Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Nick: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17583] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Parliament is in urgency to debate the Civil Union Bill which should be called the “Gay Marriage Bill”. The first point I wish to make is why on earth it is necessary to pass such radical social legislation in a mad rush before Christmas. Why is it that Parliament is in urgency to deal with something that has no urgency about it at all except that the Government wants to get controversial legislation off the agenda before the election next year? 
The second point I wish to make is that this bill is all about gay marriage. No amount of sophistry and no amount of spin doctoring will change the fact that this bill is about gay marriage. We know that because that is what Tim Barnett said in a gay magazine. We know it is what the Prime Minister said when she said how proud she was that her Government was passing gay marriage legislation. But when it comes to the mainstream media the Government immediately changes its tune. There will be 1043 law changes affecting every one of the major statutes whether it be on education health superannuation or whatever else it is on and in every single one of those statutes civil union and marriage are to be identical. Civil union is only an exercise in spin that has a different name from marriage and the Government is being quite dishonest with the public of New Zealand in that regard. 
The third point I take objection to is that we are not debating the companion bill simultaneously with this legislation. Why is it that that bill has been put on hold while this one is being rushed through? The reality is that we have the building frame without any of the cladding. We do not know the substance of what is behind this bill and I simply cannot believe that members are voting for something without knowing the detail of it. 
I particularly want to focus on why on earth this Parliament wants to create a new institution called civil union that is absolutely identical to marriage in every single statutory reference. That is what the Government proposes and I ask why that is. It is proposed in this bill that civil union will be available to men and women just like a marriage. I have yet to hear in these hours of debate why it is that we need to create a new name. Some members have said that marriage has religious connotations. Well it probably still will after this. We are lawmakers. There is no reference to religion at all in the Marriage Act. What is there about the institution of marriage and its heritage that makes Government members want to dump on it? Why do we have to create a new name? We do not do that in other areas. Do we create a new name and a whole lot of other statutes for other things that are identical? It is a ridiculous— 
Darren Hughes 
: But we are protecting marriage. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Who does the member for Otaki think he is fooling? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: His colleagues. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: He may be fooling his colleagues but he certainly is not fooling the people of New Zealand. He is not fooling the thousands and thousands of people who made submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee which have been completely ignored. What is really going on here is an exercise whereby the Government wants to change culture by statute and that is not done. Yes marriage is an evolving institution. It has been changing for hundreds of years and it will continue to change. But it is not for this Parliament to pretend that it can completely change it create a new beastie called a civil union and then give that exactly the same legal elements as there are for a marriage. 
This Government is undermining marriage. This bill should be defeated.