Prasad Rajen: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Prasad Rajen: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9031. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Like a number of previous speakers I was not able to take a call in the first two readings of this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. It is a pleasure to take this call. I want to speak specifically to clause 5A but before I do that I just want to reflect on the bill and how I have gone about making my decision on it. 
When we are asked to exercise our conscience there is no guidance in this Parliament as to how that conscience needs to be exercised. So I did a number of things. One was certainly to consult my own community. As I went about consulting the ethnic communities in Auckland their leaders I certainly found a range of opinion—some supporting the direction of this bill as an element of 21st century society and others a sizable proportion of the ethnic community were not comfortable with the direction of this bill. In fact as I went further into that I realised that they are not comfortable with the existence the legality of gay relationships. That is one matter that could not be relitigated. There have been many who have consulted us and made submissions who would like to relitigate that primary principle. That is not up for debate here. New Zealand crossed that bridge in the 1980s and so we are now talking about something else. 
Then I reflected with my family and friends—some very very dear friends—who are members of the gay community. Some highly respected New Zealand families have children and grandchildren of gay relationships. I looked upon them and talked to some of them and realised that here were people in gay relationships with children leading normal lives with no effect on anybody else. They are great citizens great mums great dads bringing up children whom anybody in this Chamber would be very proud of. So that matter then became part of my conscience. 
The third element is the fact that I was a human rights commissioner for New Zealand. Once you swear to uphold the human rights of New Zealand citizens you do not do that for the period that you hold that mandate; you do it for all time. So for me in the end it became a question of the rights of New Zealand citizens. For me then it became very simple and very clear. Our laws did not permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and that indeed was enough for me to put all of the arguments together put all of the consultations that I had carried out together to say that there was only one position one could take on this particular bill which was to support it. I also want to look into the eyes of those children those mums and dads those friends of mine and those leaders of our communities who are members of this community and say that when the time came to express their rights in this Parliament in the only way I knew how I did the right thing. 
So from that point of view it was the right thing to do and I am very pleased and proud to be able to support that. I know that members of my own community will not accept that but I ask them to reflect on New Zealand’s history. I ask them to reflect on New Zealand’s history its present and its future. That is the country to which we as migrants have committed to and we have to accept some of those things particularly when a Parliament such as this the most democratic in the world makes a decision. So from those points of view I was pleased to support this bill. 
There is one final element that influenced me and it was this. This bill takes nothing away from anybody. It actually takes nothing away. Those who argue that it does somehow reduce us as a society in terms of our spirituality certainly have a difficulty with me because there is nothing about my relationship my family my marriage that is negated or diminished in any way. I know that the institution of marriage has been developed for a long time and no doubt will continue to develop. It is not set in a form that has always been the same. It has always developed. A bit like our society and our civilisation this institution will also develop. 
I want to come to clause 5A. I also had concerns about the role of ministers and the role of marriage celebrants. There was a time when I thought hang on this does create some difficulties. I wondered how the Government Administration Committee was going to work its way through this. I am very pleased with what it has done in clarifying this in new clause 5A amending section 29 of the Act. I think it is a very very elegant way in which it has gone about doing this. The committee first underscored the principle that “A marriage licence shall authorize but not oblige any marriage celebrant …”. I think that provides all of the protection that I require for a marriage celebrant who says: “I’m not obliged to do this.” I cannot imagine any couple who would then want to use a marriage celebrant who has expressed strong views. So for that reason I accept the clarification. I also accept that the avoidance of doubt clause that has been written into new section 29 is also very powerful because it does satisfy those with strong religious beliefs and they are across a number of religions. They are protected and so they should be. So that satisfied two of the major requirements I had. 
Then I come to the Supplementary Order Papers. I have difficulty with all of the Supplementary Order Papers that comment on the role of marriage celebrants because I think inadvertently those Supplementary Order Papers are now licensing discrimination itself. I do not believe we need to go beyond what is already in the amendments to this bill because to do anything else means we argue against the very principles that certainly have led me to the position I take. In the end it will be discriminatory and this is not the time or place for us to include provisions in our Acts that are discriminatory for no other reason. It almost goes around in circles because it is saying that because you want to discriminate it is OK to discriminate. Yet the whole thing is about anti-discrimination and if that is where we start from then I believe that in all conscience I can support none of the Supplementary Order Papers because to go beyond where this particular amendment goes would be unfair would be illogical and would be unnecessary. It does address concerns of our citizens but I think we must shape responses to those concerns rather than accept them and make the amendments that they require because the unintended consequences as Moana Mackey says are too terrible to contemplate—they would be—and I could not look the people I talked about earlier in the face and say that I supported that. So I will not be voting for those kinds of amendments. I do accept however the sincerity with which members have raised those concerns in this Committee. I know where they are coming from and I know what lies behind them but I take comfort from the fact that the religious freedoms that are necessary and protected in our legislation in the Human Rights Act at the moment are protected here as well. 
So with those comments I want to thank those who have participated in this bill for the care with which they have made those comments and I trust that those listening will accept that this is not a knee-jerk reaction. It has been a long process. It is a process that I have gone through personally and after many many discussions I have arrived at a point that I now articulate. I know that many will be disappointed and I know that many many more will not be disappointed. I want to be able to look at both of those communities in the eye and say that we have taken away nothing from anybody and that we have in fact enabled us to be the kind of caring society we aspire to be. If we create those who are inside and those who are outside then I believe we have done that for too long already. This is not the time or the place to do it and I certainly would not want to be part of that. With those comments I will support the bill.