Gallagher Martin: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Gallagher Martin: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:675] 
MARTIN GALLAGHER (Labour—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I rise as a member of Parliament who has a very conservative voting record on these kinds of issues as evidenced by my opposition to the Prostitution Reform Bill to the Death with Dignity Bill and to attempts to bring in Easter Friday and Easter Sunday trading and by my recently taking over sponsorship of a bill to raise the drinking age. It is fair to say that like a fellow conservative MP such as your good self Mr Deputy Speaker I supported the Civil Union Bill on the basis of compassion and fairness. 
I also acknowledge and compliment the very fine contributions made by the senior National Party front-bencher Katherine Rich and her colleague Chris Finlayson who I believe made very considered and worthy contributions to the debate tonight. I particularly reflect on the very wise words of the front-bencher Katherine Rich in terms of some of the debate around the Civil Union Bill and the effects of that debate which certainly caused much pain and anguish to many New Zealanders and their families. 
As a conservative I am opposing this bill for the simple reason that there is an old saying “If it’s not broken don’t fix it”. Since the formation of a nation State in New Zealand all legal forms of marriage have been between a man and a woman. I certainly agree that marriage is a bedrock relationship in our society but I do not intend to support the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill because I do not consider it to be a good use of Parliament’s time to restate what actually is when so much new legislation needs to be dealt with. 
This bill proposes to amend the Marriage Act 1955 by stating that parties to a marriage must be one man and one woman and by forbidding marriage between persons of the same gender. The legal position the facts and the reality—what is—were clearly stated by the Court of Appeal in  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General  
in 1998. The Court of Appeal held that the Marriage Act 1955 applies to marriage between a man and a woman only and that that restriction does not constitute discrimination. Therefore I repeat that under the current law two people of the same gender cannot obtain a marriage licence and any such purported marriage would not be recognised in law and would be declared void. 
The bill proposes to amend the Marriage Act to state that a union solemnised in a foreign country between two people of the same gender is not recognised as a marriage in New Zealand. No overseas marriage or civil union between two people of the same gender can be recognised as a marriage under New Zealand law. However some of those overseas relationships may be recognised as civil unions under the civil union legislation. 
As a conservative member of Parliament I will also make a personal statement to this House—and I think my sentiment is shared by many others who are opposing this bill—that in the highly unlikely event that there was ever a successful legal challenge to the current law then I certainly would support an appropriate amendment to the Marriage Act to reinforce the fact that the Act is solely intended for a male and a female in a committed relationship. I think it is highly unlikely that we will ever see that day and I cannot see the point of changing or interfering with what is. 
I simply restate: it is what is. Under the current law and dare I say it since time immemorial—since the formation of legal systems in this country—the Marriage Act has been intended for a man and a woman. That is the current state. I see no reason whatsoever to change it. I compliment as I said before some very considered and worthwhile contributions to this debate.