Peters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumePeters Winston: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9488. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): New Zealand First believes in the use of public referenda and we have for a long time. Some will recall that in 1997 we put a referendum to New Zealand voters on a savings regime similar to those of Australia or Singapore. Sadly it was voted down and 16 years later we are broke and in the clutches of foreign banks and foreign money. We could have just rammed a bill through Parliament but we went and took it to the people and those are our bona fides on the issue of a referendum.We have spent the better part of a year debating Ms Wall’s bill and sadly the public are not much the wiser for it. In fact there has hardly been a debate. What we have had is a small yet vocal minority telling the rest of New Zealanders that this is a law change that everyone wants and that anyone who disagrees has got to be a bigot. Then on the other side of the so-called debate we have got those who would like to see the Statepolice themselves police morality in the bedroom. The truth is that most New Zealanders sit somewhere in the middle. That might be tawdry and uncomfortable but it is the way a society works.Some support the change; others do not. But their reasons for supporting or opposing it are never as sensationalist or extreme as some on either side would have us believe. No one really knows what side the majority of the public opinion sits on. Some claim as Ms Wall and her supporters have that there is a huge groundswell for change. Well is that true? If so how do we know? As far as we are aware the issue never came up at any of the meetings that we held in the 3 years out from the last election. Nobody lobbied us and no journalists called to ask where we sat on the issue. There were no words spoken on the campaign trail about same-sex marriage whatsoever.It is not the issue—and Ms Wall has every right to draft a bill and present it to this House—but a lot of the bile in this issue would not be present had the process been different. It came upon us this bill out of the blue. The manner of this bill’s emergence the process by which it got before Parliament needs to be publicised. It is why many fair-minded Kiwis feel confused. They are confused because Ms Wall and her supporters have not told them how it happened. Why did they not go to the last election in the campaign and say up front: “We will introduce same-sex marriage.” instead of using some woolly language like: “We will review relationship and property law.”? Who up in the gallery thinks that that is what they wanted? The only explanation has to be that they were afraid. They were afraid that their party supporters might not like it. We can make all the pretentious glorious statements tonight but in the end it is what the people think.In fact Ms Wall sad to say was not even up front with her own party. The normal process in the Labour Party—Hon Member: Come on.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —I am coming on with the facts here—is for members’ bills to be taken to the Labour whips’ office for the Labour whip to lodge after the bill is approved by the Labour caucus. That is the process every party follows and it has to be followed because the system will not operate without it. But Ms Wall did not follow it. It is a fact. They can make all the statements they like now but the first the Labour leader’s office knew of it was seeing it on the list of bills lodged. That is a fact. So tell us why the Labour whips’ office and caucus were not told first before the bill was lodged—Hon Lianne Dalziel: It did go to caucus.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I am getting it from the best of authority that that is what happened. From—[Interruption] Yes after the event. That is true—after the event.Moana Mackey: We were there.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: So you were in the whips’ office? No you were not and that is a fact. My evidence is that of somebody who was and it suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue.Ms Wall what do the people of Manurewa think? What do the people out there in South Auckland in Manurewa think? Well there is utter silence now but this is about democracy and representation. That is why so many Labour supporters are telling us that they support our referendum stance—because they feel they have never been asked that somehow they have been left out; even more think that somehow they have been cheated.This is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be a place where the people’s voice matters. This is supposed to be a Parliament where one would be proud to face up to their caucus and say: “I think this bill should come before Parliament.” Oh no no I am sorry; that is what they are saying now because they could not say anythingelse in the same way that many National members over there are going to vote for this bill knowing full well that the so-called protection for religious dissidents whether they are celebrants or otherwise is not in this legislation. If a Church deems someone’s objection to be wrong then that person could be punished. That is all they asked for. Is it too much for that to happen?That is why we call this House the House of Representatives representing not ourselves but the people. Here we are as a Parliament about to circumvent any expression of public opinion yet again. Why? Do they think that if the public is asked they might lose? I do not know but I am prepared to trust the public. I do not wish to hear from polls; I want to know exactly what the public think. OnCampbell Live tonight I think the poll that it had strange as it was—and I do not think it is remotely scientific—had 78 percent saying no and 22 percent saying yes. What say it is wrong by 20 percent? The question is this: what do the public think? And why are there so many people in this Parliament prepared when it suits them to circumvent the public’s will when all the bile and venom of this issue would not have been in Parliament had we asked New Zealanders: “Well what do you think?”.Shortly we go to Anzac Day. It is about democracy and it is about an inclusive democracy that they were fighting for not just one vote every 3 years and that is my point. We are prepared to respect as a party in New Zealand First that we have many divergent views within the party. We respect that. That is why we are prepared to all compromise and say as one group: “Well let’s ask New Zealanders for after all they should be the final arbiters.” This is a rule not for us; it is a law for them.We object to the people being taken for granted. We object to the view that because we are here and we have temporary hold of the reins what Joe Public thinks is of no import whatsoever. For those who wish to ignore this message then let me give this clear warning: there is a day of reckoning coming electorally. The manner of this vote tonight—laugh now and cry later. The manner of this vote tonight is a game-shifter and it will be reflected in the next election results. There are some issues that dissipate and there are some issues that stay around a long time. All around New Zealand tonight and in the next few days people will be saying: “Well if that’s the way they think—that our view does not matter—then I will never ever vote for them again.” If one looks at the huge social and economic issues this country presently faces and the desperate need for better solutions to them then some in this House have seriously sacrificed their colleagues and their party for a narrow undemocratic—worthy or unworthy I do not know—expression. When the political wilderness years come do not say you were not warned.