Hutchison Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hutchison Paul: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4923. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 From the outset I want to acknowledge Louisa Wall and her thoughtfulness and preparedness to speak with me at very short notice both knowledgably and incredibly wisely on this very important bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. Secondly might I acknowledge my constituents in Hunua who have answered many surveys that I have put out and have thoughtfully and with great effort and passion sent me many emails and letters regarding this bill. I have thought long and hard about it and despite the  
New Zealand Herald  
depicting me this morning as voting against it and many attempts I simply cannot construct a strong enough intellectual moral health or even spiritual argument against it. Consequently I will be voting for the bill. 
As was also mentioned by the  
New Zealand Herald  
a few weeks ago within a few hours of this bill being drawn from the ballot I had the Christian lobby in my local electorate asking for an appointment and they certainly gave me their very clear views which I respect. But subsequent to that I have had many conversations throughout the electorate with people from many walks of life. I very much respect that Louisa Wall sees the major issue is about ensuring that all New Zealanders have equal rights regardless of gender or sexual orientation. We have a system of separation of Church and State and this bill clearly relates only to civil law and preserves the right of churches to decide whom they may marry. I very much appreciate—I very much hope that the churches appreciate—that fact. I would certainly be against the bill if that were not the case. 
My initial reticence in supporting the bill came from my concern that some of the issues around it have not been fully explored by way of national conversations that there is no strong New Zealand evidence base and that we are travelling fast to come to a result on an issue that many New Zealanders on either side feel very deeply about—issues that have profound sociological implications. I ask: should the New Zealand Parliament be in the first instance initiating expert or select committee inquiries into the new birth technologies adoption the spectrum of sexuality and gender difference children’s rights and the evidence from the New Zealand experience so far be it fairly short? 
I understand that currently a female adult in New Zealand can adopt both a boy and a girl but a male can adopt only a boy and only in exceptional circumstances a girl. With the passage of this bill that will change instantaneously and that is a big change that does need exploring. But in the end it boils down to the same premise that all New Zealanders should have the right to civil marriage irrespective of race sex or gender. 
I was deeply concerned to hear that gay adolescents have a suicide rate five to eight times that of heterosexual adolescents in a country that already has an appallingly high suicide rate. In conversations with the Hon Maryan Street and Kevin Hague they both tell me that it will make a profound difference to the marginalisation that adolescents feel. 
From a health perspective we should be doing everything possible to create an environment in New Zealand where everyone feels they are included—I accept that. I am impressed that the Anglican Church here in New Zealand is moving albeit slowly but progressively by appointing a commission of study led by Sir Anand Satyanand and Tamati Reedy. I want to see these issues widely debated and studied in a New Zealand context and I hope they will submit to the select committee. 
Finally I sincerely hope that the select committee process will be thorough and robust and will be committed to openly addressing the sorts of issues I have brought up and many more. Although I would have personally preferred a slower process regarding this legislation as I said earlier I simply cannot construct an intellectual moral health or spiritual argument against it—in fact the reverse is very much the case. I support the bill.