Paraone Pita: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Paraone Pita: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17599] 
PITA PARAONE (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call in this debate and I do so not from a pious moral position I might add but because I am a beneficiary of a binding referendum which was taken some time ago. While I am not permitted to label members in this Chamber with the “h” word I ought to say that in terms of the “h” word some people’s actions within this Chamber ought to be called into question. However I will comment on a number of points made by some members of this Chamber during the debate so far. 
The first question I ask is why we are in urgency. What is it about this very issue that demands that we have to deal with it under urgency? I have heard some people in this Chamber say that it is a matter of intolerance of one part of our society towards another group. If that is the case then I want to talk about homosexual law reform which took place in the 1980s where the introduction of that legislation was based on the same argument—the intolerance of one part of our community towards another. After that legislation—and it is almost 20 years ago—the intolerance is still there. I do not believe for one minute that this bill will remove the intolerance that exists in this society. The enactment of this legislation will not in any way remove the intolerance that people have been talking about. 
Earlier today a member mentioned that one of her offspring had been given a rough time by friends because of the member’s opposition to the bill. I do not know whether that was the reason why that particular member has since changed her view and declared her support for the bill but I say to that member that if those are the sorts of friends her offspring has then they are not really friends. 
I also noted that that member concluded by saying that this legislation is for young people. Therein I believe lies the crux of the concerns that are coming from what may be seen to be a pious moral position in terms of the future of young people. I say that the urgency given this bill will not address that matter in any way. At the end of the day it is a matter of attitude and the changing of people’s attitudes cannot be achieved by mere legislation. I will suggest to members of this House that in 15 or 20 years’ time the attitude that some people hold towards the intent of this bill will not have changed. If there is to be a change in this area then the people need to be given the opportunity to participate in the debate. 
New Zealand First as a consequence of its policy of supporting binding referenda addresses that issue. A referendum provides that opportunity. For those members in the Chamber who are denying that opportunity it can be only because they fear that the people of New Zealand do not have the capabilities to make the right decisions concerning them. 
There are a number of members on the Government’s side who oppose the bill but do not support the idea of a binding referendum. I say to the members from Mangere Waimakariri West Coast - Tasman and from Tamaki Makaurau that if they are true to their beliefs in opposing this bill then they ought to consider supporting New Zealand First’s stance in calling for a referendum. I want to say also to the member for Tamaki Makaurau that if he wants to make a koha and if he understands the real meaning of koha this is an opportunity to support binding referenda.