Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9040. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Could I begin by acknowledging the courteous and I think intelligent and sensitive way in which the vast majority of members of this House have conducted themselves throughout all stages of this debate. It is of course one of the most highly charged and emotional subjects that we have ever been asked to grapple with and many people who have been listening to the debate whether they are for or against it have commented to me about how impressed they have been and that they think it has been Parliament at its best. 
Could I also acknowledge Moana Mackey who is in the Chair at the moment. Earlier tonight she called for those who are promoting Supplementary Order Papers and I am one of them to clarify their protections for people of conscience that the sponsor of the bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill promised the nation and which the Government Administration Committee has tried to secure and to instead promote changes to the Human Rights Act. I certainly had to consider that in looking to put together my Supplementary Order Paper 203 but it was very clear that that would have been well outside the scope of this bill and would not reflect the concerns or the intentions of those who are promoting the Supplementary Order Papers or at least the ones that I have read; there may be more to be tabled. My Supplementary Order Paper however does refer to the Human Rights Act to ensure that marriage celebrants and others in I guess what might be called the wedding business would not be subject to prosecution in the future if for reasons of belief or personal philosophy which may have nothing to do with religion they are unwilling to conduct or participate in same-sex marriages. That is a very important protection for organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church and I want to acknowledge the plea for our understanding that we have received from the Church including Archbishop John Dew. I am not a Roman Catholic but I certainly read his submission particularly carefully. 
My own views on this bill are well known because I have had the privilege of speaking in both the first and second readings of this debate. I did so in the second reading because I had been a substitute member of the Government Administration Committee. So in this particular call I want to explain my thinking on the issue of the referendum. Like the speaker who has spoken just before me Ian McKelvie I do not often agree with Winston Peters either but on this occasion I do support his Supplementary Order Paper calling for a referendum Supplementary Order Paper 188. The reason is because this clearly was not an election issue in 2011 and it is one of the most divisive issues of our time. The only time in the whole of the 2011 campaign that I as a candidate for Hamilton West was asked how I might vote on this issue was when I attended a meeting which was also attended by Kevin Hague and a few other members of this House at a nightclub and it was a meeting organised by our lesbian gay bisexual and transgender community in Hamilton. It was certainly quite a challenging meeting but it was also one that was conducted with courtesy. 
Contrary to the nonsense that is frequently being written about me in this debate including in just the last few hours on Facebook I want to say again that I am neither anti-gay nor homophobic. I certainly do not want to support any form of discrimination. Most of my gay friends know that and acknowledge that. Not all gays of course think alike on this issue just as not all Christians do. Many of my gay friends and acquaintances have paid me the compliment of reading the speeches that I have delivered and responding to me intelligently. I acknowledge the fact that many of them do not agree with me but I thank them for that engagement and they have paid me the compliment of saying that they understand where I am coming from on this issue. By contrast those who have been vitriolic in their attacks have never engaged with the arguments that I have put forward. It is conspicuous when I read what they post about me and about others who have spoken on this bill that when they constantly use terms like “bigot” and “homophobic” they are running away from real engagement in the debate. It says far more about them than it does about me or others who have a different view from theirs. So I respect the many gay people who have contacted me intelligently and sensitively to engage on the issue. I respect them; I thank them for respecting me. 
Like many MPs I wish I did not have to express a view on this topic. I acknowledged my friend David Bennett a minute ago who explained that so many of us find ourselves in a position where we have to express a view because we are here and this issue has arisen. But there are so many New Zealanders who currently feel disenfranchised and deeply disturbed by what is occurring because it is a fundamental social change and they are despairing of the fact that this has come upon us in this Parliament without their having any opportunity to influence the way we would vote. None of my constituents apart from the few who attended that lesbian gay bisexual and transgender meeting that I mentioned in Hamilton just before the election had any reasonable way—