Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17596] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 What a cheap shot that was from a cheap member! Like it or not this is quite serious legislation and when a young junior Government whip makes comments of that calibre I suggest that the thinking public can express real reservation as to where Labour is going on this bill. 
National members have made it clear from the outset that we have significant problems with this legislation. I have spoken about the strong opposition to it but in the context of what I will talk about in this speech I will put that aside. However this bill is being rushed through under urgency and there are quite clearly better ways of achieving the objective. 
This part of the debate is really concerned with two issues: the commencement date and also the title. I will talk for a moment about the title of the Civil Union Bill. In some respects it is the title and the implications behind it that caused 91 percent of the people who came to the Justice and Electoral Committee to say that they did not want this bill. Ninety-one percent of 6000 people is a significant number in any setting of people seeking to be heard in submissions before a select committee. I was saddened by the comments of the previous speaker who clearly is not interested in and is not prepared to take any account at all of those who have heartfelt and sincere opposition to this proposal. 
I have had the opportunity—despite what the young Government whip has said—of contributing in a reasonably substantial way to this legislation. Not only have I had the opportunity of speaking in the Committee stage but also I have had the opportunity of moving a number of amendments to provide a realistic and viable alternative. I want for a moment to highlight the concerns of those who say that this is a bad title. 
Maybe on the numbers this legislation will pass. It may have to be revisited after a change of Government in 2005. But I want to talk about the fact that we are looking at an institution that is the equivalent—almost the verisimilitude—of marriage. Why is that? Well there are ceremonial requirements in respect of civil union that are the same as those of marriage. That is the first point. The second point is that there are dissolution arrangements that are wholly similar to marriage. The 2-year rule is an illustration of that. The third thing is that civil union and marriage are both registered under the same legislation—the Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act. It is a great pity that this legislation—and this Government will be judged by this—is in effect whatever others will say a commitment to a same-sex marriage regime. 
I will draw an analogy very quickly with what other countries are doing. In Australia the Federal Government at the Senate level has said that it does not want any part of this. In the United States presidential election a series of referenda in 11 states overwhelmingly indicated that there should be no commitment to no encouragement of same-sex marriage. On Friday we will see a very interesting thing I think when the Supreme Court of Canada on a reference from the Federal Government looks at that same issue. On Friday at 1 p.m. local time we will receive a very clear indication that New Zealand is moving against the trend. It is moving against the trend in a way that is so typical of this Government. If it is not: “Let’s ban smoking.” and if it is not: “Let’s encourage prostitution.” it is all about “Why not same-sex marriage?”. 
I think it is quite reasonable for Christian and non-Christian groups across a wide spectrum of the community to say that no this is not the Government they want and that this kind of political correctness should not characterise New Zealand society in its contemporary setting. I express a degree of sadness for those members who have not really seen the light and have steamed ahead under the directive of the Prime Minister to produce an outcome we should not have.