Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17505] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I would like to make some comments this morning with regard to some of the speeches that were made last night when members were dealing with Part 1. 
There was a speech from Mark Peck in which he preached his doctrine and religion of tolerance and it all sounded really wonderful. He said that no one should ever judge anybody else and that we should all be tolerant of everybody but he made it very clear even during his own speech that he was less than tolerant of those of us on the other side of the Chamber or wherever we may be who have any view apart from his own. That is the fallacy of that particular doctrine that is preached; it is all about: “We are tolerant of everything as long as you agree with us.” 
We do not live in that kind of world. This is not a world where there are no rights and no wrongs although many people try to proclaim that there is no absolute right and no absolute wrong and that everybody should accept everything. The people who preach that decide very quickly that something is wrong if someone steals their car breaks into their home or affects their person in some way. Then suddenly they have standards that they consider are right and there are actions that they consider are wrong. So although that doctrine sounds wonderful it is a lot of poppycock and codswallop to say that we should all be tolerant of everybody and should not have any standards. New Zealand society has a right to be able to determine that some things are right and some things are wrong. That is why some of us believe that this issue should go to a referendum—so that New Zealanders can say whether they believe that it is now right for people of the same sex to be able to have marriage in the same way as heterosexual couples have it. 
Another speech last night was from the Hon David Cunliffe who gave great respect to the Church and its opinions in society but then said that the Church should keep its opinions out of government and that it had no place here. But he seemed to miss the point that instead this Government was stepping into that role and making declarations in this nation. I have to ask what right the Government has to do that. What right has the Government to tell the Church that it should keep its opinions to itself then to step in and begin to make declarations—as it is doing through this legislation—about what is right and wrong in our society without reference to the opinions of those in the land who do have strong beliefs? 
The real high point of the speeches yesterday though was that from Tim Barnett. He got up and said that he was in a dilemma in that he obviously could marry but if he married a woman it would not work out very well. He has a same-sex partner but he is unable to marry that person. He said very clearly that he has been living in sin for a number of months because he has been unable to marry his partner. That is an amazing statement. I appreciate the man’s honesty but why does he feel that he is living in sin? Why does he feel that he now needs the Government to pass a law this civil union legislation so that he can marry and not have that feeling of living in sin any more when in actual fact the whole basis of this argument is supposed to be that there is not any such thing as sin that one can do whatever one likes and that everybody should be tolerant of one’s behaviour? 
That is really the crux of this legislation. It is about giving those living in relationships that they feel are wrong the endorsement of society. They want the acceptance of society and through this legislation they are trying to demand that anyone in New Zealand who has any other opinion must conform and give acceptance to their relationships. Well I say to Mr Barnett that I am sorry but it is not possible to legislate for that. This Government even if it passes this law cannot force me to give him acceptance of his relationship. I can honour him as a human being and give him human rights but I cannot be forced by this Government to endorse his particular lifestyle and his choice of relationship. It is absurd that while one speaker on that side of this argument is saying that the Government should keep the Church out of its decision this bill is turning the Government into the Church of the land in that it is beginning to provide absolution for all of those in New Zealand who are living in relationships that they do not feel are accepted by society. In Mr Tim Barnett’s own words he feels he is living in sin and he wants the Government to give him absolution so that he will not feel that way any longer. He will be able to have a ceremony and receive a piece of paper from the Government and then he can feel OK about the way he lives. 
We are not seeming to hear any more in this debate about all the arguments about next-of-kin agreements and it is rather strange that all of that has stopped. When the bill was first introduced people said it was all about the fact that many people were being denied their right to visit their partner in hospital.