Hutchison Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Hutchison Paul: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17605] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) 
: 
 Thank you Madam Chair for the opportunity to take a call on the title and commencement date of this very important and controversial bill. 
In this debate I think there has been very little discussion on the evolution over historical time—and I am looking at Dr Cullen as I say this—of this bill. I accept that the argument that this bill is being hurried through is not true; in New Zealand parliamentary terms there has been a fair amount of discussion about this bill. But in historical evolutionary terms the genesis of this bill is very short. 
I heard Nandor Tanczos say the other night on television—and I have to be careful to quote him right—“The principle is simple. It’s about whether people should have equal civil rights.” But surely in an ideal world the principle is about freedom of choice; surely liberal philosophy would say that as much freedom as possible is ideal provided that it does no harm; and surely the freedom to be able to shape the framework of one’s own relationship is the ideal. Here in New Zealand we have a common law that can underpin that. 
Last night I had spoken along those lines in this Chamber and much to my surprise I had a variety of emails with one from none other than a former Labour Party member Judy Keall who said: “Isn’t the logical conclusion of your argument that the Marriage Act is not needed in New Zealand?”. I say to Judy Keall that important enduring institutions such as marriage will survive through the centuries irrespective of legislation. 
The point that I really want to make is this. Over the last 60 years we have seen huge changes in civil rights and human rights for same-gender relationships. I welcome them and I celebrate them but— 
Darren Hughes 
: But you are voting against it. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Not at all. I say once again that biologically there are huge differences between men and women. As a former gynaecologist I certainly have had a little bit of experience of that very point. Biologically there are huge differences between same-sex unions and heterosexual unions. To my mind all should be celebrated. There is no question about it. 
We should think of Oscar Wilde. How would he be in modern-day New Zealand? He would be able to be as creative as he wanted. He would have that wonderful freedom. He would be able to shape the sort of relationship that he wanted to have and to know that it was underpinned by common law. He would be able to celebrate that relationship in any way he wanted—unshackled by some sort of civil union that the Labour Government would want him to have. Surely we have in this country at present the ideal situation and the Oscar Wildes of 60 years ago would think it was the ultimate ideal situation for them. 
It seems to me that the Labour Government—and many of the European countries it quotes—has followed the herd instinct and ignored the opportunity of freedom that the present situation in fact allows people. In historical terms the institution of marriage has evolved enormously over the years and it has had a considerable amount of reshaping. But in historical terms the longstanding prejudices against gays and lesbians in the legislative sense have been unshackled in a relatively short period of time. 
I believe that this bill is absolutely short-sighted. This bill actually curtails hard-won freedoms for same-sex couples. I have heard from my legal colleagues that the human rights issues such as the hospital-visiting rights that Moana Mackey talked about can easily be sorted out through simple—not complicated—legal remedies that provide what the Labour Government wants.