. To my mind all should be celebrated. There is no question about it. 
We should think of Oscar Wilde. How would he be in modern-day New Zealand? He would be able to be as creative as he wanted. He would have that wonderful freedom. He would be able to shape the sort of relationship that he wanted to have and to know that it was underpinned by common law. He would be able to celebrate that relationship in any way he wanted—unshackled by some sort of civil union that the Labour Government would want him to have. Surely we have in this country at present the ideal situation and the Oscar Wildes of 60 years ago would think it was the ultimate ideal situation for them. 
It seems to me that the Labour Government—and many of the European countries it quotes—has followed the herd instinct and ignored the opportunity of freedom that the present situation in fact allows people. In historical terms the institution of marriage has evolved enormously over the years and it has had a considerable amount of reshaping. But in historical terms the longstanding prejudices against gays and lesbians in the legislative sense have been unshackled in a relatively short period of time. 
I believe that this bill is absolutely short-sighted. This bill actually curtails hard-won freedoms for same-sex couples. I have heard from my legal colleagues that the human rights issues such as the hospital-visiting rights that Moana Mackey talked about can easily be sorted out through simple—not complicated—legal remedies that provide what the Labour Government wants. 
GORDON COPELAND (United Future) 
: 
 In the history of this Parliament I wonder whether there has ever been such a misnomer of a bill to the extent that this title is. This bill is called the Civil Union Bill but right now in New Zealand we all know that we have civil disunion. This country is divided very very deeply indeed according to whichever poll one likes to look at. I will take one that is relatively recent: the TV3 poll of 1000 people where 46 percent were in favour of this bill and 45 percent were against. 
In the months ahead I think this bill will reshape the political landscape of this country. I say to the Labour Government that I am quite sure from the contacts I have that it has lost touch with its own support base. Let me tell the Committee about a recent conversation I had with a member of a blue-collar workers union of this country. He told me that he and his fellow unionists—thousands of them—have voted Labour for generations. It has never crossed their minds to vote for anybody else because they revere the memory of people like Norman Kirk and Michael Joseph Savage and so on and so forth. But he went on to say to me that they are now thinking the unthinkable and that next year they will no longer vote for the Labour Party. He gave me the reason: the Labour Party’s moral agenda. It is not just civil unions but the whole agenda: legalised prostitution resistance to parental notification of young women under 16 years who are pregnant and seek an abortion and assisted human reproduction. Civil unions are just the last straw. It has been a cumulative process that has led them now to say they will no longer vote for the Labour Party. 
What sorts of people are in those kinds of unions? They are heterosexual males of every race and colour most of them are married and most of them have kids. In other words they are simply decent mainstream people who regard Ken Douglas as an icon and they have traditionally voted for the Labour Party. Labelling such people as homophobic causes deep resentment. I have spoken on civil union from literally Auckland to Gore to hundreds of people at public meetings. At none of those meetings has any one on any occasion ever said to me that he or she dislikes or hates homosexuals—not one. Yet in this Committee we are told that anybody who opposes this bill is homophobic. If one says: “I’m not homophobic.” the response is: “Oh yes you are homophobic.” If one persists: “No I’m not homophobic.” the response is: “Oh yes I insist you are homophobic.” That I think is a symbol simply of paranoia. Maybe it is paranoia that we are seeing very often when people rush in so quickly to label other people with such a term—which means for those who do not know that the person dislikes or hates gays. 
That is ridiculous nonsense. These are not people who are against other people. They are not people who are against gays or lesbians or this group or that group or bisexuals. These are people who are for something: for their marriages for their children and for their grandchildren. They are concerned about what their children and their grandchildren will be taught in the future if we pass this bill because what will be taught to those children will be changed overnight. We are talking about a deep change in our culture and unless we teach our culture and our morals to the next generation and beyond we will eventually see Western civilisation as we know it undermined and this measure is a step in that direction. These people are concerned that here we are again taking out another moral signpost so that our young people are left in greater confusion than they have ever been in terms of what is right and what is wrong in terms of how to live life and in terms of what is wisdom and what is folly. 
I say to the Labour Party that these people have given up on it. Members will see I am sure that that is fulfilled in the days and the months ahead and they will see it especially in the results of the 2005 election because I have it on assurance that a lot of these people will vote for an alternative to the Labour Party for the first time in their lives. 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
: 
 I want to take the call in part to say to the member who preceded me that although I respect his views deeply I have been here for 23 years and I do not know how many times I have heard the death of the Labour Party pronounced during that period. We leave Lazarus for dead in terms of our ability to rise from the grave. I have seen parties come and go in this House. Social Credit—where is it now? The Alliance—where is it now? I have a feeling that one or two parties here now will be gone at some point in the future. 
The ACT party will almost certainly be gone at the next election. I want to say one word to Mr Franks: if he is so keen on referenda will it be the ACT party’s policy at the next election that any State asset sale will be subject to a referendum? Oh no no of course not! We could not do that! We could not trust the people to make that kind of decision; that would be far too dangerous! 
I want to come back to something I touched on this morning and that is the difference between ecclesiastical law and secular law—the law of the Church and the law of the State. Nothing in this bill detracts from the law of the Church. Marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. If Parliament legislates for a civil union marriage remains a sacrament for the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church continues to draw a distinction between the significance of that sacrament and any other marriage performed under any other form of even Church or secular law. That does not change. But for the State it is important to regularise relationships across the board. We started doing that in 1754 in English law and we carried on in 1836 in terms of extending marriage outside the closed circle of the Church of England and the Quakers. They were the only people who could marry under English law before 1836. That is actually not that long ago in terms of the evolution of our society. 
I have heard this stuff about the collapse of Western civilisation before. I think probably Mr Copeland is one of those who thinks the Roman Empire collapsed because of moral decay. It is a bit strange that it collapsed after it was converted to Christianity and after the collapse of republican libertarianism in the 1st century BC and after all the stuff about lions versus Christians in the Coliseum had long since gone. It was after all of that that the Roman Empire collapsed when it was a Christian civilisation; that is when it collapsed—the barbarians overwhelmed it. 
I want to know how recognising the deep emotional feelings of two people who do not wish to go through or cannot go through a formal marriage ceremony affects Mr Copeland’s marriage or my marriage. How does the fact that both of my daughters live in non-married permanent relationships with extremely nice young men affect the meaning of the sacrament of marriage to Mr Copeland as a practising Roman Catholic? I was raised as a sort of Anglican and for 5 years a real one. I myself am an atheist and have been so since I was at secondary school. If one goes to Christ’s College it is the obvious thing to be actually at the end of the day! I do not understand how anybody can feel that his or her feelings and beliefs are in any way entrenched upon by this bill. 
In terms of what Dr Hutchison raised I have to say that sometimes when one has been too close to an issue for too long one can actually fail to see its significance. I have a feeling that is his problem about sexual differences to put it as bluntly as I can. I fail to see how recognition of civil unions can affect what he said. He said that people’s liberties stop at the point where they entrench upon others but recognising a civil union of two gay people does not entrench upon the meaning that marriage whether through the church or elsewhere has for other people. If we do not recognise two gay people or two heterosexual people who wish to live together in a civil union but do not wish to go through a marriage ceremony particularly an ecclesiastical marriage ceremony we are saying to them that the State does not recognise their relationship as having some permanence or some meaning. Why do we do that because the State in fact is neutral between those things? 
I make a final point and I relate it back to a referendum. A referendum on these issues is dangerous because these issues are about the rights of minorities not about the rights of majorities. I say to those with deep religious beliefs that if one starts making the freedom of one’s religion dependent upon the will of transitory majorities one is treading on very very dangerous grounds indeed. I say to Mr Copeland a practising Catholic that he should investigate the long long history of Catholic oppression within even our society. It was incomprehensible for a long period of time that a practising Roman Catholic could be Prime Minister of New Zealand. Now it is taken for granted that that is a possibility. 
CRAIG McNAIR (NZ First) 
: 
 If the Government is so sure the people of New Zealand want this bill it should put the issue to a binding referendum and stop being a Government for a minority. That is what New Zealand First believes and personally I say: “Stop being a Government for a minority within a minority.” Why is the Government not governing for the people and listening to what they want? I feel very strongly that this Government does not want to put this issue to a referendum because it thinks it would lose. But my colleague Brian Donnelly disagrees with me and I strongly disagree with him. I think that people on my side of the argument—those against the bill—would win this referendum. But at the end of the day at least Brian Donnelly and I will be willing to go into a polling booth and the people will have their say. One side will win and the other will lose but the matter will be put to rest. That is what I say as a member of New Zealand First who strongly and vehemently disagrees with my colleague as far as this issue is concerned. That is what I say about which way the vote will swing. 
But let us have that opportunity so the people of New Zealand can decide this issue instead of the Government voting on behalf of its own self-interest. The Government should stop pushing its own agenda and listen to the people for once. The arrogance ones hears from members opposite is quite amazing. They argue against a referendum. They are incredibly arrogant believing they know best. We hear that viewpoint speech in and speech out. “We know best. The people don’t know.” The Deputy Prime Minister who is also the Minister of Finance said that it was too dangerous to put this issue to the people. I am sure that Government members think the people of New Zealand are too thick. But they are not. They are very capable of making up their minds on issues like this. 
We hear a Government Minister and members of Parliament slagging the US administration and the people of that country. Mark Peck member for Invercargill basically said the people of the US were intolerant because they voted down the referendum put up by 11 state Governments to allow gay marriage and civil unions. They voted it down and this Labour Government wonders why it does not have a closer relationship with the United States when it knows the degree of sentiment within those benches. 
I oppose the bill but I do not mind this issue being put to a referendum because the people will get what they deserve either way. Whichever way they vote they will get what they deserve. The history books tell us that the nation of Israel told their God that they knew best. They wanted their own king to rule them rather than God Himself. In the end God gave the people what they wanted and the people paid for it later on. They had wars and the king who followed failed them miserably in many many ways. 
I say we should put this issue to a referendum because I believe that the people would vote it down. The Government does not want a referendum because it believes that the people would vote it down. The Government should rename the bill: “We don’t care about what you think because we will do what we want and push through our lefty liberal legislative agenda no matter what you say bill”. That is a long title but it is true. That is what this Government wants to do. It does not care what the people of New Zealand think. It just wants to ram through its lefty liberal agenda and it does not give a stuff. My view on the issue is the opposite of most Government members but I say this issue should be put to a referendum. 
STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) 
: 
 I am pleased to get an opportunity to take a call because I believe that I am hearing extreme views in the Chamber tonight and I want to put a moderate and probably rather boring view on the Civil Union Bill. It certainly has not excited the passions in my community and I am an electorate MP who sees people every day. There is nothing too salacious or sexy in my life story. I do not have a Pandora’s box I can open that the media will love. However I have a view of the world that I think is entirely balanced and valid. I come from a family that showed us love and generous inclusive and tolerant values of the world and they were also open to intelligent and free debate. So I am probably a moderate liberal one might say. 
When listening to the debate I found it interesting to hear people say that there are no next-of-kin rights that we need to give protections via the law in this Civil Union Bill. I can assure members that in my years of experience as a nurse I saw many homosexual couples denied the rights to have a say as next of kin at the time of death and I found those situations incredibly sad. I am glad to see that those provisions will be protected in this bill. I also had a personal experience when my husband and I went to put a notice in the paper about the birth of our first son. The advertisement should have read: “To Steve and John a son”. We were thrilled about it but the paper would not publish it because it thought that we were a couple of homosexuals. We had to show our wedding certificate to prove that we were not before that notice went into the paper. 
I come from a strong human rights framework where the world looks at eliminating discrimination especially against minority groups. I remind the Committee that in 1994 and 1999 we were signatories to a couple of major covenants that were committed to recognising the diversity of the family developing policies and laws that better supported the family contributing to its stability and taking into account the plurality of all its forms. National when in Government signed up to the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 and 1999. Other conventions and protocols also protect the rights of children under United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which the National Government signed. It said that children should not be discriminated against on the basis of their parents’ status. We have forgotten that we have signed global covenants and global human rights laws that protect those values and here we are today relitigating this. 
I am hearing arguments about values that frankly make me sick. As if those who come from a Christian basis have a greater ownership of values than those of us who are agnostic but who care and are inclusive and respectful! They have no greater cache on values because they have God on their side. We do not need to be told. We have a brain. I do not need to be told how to vote on these issues by leadership in the Catholic Church or the Destiny Church. My point of view comes from life experience. I am tired of the hypocrisy in this House. I have heard MPs speak out against this bill and I know what they are hiding behind. We know that they themselves need to look at their own hearts their own lives and their own values about how they treat their wives partners or look at their own sexuality. 
New Zealand and the world looks at us as MPs and thinks: “Look at yourselves honestly and live an honest life and reflect it in the way you vote in this House.” It is incredibly sad when we see and hear sexual and lewd innuendo in the House. We saw it yesterday when Mr Brown was worried about his microphone. When people have to revert to such lewdness I always wonder what they are hiding. As individuals what are we hiding? What are we worried about? This bill is absolutely a victimless bill. There is no victim. There is no harm when two individuals of same sex want to live a life that hurts nobody else in society. I say give it to them. I am proud of this bill. I will put up with the rubbish in my community from an Anglican canon who said that we spell disaster in all directions. I do not mind. 
JUDY TURNER (United Future) 
: 
 As I rise tonight to make what will probably be my last contribution on this bill I want to take the time to thank the literally hundreds and hundreds of New Zealanders who have been concerned enough about this issue on both sides of the argument to take the time to send me their opinions on this matter. I noticed earlier in the debate that Mr Barnett took great delight in reading out some of the more extreme and negative sides to the argument that I have been taking. I guess I too could have played that game if I had wanted to. I also have received from those supporting the bill some rather appalling emails that I am sure even he would be ashamed of. I will not disgrace the Committee by reading excerpts from them. However I do want to take time to honour the people who have written to me and who do not get the chance to vote on this legislation that has been given to us. 
I would like to read a very significant article that was sent to me which has influenced my thinking. It is entitled “Civil Unions—A Question of Justice”. It states: “In many respects the debate about according legal recognition to homosexual relationships be it through civil unions or marriage licences is an argument about justice. It is unjust some say to limit marriage’s legal benefits to one man and one woman who commit themselves to a lifelong exclusive relationship. In modern times the word ‘discrimination’ is often used as a synonym for injustice. On one level this echoes the fact that every human being by virtue of being human enjoys equal dignity. They are thus entitled to be treated in certain ways. But does equal dignity automatically translate into equal treatment? The short answer is not always. There is for example nothing discriminatory about declining to issue a gun licence to a child. This does not mean that the child is not owed equal respect as a person but the child may be legitimately denied a shooting licence because a child person is different from an adult person with regard to guns. In this example discrimination is not unjust. It is in fact an act of just discrimination. 
“When we apply the same logic to the question of extending marriage’s legal benefits to homosexual couples which is what civil unions do we begin to see that denying such benefits is not unjust. Those claiming that homosexuals should be allowed to enter civil unions often argue that a homosexual couple’s relationship can be equal to a man and woman’s relationship. They maintain that such elements such as the duration of the relationship between two persons its sexual character its mutual dependence its exclusiveness may be as present in a homosexual couple’s relationship as in a heterosexual relationship. These elements do not however constitute the basic reasons why marriage is accorded legal privileges. They are rather the necessary preconditions for the feature that makes marriage different from other restricted dependent sexual and lasting relationships. This element is the distinct function of procreating and raising children.” 
Tonight as we finish the Committee stage that is what I want to focus on. For me the deciding factor in this matter is: what do we think and what are we considering? Are we considering the rights and the desires of adults who want some formalisation and status for their adult relationship or are we thinking past that to what we see developing in terms of family units in which children are to be raised and where there is no intention from the outset of giving those children either a mother or a father? 
This issue is not about whether the adults involved are caring people—whether they are suitable to be in contact with children and raising children. That is not the question here. It is not a judgment on whether gay people are able to be suitable parents. But when we talk about children in the law we talk about their welfare their immediate safety their nurturing and well-being and then we talk about their long-term best interests. It is in that area where I have some serious concerns. Certainly to date and historically social parenting arrangements for children have always ended predominantly with those children needing to search out their biological parents to help provide the important pieces of the jigsaw that determine their identity. 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am not opposed to referenda per se. I think that there are some constitutional issues that should be decided only by a referendum like the electoral system. But I think there was a flaw in the MMP referendum even though I was a very strong supporter of MMP. The flaw was the quality of the material that was presented to the public before they voted on the subject. People might recall some paper bags appearing on the heads of certain people as they said that list MPs would be invisible not known to the public yet we have some very fine list MPs in this Parliament today. Everyone who quotes Switzerland fails to mention the 20 years that lay between the law being voted on and passed in that country and the referenda that prevented it from becoming law. It was the law to allow women the vote in Switzerland. It is very interesting how a majority—in that case only men were able to vote in it—was able to keep women away from the polling booth for so long. 
I recall attending a seminar on alcohol policy a few years ago. We were told that binding referenda in California had completely tied the legislature’s hands over imposing taxes on the sale of liquor. It was interesting because price is a very powerful weapon against increased consumption. In fact taxes had been used deliberately to minimise the harm that alcohol causes. The graphs showed consumption levels before the referendum was carried. They showed a steady increase in consumption particularly amongst young people once taxes could not be imposed. We might think that that is the will of the people; they voted for it. However if we compare how much money the liquor interests poured into the advertising campaign with the pittance that the public health groups could put up against that campaign then we know that the powerful will always be better placed to persuade the majority. 
I was in the United States when the Hillary Clinton bill on health reform was before Congress. I sat in on some of the committee hearings so I heard stories from ordinary Americans who came to tell their stories of losing health-care coverage when they needed it most. I heard one man talk about being sacked when his wife became terminally ill and his company’s health maintenance organisation did not want to keep paying her for treatment. But it was not those stories that I saw on TV—the stories of ordinary people. I saw the insurance industry having a field day. I saw insurance company advertisements with actors playing the roles of a couple at work. One said: “Gee this health reform bill sounds great doesn’t it?” and the other one said: “Yeah but it’s a shame we won’t be able to offer our employees the benefits we have been able to offer them in the past.” 
Public opinion destroyed that legislation. That to me says that the real issue here is: why would we want a referendum when someone like Brian Tamaki who has plenty of money to spend on advertising campaigns will be able to outspend everyone else building fear and loathing amongst decent New Zealanders who give their hard-earned money in accordance with the Bible’s call for a tithe? I think it is very important that people realise that that is what opening up a referendum would do. I think a biblical reference to a camel passing through the eye of a needle might well apply to an evangelist on a Harley Davidson. But I am not prepared to give him and others like him a platform for the hatefulness he has brought to this debate. If anyone thinks that it is hateful I say that it is. 
I want to quote from an email that I received today: “I agree with many opponents to this bill who are worried about the erosion of the two-parent family as the core of our society but the experience of my siblings reminds me that no institution alone ensures the quality of a family’s care for its members. There is nothing inherently sacred or sacrosanct about a marriage between a man and a woman that produces violence physical and sexual abuse and self-hatred as it has done for my siblings. As you consider this bill I encourage those opposed to abstain or vote in favour so that the Parliament’s energies may be redirected towards bills that strengthen all family units in whatever form they take. The greatest threat to the institution of marriage lies in married couples who abuse their vows not with gay couples who wish to make a formal commitment to each other.” 
I feel very strongly about this. Two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other are not to be loathed or feared. All this bill does is give people who cannot marry or do not wish to marry access to a status that is recognised in law. This is a matter of civil rights. It should be decided by Parliament not a referendum. 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think the title should be: “Merry Christmas (Civil Union Marriage) Bill” which if this bill passes it will be. In the debate today we have heard many views on this issue views mainly putting down the suggestion of a referendum. I am not pointing the finger at Mr Darren Hughes directly but a number of Labour MPs protested against the right of all New Zealanders to participate in a referendum. I say to those members that the amendment for a referendum that Mr Donnelly is putting forward would be good for Labour because on the day of the general election if Labour wins it will be on the right side of it and if it loses—well sorry—it will be on the wrong side of it. But a referendum would give the people of Aotearoa an opportunity to make a decision about whether the legislation becomes law rather than have a number of MPs including Labour members make the decision to pass the bill. 
I say to United Future folk that they had the opportunity to put this bill to bed. But no they did not do that. This bill is no different from the bill about cannabis and I would not agree to that either. United Future put that bill down and it could have done the same with the Civil Union Bill. It could have told Labour that it disagreed with this legislation but that it agreed with putting it to a referendum. It could have pinched New Zealand First’s thunder but it has missed the boat. Now United Future members are wasting taxpayers’ money sitting here debating this bill. I say to the people of New Zealand that they should note what has been said by United Future members who had the opportunity to put this bill down. 
I remind our colleague from Labour Mr Choudhary that he swore on the Koran— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t be like that. 
EDWIN PERRY 
:—and just recently on  
Morning Report 
 I heard that reports are coming in that the people he represents are not happy about what he is doing. I say to him that he should save his face and vote against this bill. 
I say to members opposite including Lianne Dalziel that the poll taken on Television One showing that 21000 people had phoned in reported that 17000 were against the bill and 4000 were for it. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: That doesn’t mean anything. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes it does. Where has Labour been getting its polls from? I do not know. All New Zealanders are wondering about that quite frankly. 
I say to the people of New Zealand that the Rt Hon Winston Peters introduced a referendum in November 2003. We are the only party as Mr Hughes said that has been consistent about referenda. We have been consistent and we are consistent now but everybody else has hung on the end of our coat-tails for a referendum on this bill. Obviously we are happy they are doing that because it puts more pressure on the Government to push our amendment put forward by Mr Donnelly. I tell Mr Hughes that more of his korero with regard to a referendum would be really appreciated. 
I shall read out a letter that was sent to me which has to disturb the Labour Party: “My name is Graham Turner. I am 65 years old. I have been married for over 39 years to Joyce Turner who is also 65 years old. We have four married daughters and 13 grandchildren. We have been loyal Labour supporters all our voting life. This is the first time I have had to contact a member of Parliament but this Civil Union Bill and Relationships Bill must not be allowed to go through. I would urge you to vote against this bill.” The letter was addressed to me and obviously I am voting against the bill. 
“Enough is enough” this person said who has been a loyal Labour supporter. He is not the only one; there are plenty out there who would vote against the bill in a referendum. He continued: “If this bill goes through it is watering down all the beliefs of the standard of the marriage commitment which I signed 39 years ago. All the studies taken show that the family means mum and dad and when a child is brought up in this happy environment they do much better.” How can one argue against somebody who has been married for 39 years? How can Labour argue against that? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
BILL GUDGEON (NZ First) 
: 
 I begin by sharing the views of Winston Churchill on the family. He said that the foundation and stability of our communities and the society we live in are dependent on the stability of our families. That is very important for each and every one of us to hear tonight. 
I will go back a few years. I was professionally trained in jungle warfare. There came the time when we had to go out on operations in combat. Before we went on our first operation our platoon commander asked us: “Men are you ready?”. [ 
Interruption 
] We were not married then. Then he said: “You have a choice. You know what is going to happen when we go out.” The total report back to our platoon commander was that we would take what was coming. I ask that member across the Chamber whether he would accept the public asking us as members of Parliament to take on a referendum. There will be no bullets flying his way as there were when I accepted that challenge. Would he accept the challenge of taking upon his shoulders a referendum of the citizens of New Zealand? Yes or no? 
Jill Pettis 
: Desperado! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: We are not desperate. Those members are the ones who will be desperate. 
Russell Fairbrother 
: We have constituents; you don’t. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: That is fine. I am prepared to put my future on the line. Are they? When the Prostitution Reform Act was passed I listened to some of the Labour Party members say that they had gone around Papakura with the police and had seen all their young female relatives becoming prostitutes. It is all in  
Hansard 
. Now those same people are turning against the very things they voted for in terms of the Prostitution Reform Act. The theme of the conference I attended in South Africa was AIDS. That is a health problem for over 14 million people. Where did it start? 
Lianne Dalziel 
: More than that! 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Yes and it is starting to creep through the Pacific. There is a concern in the Islands. Will the minority Labour Government accept the challenge of a referendum? 
I also have a challenge for the United Future party. Why did it allow the bill to come into the House? Just like with the Prostitution Reform Act without that party’s support this bill would not have got to this stage. So now I challenge United Future members as to why they do not want to accept New Zealand First’s challenge of a referendum. Then we would see whom the public supports. Labour members should answer. 
Craig McNair 
: There is no answer. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Let us have it. I ask Mr Carter why he does not accept the challenge. There are many people sitting in the gallery who may be for or against the bill. Let them hear the Labour members. 
Craig McNair 
: They think they know best. 
BILL GUDGEON 
: Do Labour members know best? I thought this was a democratic country. Their fathers and my fathers fought for that freedom. I did and now I challenge them. I did not do it for nothing. Accept the challenge! We should have a referendum. I disagree with my colleague Mr Donnelly. 
PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 We have had a very interesting debate over these last 2 days and one of the concerns I have—and I have listened to much of the debate—is that anybody who takes the opposing view to the Government on this bill dares to criticise the bill or dares to question it is labelled homophobic. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: I have never called you that. 
PETER BROWN 
: The former Minister says she has not but plenty of her colleagues have alluded to it. They have said that me and many of my colleagues are homophobic because we have some concerns about this bill. Let me put the record straight from my point of view. I went to sea as a young man well before the Homosexual Law Reform Bill came in. I sailed with many homosexual people and they got treated with the same respect regard and tolerance that anybody else on the ship received. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Did you deal to them with a broom like I’ve been told about? 
PETER BROWN 
: The former Minister is obsessed with broomsticks going—where? I have no experience in that. I will bow to the former Minister’s experience and knowledge on that matter. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: It’s not funny. It actually happened. 
PETER BROWN 
: I will not defend that sort of action one iota. I am well aware of homosexual people being quite open about their sexuality and well before the Homosexual Law Reform Bill came about. It was no secret on a ship. We were a small community. So I do not speak from a position of being homophobic at all. 
But I do have concerns about this bill. I have some major concerns. I have listened to the Government speakers over there and only one—only one whom I took note of—mentioned the possible concern about children and that was Georgina Beyer. Her views are actually the direct opposite from mine but she actually referred to the long-time concern about children. I think everybody in this Chamber knows that if this bill goes through we are one small step away—because we are talking about gay marriage in all but name—from whoever determines who adopts a child not being allowed to determine that it should go to what one might call natural parents over two homosexual men. 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: A single person can now. Didn’t you hear what I said yesterday? 
PETER BROWN 
: That can happen now can it? 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Didn’t you hear what I said yesterday? It’s got nothing to do with it. 
PETER BROWN 
: The Minister says it has nothing to do with it but he knows that it is one step away. I say to the Minister and all members in this Chamber that if New Zealanders have their say on this bill and if they say that that is what they want there will be no argument from me—no argument at all. If the people sitting in the gallery now want it and vote for it there will be no argument from me at all. I will let them have their say and freely. I heard the Minister on  
Morning Report 
 saying that the principal reason I think from memory for this issue not going to a public referendum is that it would cost so much money. It would cost $10 million or something like that. 
Hon Brian Donnelly 
: It could go in at election time. 
PETER BROWN 
: Yes it could be held at election time. My honourable colleague’s amendment provides for the referendum to be held at election time. But I am saying that the money is not important. This legislation some people say will change the fabric of our society and I agree with them. I have been known to be wrong but I tend to subscribe to the view that this bill will change the fabric of society. But we should let New Zealanders decide whether it will do that and whether they want it. I am a total supporter of my colleague’s amendment calling for a referendum. 
I also share his view—which is contrary to that of my colleague Craig McNair—that if this issue went to a referendum the result would probably favour the bill’s supporters but I will not be arrogant enough to prejudge it. I think it would be close but I think New Zealanders would probably vote for this legislation at the end of the day. I am saying here that we should let New Zealanders decide. This is a key issue for New Zealanders. It will impact on our society. It will be a matter of controversial debate for years to come. If it were the subject of a referendum then pass or fail that would be the end of it—at least in the short term. 
RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour—Napier) 
: 
 I move  
That the question be now put 
. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be now put. 
Ayes 62 
New Zealand Labour 51; Green Party 9; Progressive 2. 
Noes 58 
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 9; United Future 8; Maori Party 1. 
Motion agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I put the questions we have a number of amendments. The first is to clause 1 and is in the name of Richard Worth set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314. It has been ruled out of order as being inconsistent with a previous decision of the Committee. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 1 be agreed to. 
Ayes 66 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker (P)  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich 
Barnett 
Fairbrother 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Gallagher 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley 
Mark(P) 
Ward(P) 
Chadwick 
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates 
Coddington (P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen 
Hodgson(P) 
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Rich(P) 
Dalziel 
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Donnelly 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 54 
Adams(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
O'Connor 
Tamihere(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Ardern(P) 
English (P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Field(P) 
Perry(P) 
Turner 
Brash(P) 
Franks 
Peters J (P) 
Wang(P) 
Brown 
Goudie(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Power  
Woolerton(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Robertson 
Worth(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones 
Scott(P) 
Collins(P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Connell(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Copeland  
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
McNair 
Sowry(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Tisch  
Clause 1 agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next question is an amendment in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly. The amendment is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 to omit and substitute subclauses (1) and (2) of clause 2. The amendment relates to a referendum to be held with the 2005 general election. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 311 in the name of the Hon Brian Donnelly to clause 2 be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 51 
Adams(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brown  
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Turner  
Brownlee(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones  
Roy(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall  
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Connell(P) 
Mark(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Copeland  
McCully(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
McNair  
Smith M (P) 
Tisch  
Noes 68 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
King(P) 
Simich  
Ardern(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Locke(P) 
Sutton(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
Mackey J (P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos  
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Burton(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor  
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley  
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Worth(P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates 
Cullen  
Hobbs(P) 
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia(P) 
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel  
Hughes 
Robertson  
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The next question is an amendment in the name of Richard Worth. It is his first amendment to clause 2 to omit the commencement date and substitute words set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314. The amendment relates to a referendum to be held by postal vote. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth to clause 2(1) be agreed to. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the amendment be agreed to. 
Ayes 48 
Adams(P) 
Dunne(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Alexander(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Perry(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brash(P) 
Franks  
Peters J 
Turner  
Brown  
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Wang(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Williamson(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Prebble  
Woolerton(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Jones  
Roy(P) 
Worth(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Key(P) 
Ryall  
Collins(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Scott(P) 
Connell(P) 
Mark(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Copeland  
McNair  
Smith L (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
Newman(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Tisch  
Noes 70 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
King(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Laban(P) 
Sutton  
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
Locke(P) 
Swain(P) 
Benson-Pope  
Field(P) 
Mackey M 
Tamihere(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos  
Bradford(P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Goff(P) 
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
McCully(P) 
Turia(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Goudie(P) 
O'Connor  
Ward(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley  
Okeroa(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wong(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Cullen  
Hobbs(P) 
Rich (P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Hodgson  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel  
Horomia(P) 
Robertson  
Donald(P) 
Hughes  
Robson(P) 
Duncan(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Teller: 
Duynhoven(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Simich  
Pettis  
Amendment not agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The amendment to clause 2(2) set out on Supplementary Order Paper 314 in the name of Richard Worth is out of order because it is inconsistent with previous decisions of the Committee. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That clause 2 be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
Anderton(P) 
Dyson(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Barker(P) 
Ewen-Street(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barnett  
Fairbrother  
Locke(P) 
Simich  
Benson-Pope  
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton  
Beyer (P) 
Gallagher(P) 
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Goff(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tanczos  
Burton(P) 
Gosche(P) 
Mahuta(P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Hartley  
Mallard(P) 
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hawkins(P) 
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Parker(P) 
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hide(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cullen  
Hodgson  
Prebble  
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia  
Rich(P) 
Dalziel  
Hughes  
Ririnui(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt(P) 
Robson(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 56 
Adams(P) 
Dunne(P) 
McNair  
Sowry(P) 
Alexander(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Newman(P) 
Stewart(P) 
Ardern(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
O'Connor  
Tamihere(P) 
Baldock(P) 
English(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Brash(P) 
Field(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turia(P) 
Brown  
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Turner  
Brownlee(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Wang(P) 
Carter D (P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Williamson(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Woolerton(P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Robertson(P) 
Worth(P) 
Collins(P) 
Jones  
Ryall  
Connell(P) 
Key(P) 
Scott(P) 
Copeland(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Mark  
Smith M (P) 
Teller: 
Donnelly  
McCully(P) 
Smith N (P) 
Tisch  
Clause 2 agreed to. 
Procedure 
The bill was reported without amendment. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I move  
That the report be adopted 
. 
A personal vote was called for on the question  
That the report be adopted 
. 
Ayes 70 
Anderton(P) 
Duynhoven(P) 
Laban(P) 
Shirley(P) 
Barker(P) 
Dyson(P) 
Locke(P) 
Simich 
Barnett  
Ewen-Street(P) 
Mackey J (P) 
Sutton  
Benson-Pope  
Fairbrother  
Mackey M 
Swain(P) 
Beyer(P) 
Field(P) 
Maharey(P) 
Tamihere(P) 
Bradford(P) 
Fitzsimons(P) 
Mahuta (P) 
Tanczos  
Burton  
Goff(P) 
Mallard (P) 
Tizard(P) 
Carter C (P) 
Gosche(P) 
O'Connor  
Turei(P) 
Chadwick  
Hartley  
Okeroa(P) 
Ward(P) 
Choudhary(P) 
Hawkins(P) 
Parker  
Wilson(P) 
Clark(P) 
Hereora(P) 
Peck(P) 
Wong(P) 
Coddington(P) 
Hide(P) 
Pillay(P) 
Yates (P) 
Cosgrove(P) 
Hobbs(P) 
Prebble  
Cullen  
Hodgson  
Rich(P) 
Cunliffe(P) 
Horomia  
Ririnui(P) 
Dalziel  
Hughes  
Robertson(P) 
Donald(P) 
Hunt  
Robson(P) 
Donnelly  
Kedgley(P) 
Roy(P) 
Teller: 
Duncan(P) 
King(P) 
Samuels(P) 
Pettis  
Noes 49 
Adams(P) 
Eckhoff(P) 
Ogilvy(P) 
Turia(P) 
Alexander (P) 
English(P) 
Paraone(P) 
Turner  
Ardern(P) 
Franks  
Perry(P) 
Wang(P) 
Baldock(P) 
Goudie(P) 
Peters J 
Williamson(P) 
Brash(P) 
Gudgeon(P) 
Peters W (P) 
Woolerton(P) 
Brown  
Heatley(P) 
Power  
Worth(P) 
Brownlee(P) 
Hutchison(P) 
Ryall  
Carter D (P) 
Jones  
Scott(P) 
Carter J (P) 
Key(P) 
Smith L (P) 
Catchpole(P) 
Mapp(P) 
Smith M (P) 
Collins(P) 
Mark 
Smith N (P) 
Connell(P) 
McCully(P) 
Sowry(P) 
Copeland(P) 
McNair  
Stewart(P) 
Teller: 
Dunne(P) 
Newman(P) 
te Heuheu(P) 
Tisch  
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 10:15 p.m. (Wednesday)