Connell Brian: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Connell Brian: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17514] 
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.