Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17401] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I oppose this bill because it undermines the most important institution in our lives and that is our families. This bill is part of a radical experiment in social engineering by the Labour Government that involves the legalisation of prostitution enabling women to be fathers saying that de facto relationships are equal to the long-term commitment of marriage and eroding the rights and responsibilities of parents. I say respectfully that this is the most anti-family Government in the history of our country. 
Our marriage laws are based on a very simple quid pro quo. Marriage is given special status in law because the union of a man and woman who are committed to each other for the long haul is socially the best way for us to raise children. Children are the most important thing to this country’s future. 
 I have heard people say that this is not a gay marriage bill. There is a saying: “If it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck and if it smells like a duck it probably is a duck.” This bill makes a thousand amendments to over a hundred laws and in every single one of them marriage and civil union are to be identical. The only difference is the name. This is a gay marriage bill. 
There are those who say that this bill does not erode marriage—that it is all just about everybody having the same set of rights. I say it is like giving everybody at school School Certificate. Does that erode it for those who achieve? In education this Government has established the culture of “Let’s just make everybody the same.” That same erosion of standards is being applied in respect of relationships. Relationships are not all the same. The lifelong commitment of marriage is different from de facto relationships. Marriage has the ambition the goal of being a special lifelong commitment between a man and a woman who will have children together and raise the next generation of our society. 
For all the liberal rhetoric I hear from the Government benches about marriage being a dated institution I remind the House that 79.4 percent of people in a relationship—nearly four out of five—choose marriage and that the number of people who are marrying in our society has been on the increase in recent years. 
Proponents of this bill argue that men and women are the same. They are not. I say as a father—a privileged father of a lovely daughter and son—that right from the early years it is plain that we are wired differently. Men and women are not the same have never been the same and will never ever be the same. Men and women are equal but different and no amount of politically correct law will override that natural law. A gay couple cannot have children; they can care for the children of others. This at its most basic is the reason why the relationship between a man and a woman is different from the relationship between two men or two women. 
My view on this matter is strongly underpinned by the view that children do best when raised in the home of a mum and dad who are committed to being with each other for the long haul. People cite cases quite properly where a solo parent a gay couple or a de facto couple do a good job of raising their children—and they do. But this House has to judge what is best for society as a whole. There are all sorts of areas of social science where there is equivocality. But in respect of children’s best welfare the evidence is overwhelming that on average their having a stable mum and dad is the best way to minimise all the social problems we see in our society today. 
I say to this House that the family is the future of our country and we should back it. We should respect gay couples but they should not have legal recognition by this Parliament.