Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17541] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 One of the problems with the Civil Union Bill is that the solution the Government has come up with creates two types of relationships—two types in my view of marriage. That will create quite unintentional consequences particularly in international situations. Whilst within New Zealand we have a provision in the Civil Union Bill that states that one cannot be both married and in a civil union situations can readily arise on the international scene where that is exactly what will happen. I give the example of a man and a woman who enter into a civil union in New Zealand and then travel overseas to a jurisdiction that does not recognise civil unions—perhaps to the United States of America. As far the United States is concerned they are single people. They then split up and the man gets married in the United States and then returns with his new wife to New Zealand. 
What is the situation in New Zealand? The situation is that the man has a civil union with one partner in New Zealand and because New Zealand recognises all marriages overseas and people do not have to go through any registration process for it New Zealand also recognises the United States marriage. Therefore a person can be in a civil union relationship and in a marriage relationship and both are recognised as valid within New Zealand. What sort of situation will we have then? 
Hon David Benson-Pope 
: Bigamy. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: No it is not bigamy as the Minister in the chair David Benson-Pope seems to suggest because that person has married legitimately in a different jurisdiction. The fact that the person has returned to New Zealand would not suddenly make the second relationship bigamous given that it was not bigamous at the time it was entered into. So we will have that sort of problem. 
The recognition of overseas relationships in the bill in clause 34 “Regulations” will also create problems. In all but two countries the registration process is a lesser process than the one we are looking at. There is simply a registration process without the ceremonial aspects and without the extent of rights that the Government intends to provide for people who have a civil union so that when people who enter into a civil union overseas come to New Zealand they will automatically gain substantially more rights in New Zealand than they had in the overseas jurisdiction in which they entered into the union. That will create complications in terms of overseas property issues. Whereas overseas those people may not have certain rights to property that a married couple might have when they come to New Zealand they will have those rights. They will have rights in respect of property overseas that stem from the recognition of their relationship within New Zealand which they would not have if they tried to enforce those rights overseas. 
 That in itself will also create huge complications. It has been created because this Government has insisted on making at the very best two parallel types of relationship instead of facing the issue directly and simply trying to get through the House amendments to the Marriage Act to provide for same-sex relationships. Whenever we try to get parallel forms that are almost identical we will inevitably get those complications. 
If this is not same-sex marriage then my colleague Larry Baldock’s amendment ought to be adopted by the Committee. That amendment makes it very clear that a couple cannot convert their civil union into marriage unless it consists of a man and a woman. If this Government and the supporters of this bill are serious about preserving marriage for a man and a woman then here is their opportunity to put that on the line. Here is the opportunity to make the clear declaration that marriage will not be changed to make it available for people of the same sex. I will be very interested to see how people vote on that issue. This is an amendment for honesty. This amendment tests the honesty of the opponents who say that effectively marriage will be preserved for a man and a woman only. Let us see whether they live up to that expectation. 
The lesson we learn from this procedure is that we need to hear the concerns of minority groups and address their needs not their wants. The needs of the homosexual community in particular have been akin to next-of-kin criteria. Their wants are acceptance by society that homosexual relationships be provided with exactly the same benefits as heterosexual relationships. I do not agree that that is the case. The only reason the Government and society get involved in endorsing marriage is the importance of protecting and nurturing the circumstances in which the next generation will be raised. Homosexual relationships do not do that.