Jones Dail: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Jones Dail: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19172] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Speaking as a New Zealand First member of Parliament I must say this is a rather sad day for New Zealand when we see this type of legislation being passed into law. This is a very bad bill and in looking through all of it I can only say that I will be working hard to bring in a member’s bill to repeal the law. This type of legislation is an affront to decent standards in society and we should not be giving parliamentary recognition to this type of behaviour. So I will be putting together a member’s bill to put an end to this civil union structure which is really just a form of lesbian-lesbian marriage and homosexual-homosexual marriage. 
If this Labour Party Government is remembered for anything in its 6-year term it will be for this type of legislation. When it is defeated at the next election it will be as a result of its social engineering policies. These types of measures are an affront to our society. The Government will be remembered for this bill and to fill in the picture given by the previous speaker Dr Nick Smith it will be remembered for legislation like the Property (Relationships) Act. Once again in a nanny State way the Government decided that people living in a de facto relationship should come under part of the matrimonial property legislation even though those people had decided by their own actions that that was not what they wanted. 
The Labour Party Government introduced immigration regulations that specified quite clearly that it wanted homosexuals and lesbians to come and live in New Zealand. The law previously did not specify that fact and indeed there was no reason why homosexuals and lesbians could not come and live in New Zealand. But no it just shows that this Labour Party encourages that type of behaviour and wants those people to come to New Zealand. 
Then along came the prostitution legislation where the Labour Party decided that it would make certain that prostitution was legal it would be a standard form of employment and the Resource Management Act and all the other relevant Acts would apply. So if a prostitute was off work he or she would get the unemployment benefit accident compensation and suchlike. That is the thinking of this Labour Party. 
The next bill it brought in was the Care of Children Bill which it trumpeted as applying specifically to homosexuals and lesbians in terms of custody issues. But of course as we know the courts were already granting custody orders in favour of lesbians and homosexuals. Those lesbians and homosexuals who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee thinking they would get something special were surprised to learn that that was the law anyway. Of course what the Labour Party is trying to do is tell the judges that it would like them to do that more often because it believes that that type of behaviour is normal and decent and that is the way New Zealand should be. 
Then we had the Civil Union Act in its two steps. That legislation was based on the Marriage Act in the first place and really was the Marriage Act but instead the word “marriage” was omitted and the words “civil union” substituted. That is the only difference between the two pieces of legislation. Of course this statutory references bill the sixth item on the Government’s agenda gives statutory effect and practice to many of the ways in which people who are living together may not come within a normal marriage situation. Of course as far as de factos are concerned people want to be in a de facto so that they were not part of a marriage. They wanted to be different. But people cannot be different in New Zealand under a Labour Party Government. Its socialist origins are just too much. It likes everybody to be the same. We all have to work on the same farm in the same way be taught the same things behave in the same way marry in the same way and have the law apply to them all in the same way whether or not we like it.People do not dare to be different in this Labour Party—being different and having a different way of behaving is too much for them. The nanny State comes in again in the shape of Helen Clark and her other Ministers and suchlike and says: “No you all have to be the same whether or not you like it.” Of course as an aside we saw that happen with the smoke-free legislation. I am an asthmatic and do not smoke but I do not mind whether bars do have cigarette smoke. I will not go to those bars. I am capable of making up my own mind but no nanny State and the Labour Party say: “This is the way it has to be done. You all have to be the same. No one can be different.” 
However to move on shortly we will have another bill from a Labour Party member—Georgina Beyer. She will introduce the “Trans-sexual Bill” or the “Cross-dressing Bill”. If girls are members of the Girl Guides they will be able to wear a Scouts uniform and boys who are Scouts will be able to wear a Girl Guide uniform and if people complain it will be a breach of their human rights and mum and dad can be prosecuted. That is the type of legislation that someone in the Labour Party will bring to this House. I say: “Good on her.” She has every right to do that and we have every right to be critical of the type of thing we have come to expect from Labour Party members of Parliament. 
The final action that the Labour Party will want to take—I think it is final but one never knows with the Labour Party—is to bring in a new Adoption Act to state formally that homosexuals and lesbians can adopt children. I think in law they can probably do that even now but that is too much of a shock for Labour members. They have to pass some legislation and to have it legislated for somewhere or other so that they can go back to all those wonderful European Union places the United Nations and say: “Aren’t we wonderful; we’ve got this great record in human rights.” I heard the speech made by the Minister who led off this debate the Hon Marian Hobbs and I have rarely heard so much humbug. She read the speech very well but I do not think her heart was actually in it. She was given the speech and she read it well but it was a lot of humbug and she knew as well as anybody else in this House that her talk about New Zealand leading the world and how all the other countries were catching up on New Zealand was an absolute load of humbug. 
One of the problems we have in New Zealand today is that so many New Zealanders are leaving. We would like New Zealanders to come back but what sort of a country do they have to come back to when we constantly have this type of legislation rammed down our throats by a nanny State—the Labour Party? It is obviously unacceptable to people and it is one of the reasons why they do not come back. The fact that house prices have gone up 65 percent in Auckland in the last 5 years and in the rest of the country by about 45 percent and wages are low under this Labour Government is another reason—amongst many other reasons—why people will not come back. This type of legislation clearly shows to everybody overseas where this minority Labour Government’s preferences lie. 
We have had two bills—the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. Each of those bills would have cost this country $10 million. That is about $20 million that this minority Labour Government has spent on this legislation. Who is this legislation for? Only 0.2 percent of the adult population are affected by this legislation and I would say that 0.175 percent of them will not take advantage of it. They are grown-up adults they know what they are doing and they have their own lifestyle. So we are passing legislation for about 0.0025 percent of New Zealand’s population just to make Helen Clark and that coterie of lesbians and homosexuals who surround her happy. That is about the only reason for this legislation. Less than 0.1 percent of this population will get anything out of this legislation in so far as lesbians and homosexuals are concerned. De facto couples do not want this legislation; it has been rammed down their throats. That is as good a reason I know for bringing in a member’s bill to get rid of it. That is what I will be working on. 
The $20 million could have been spent much better on helping some solo mother to buy her children some clothes and shoes do something for the local schools and things like that. Any New Zealander could work out many many hundreds of ways that we could have better spent $20 million which is what this legislation is all about. It is an absolute disgrace. This bill should not be passed and I will working hard on a member’s bill to try to repeal it.