Mackey Janet: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Mackey Janet: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17534] 
JANET MACKEY (Labour—East Coast) 
: 
 I say in response to the member who has just resumed his seat that there can often be contradictions between jurisdictions in countries that have different laws. We have a situation now where same-sex couples who have a civil union in another jurisdiction come to New Zealand and do not have that relationship recognised here. Those situations are not completely restricted to this legislation. 
I take a very practical view on this legislation. This is the first call I have taken in the debate on it. I do not share the almost hysterical view coming through in some of the speeches we have heard in this Chamber and neither I believe do most New Zealanders. Given that I have 56000 people in my electorate very few have contacted me. Those who have fall into three distinct groups. The first group comprises people who have been sent along as part of a congregation either with a form letter or to express their views to me and I have listened to them. They deliver a view that I do not share but that I am very happy to respect their right to hold. The second group comprises those people who wish to enter into a civil contract because that is the only option available to them under New Zealand law and they are people who are in a gay relationship. 
There is a third group of people a small number of whom have contacted me and I understand exactly what they are talking about because their situation is the same as mine. They are the people who are in a de facto relationship and are not necessarily looking to formalise their relationship in the form of marriage. I feel personally that it would be wrong for me to formalise my relationship in a marriage given that that is seen to be the cornerstone of the Church in this country. Yet currently I have no other option. I voted against the clause in the Property (Relationships) Bill that would mean that I would be statutorily tied in by this Parliament to having a formalised relationship. I voted against it because that had not been my choice. A civil union would actually be a choice that I could make—the same as other New Zealanders. 
I have been bitterly disappointed in some of the speeches I have heard in the House. I have been bitterly disappointed to hear this issue raised as being about nothing more than gay marriage and I have said to my colleague Tim Barnett that I do not want to hear him referring to this bill exclusively in terms of gay relationships. It is not just about gay people; it is about a whole lot of New Zealanders who may like to choose to formalise their relationship in front of friends and family. I have never considered going to a lawyer and paying $5000 as an alternative to having this Parliament recognise my right to have a type of relationship. I would say to all those people that when they take away all the fluff and bother from this issue and start thinking about what they believe in and the sort of country they want to live in the best response they can have to the people who come to their offices and say: “Don’t vote for it.” is to give them some of United Future’s speeches and Brian Connell’s speeches and say: “Is this the sort of country you want to live in?”. The response I have usually had is “No and you do what you believe is right.”