Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17437] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 What an extraordinary thing it is that this Parliament is in urgency to pass the Civil Union Bill. What on earth is urgent about it? 
I will say what is urgent. The Government knows that this bill is an electoral liability and it wants to clear the deck pre-Christmas because next year the public will get to vote. It is as simple and as cynical as that. 
What is even more cynical is the way in which the Government’s spin machine has pretended that this bill is not a gay marriage bill. Like parrots each of the Government speakers say that it is not about gay marriage. Let us read the original third clause in Part 1. It should have stated that the purpose of this bill was to introduce gay marriage but it actually stated that the purpose was to register relationships as civil unions under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. 
Is a civil union a death? Some might think so. Is it a birth? Maybe not. It is certainly a marriage. This is the “Gay Marriage Bill” in drag. Let us not pretend anything less. I challenge the Minister in the chair Mr David Benson-Pope to read the Tui advertisement: “This isn’t a gay marriage bill? Yeah right!”. 
Clause 42 is where this bill does become significant. In clause 42 amendments are made to the Family Proceedings Act. I am one of those who says that that is one of the most important Acts this Parliament has because it is the family that provides for the upbringing of children. Despite the fact that Government members say this is not a gay marriage bill when it comes to the amendment to the Family Proceedings Act the husband is to be a party in a civil union the wife is to be a party in a civil union and marriage is to be synonymous with civil union. 
That is what clause 42 says so I ask Tim Barnett to say what the bill is. It is a gay marriage bill. I tell him to summon up the courage to say what it is and to stop the fraud on the people of New Zealand by saying that it is anything less. 
If it is not gay marriage why is it being registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act? Is there any Government member who can explain for me why this thing that is not to be a marriage is to be registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act? [ 
Interruption 
] Yes it is very popular with the United Future party but could the Minister in the chair explain to the Committee why he does not have the upfront nature to say that this bill is a gay marriage bill? 
When we look at the companion bill we see that there have been 1034 changes to every statute whether the statutes are about superannuation law family law child support law education law health law—members can name them. In every single one of those statutes civil union and marriage are to be exactly the same. I say to the Committee simply this: if it looks like a duck if it quacks like a duck if it smells like a duck then it is a damn duck. This is gay marriage and no matter what the Government’s spin doctors say there will not be a single area of law in which a civil union will be different from marriage. As we look through the detail of the bill we see that the two will be synonymous. In every element of process a civil union and marriage will be identical. 
I just challenge members opposite to be upfront with the electorate and explain why it is necessary for this Parliament under urgency in a mad rush before Christmas to change one of the most fundamental tenets of our society which is that marriage is between— 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Why should we believe this man? The High Court wouldn’t believe him. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Maybe Rick Barker can explain. Why has the Government said that civil union is not gay marriage when it is to be registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act? Mr Barker who was very keen to interject just a moment ago has walked out of the Chamber. I say to him that I do not think that that is good enough. I think the people of New Zealand deserve an honest answer as to why he will not label this legislation what it is—it is gay marriage.