Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Benson-Pope David: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17639] 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the Civil Union Bill be now read a third time 
. Today we will finally pass this the Civil Union Bill into law. We pass into law a bill that is necessary if the Government is to live up to its responsibilities under the Human Rights Act. We pass into law a bill that will enable our country to join the ranks of the now numerous countries that recognise that same-sex couples no less than opposite-sex couples are entitled to have their relationships recognised and if they wish solemnised. And we pass into law a bill that signals our growing maturity as a nation. There remain a few who say they are sorry it has reached this point. I say I am sorry only that it has taken so long and that there are still members of this House who oppose it. After all what is being asked for here seems so modest. Marriage remains something available solely to a man and a woman. Civil unions offer an alternative to those unable to marry or who do not wish to marry. Civil unions are to be a new relationship option that takes nothing from anyone else while providing choice to people currently denied it. 
Some argue that only a small minority of the population might ever want to enter a civil union. Does this make removing discrimination any less worthwhile? As the majority of New Zealanders who have supported this bill seem to have understood only too well human rights are not measured by numbers through a turnstile. The uproar over the Civil Union Bill has not been dissimilar to that that occurred almost 20 years ago over the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. There are of course some differences—most notably how much better informed people are today. The notable exception to that has been the many arguments proffered in this House from Opposition benches—the wild and woolly phantoms produced the lame excuses for not supporting something that is so clearly the right course of action and the almost total lack of intellectual rigour or common humanity. 
And in that way sadly one constant has remained from the debate of two decades ago—that is that the arguments put forward by those in Opposition are often just emotive fuelled by fear and misunderstanding. There is in fact no danger to the family from civil unions as the experience of Denmark and other countries that have introduced such arrangements has amply proved. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you are going to enforce your decision in regard to the Opposition—or I should say those opposed to this bill because we are led to believe that the Government has not exercised a whip on its caucus—then I would have thought it reasonable that those who speak do so in a way that is about their view of this bill not about their view of those who oppose it or for that matter those who support it. If we are to have an extra insistence by the Speaker that there be a nice gentlemanly approach to this debate then those who are on their feet have some obligation to be respectful of those who are according them similar respect. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just say that I am adopting not a gentlemanly approach but a parliamentary approach. A lot of people from throughout New Zealand congratulated the House on the way it conducted the second reading debate. I received hundreds of emails and I intend to reflect on that. The Standing Orders provide that there should be no interjection. I allow some because Speakers’ rulings allow some. The Standing Orders do not provide for interjections. The member should read them. As far as the Minister is concerned I just say that there is an obligation on the people who speak to reflect on their own point of view and not put words into the mouth of other parties. 
Hon DAVID BENSON-POPE 
: In the countries I refer to there has simply been no negative impact whatsoever on marriage by legislation such as this or on families in those countries. I predict that something else will prove to be similar as well. Once this bill is passed and the sky does not fall in the opposition to it will very quickly evaporate. 
There have of course been calls at the eleventh hour to delay the passage of the legislation until the holding of a referendum. But a referendum would clearly be inappropriate. I have not rejected the idea of a referendum because I think that a majority of people might vote against it. Public opinion tells us that in fact they are most unlikely to do that. Rather a referendum would be inappropriate because human rights are simply not the appropriate subject of a referendum. What could it possibly mean to say that New Zealand’s human rights legislation including the Human Rights Act should be applied in a particular instance only if the majority of the population decides that it should be so? What kind of protection for a minority is that? It is a not unremarkable coincidence that tomorrow is International Human Rights Day celebrating the signing of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. The words of Louise Arbour UN High Commissioner for Human Rights seem particularly apt today: “Human rights are our common heritage and their realisation depends on the contributions that each and every one of us is willing to make individually and collectively now and in the future.” 
There are same-sex couples in New Zealand who have been together in a loving relationship for many years and in some cases many decades and who have throughout that time been denied the opportunity to make a State-sanctioned public declaration of that relationship that would be recognised and protected by the law. Today we will end that situation. 
Many people have spoken and written in favour of the Civil Union Bill in submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee which considered the bill and in letters of support that have been flooding into our offices over the past few days. I will read a couple of them now. 
One states: “New Zealand has always been a front-runner in recognising that all people should have the same rights and I hope we can keep that fine tradition. As a Christian my support for these bills is consistent with and mandated by my faith. Christian teaching is based on the message of love and treating others with dignity and respect.” 
A second states: “My partner and I have been in a committed and loving relationship now for 23 years. I am thinking of what I wanted to write to encourage you to support the Civil Union Bill. I was thinking of describing the positions of responsibility we each hold in our work our contribution to the wider community in a variety of ways and our faith journeys. Then I decided not to. Why should I feel I have to convince you that as part of a lesbian couple I am a decent and honourable person and worthy of having my relationship given legal recognition? Ours is not a second-rate relationship.” 
The third states: “Currently our relationship lives only on the fringes of the law and we are not eligible to the legal protections that support those who are married. This is not only a matter of personal interest to us but an issue of justice. There are no valid reasons why we and others like us should be discriminated against.” 
We should listen to those voices speaking in favour of the Civil Union Bill. We should listen to the voices telling us to vote for what we know is right. They are the voices of the people who have been discriminated against for long enough and who have suffered from that discrimination. This bill takes away nothing but gives that simplest of things—the formal recognition and respect by our laws for the individual choices of New Zealanders. I am honoured to commend the bill to the House.