Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19168] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Hon David Benson-Pope (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: I move.  
That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill the Administration Amendment Bill (No 2) the Care of Children Amendment Bill the Child Support Amendment Bill (No 3) the Deaths by Accidents Compensation Amendment Bill the Estate and Gift Duties Amendment Bill the Goods and Services Tax Amendment Bill the Government Superannuation Fund Amendment Bill (No 4) the Income Tax Amendment Bill the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment Bill (No 4) the Interpretation Amendment Bill the Life Insurance Amendment Bill (No 2) the Marriage Amendment Bill the Minors’ Contracts Amendment Bill the New Zealand Superannuation Amendment Bill (No 2) the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill (No 2) the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill the Real Estate Agents Amendment Bill the Social Security Amendment Bill the Tax Administration Amendment Bill the Trustee Amendment Bill the War Pensions Amendment Bill (No 3) and the Wills Amendment Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Today we reach the end of a journey—a journey that began with the National Government passing the Human Rights Act in 1993 and now ends with the opportunity to pass into law the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and 22 other bills that recognise relationships. It is a journey where much of the ministerial work was done by my colleague Lianne Dalziel. We owe her a debt of thanks. She led a team of hard-working officials from a wide range of Government departments. My thanks go to them for their clarity for their attention to detail and for their hard work. 
For many New Zealanders the journey has been a long one involving much debate. But this Parliament has already faced up to New Zealand’s human rights obligations and decided that all New Zealanders deserve the right to formalise their relationship whether it be through marriage or through civil union. Now we can have the opportunity to pass legislation that will give legal status to civil unions that will legally recognise de facto couples and that will free New Zealanders from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and marital status. 
Some people object to the purpose of this legislation arguing that it removes choice for de facto couples who have chosen to avoid the legal consequences associated with marriage. I disagree for two reasons. First there are many reasons why people choose to be in a de facto relationship not simply because they wish to avoid the rights and obligations associated with marriage. Many are just as committed as married couples and would welcome the removal of laws that treat them differently. Secondly this legislation does not remove choice but in fact does quite the contrary by providing more choice for de facto couples and by confirming choices that already exist. 
This legislation will extend available choices by allowing people in de facto relationships to choose who may be involved in certain decision-making processes. For example in the event of a partner’s death the other person of the relationship will be able to have his or her partner’s name removed from the electoral roll or have the ability to be involved in making important decisions about funeral arrangements if that person so wishes. Like so many of the changes in this legislation it does not create an obligation; rather it provides an opportunity that people can choose to take up. It will also ensure that the particular form of relationship will no longer mean that some couples have unfair advantages over others. An important example of this will be the way in which people are treated for Government superannuation purposes. 
What is really significant about these bills is that they will recognise social realities and ensure that our legislation reflects the diversity of committed exclusive and stable relationships that exist in New Zealand. One in five New Zealanders—some 300000 people—who are living in a relationship have chosen not to marry. The law should not discriminate against persons in such committed exclusive loving and stable relationships. No fair-minded person could disagree with that. Already approximately 90 laws recognise de facto relationships—that is almost half of all the laws that contain rights and responsibilities for persons in a relationship. More important a number of significant relationship laws such as the Property (Relationships) Act and the Care of Children Act already recognise de facto relationships. This legislation is about finishing the job that has been piecemeal to date and making the remaining amendments which are mostly of a technical and administrative nature. 
This legislation is also about providing a legal framework for civil unions. At the end of last year Parliament decided to give effect to human rights law by giving all New Zealanders the option of formalising their relationships through a civil union. Today’s passing of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and the bills formerly part of that bill is a simple consequence of Parliament’s decision making the necessary amendments to legislation to provide legal recognition of civil unions. 
I would like to take the opportunity to refer to some comments made by submitters on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Some noted that both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples have faced discrimination in areas such as finance student loans and allowances childcare insurance superannuation social security and legal access to children. One submitter was refused both bereavement and unpaid leave from work to attend the tangi of his partner’s mother. Another was unable to sign a consent-for-procedure form for her critically ill child because she was a non-biological mother and the biological mother was unavailable. Many more recounted discriminatory situations where same-sex and different-sex de facto partners had been denied the right to have any involvement in or even attend their partner’s funeral. A number of submitters told the Justice and Electoral Committee that there is less respect for the commitment and quality of relationships that many de facto couples have. They argued that the State should support de facto relationships as they share the same characteristics valued in marriage: love trust intimacy loyalty and commitment. 
What we should take from those comments is that in today’s New Zealand there are a variety of relationships that are vitally important to those who are in them and that require legal support and protection. It is important to treat these committed exclusive and stable relationships fairly while still upholding the institution of marriage. By recognising and showing respect for civil unions and same-sex and different-sex de facto relationships this legislation will improve people’s lives by encouraging stable and strong relationships. The effects of discrimination on children will be reduced and the family unit will be protected. It may also create a more tolerant and open-minded society that values human rights. 
Two issues were raised when the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill was considered by the Committee of the whole House. The first issue concerned the way in which same-sex de facto partners are treated in social security legislation. On 1 April 2007 same-sex de facto partners will be treated in the same manner as married people and different-sex de facto partners. The delay for this particular group is out of consideration for those in such relationships who know nothing of these changes and who might in 6 weeks’ time suddenly find themselves up to $126 a week lighter. The delay gives people in such relationships time to make considered decisions. People who enter into a civil union have not been given the same lead-in time on the basis that they will have consciously made the choice to enter the relationship knowing the consequences. 
The second issue concerned human rights. Mr Franks had stated that a church could be held liable for refusing to make its church premises available for civil union ceremonies. That is not so. Under section 97 of the Human Rights Act a discriminatory practice will not be considered unlawful if the practice constitutes a genuine justification. It is likely that the decision of a church to refuse to make its premises available for civil union ceremonies would constitute a genuine justification as it would also be justified for a church to refuse to hire its premises to satanists. Matters that could be taken into account include that it may be contrary to the religious teachings of the church and may lead to tension within that church community. 
By passing this legislation New Zealand will be following an international trend of giving effect to human rights obligations. Many other countries and States have extended or are considering extending the same rights in law to different and same-sex de facto couples as are available for married couples. New Zealand is justifiably proud of its international reputation for recognising human rights. This legislation is another opportunity for us as a nation to not only talk tough but follow through with actions that will be real and meaningful to people’s lives. Most important this legislation will end the injustice and distress that many people have suffered in being discriminated against. It will recognise the different choices people make about their relationships and it will support those choices. I commend these bills to the House.