Horomia Parekura: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Horomia Parekura: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17446] 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 Some of the narrowness that abounds in this House certainly surprises me especially in relation to this very serious bill. The member who has just spoken Richard Worth exuded what a lot of people are exuding about how people do take this issue seriously. What licence is given in this country to determine that emotion love and care exist only in a narrow framework that is written on a piece of paper when we know through clear facts and percentages that there is a lot of divorce and adultery? It is like the king with no clothes. It seems to be the symptom that is pervading in here. 
We heard some rubbish spoken earlier on about people’s choice. We talk about fairness and equity. This bill is about people’s choice. I know that quite certainly some of my relations and whanau are in gay relationships and they need to be respected. Others might not like it but as a real bloke who played a lot of rugby in the front row and did all those blokey things I do understand it. [ 
Interruption 
] I am glad that I am not as narrow-minded as that member who tries to make believe that these people do not care for each other. Relationships should not be as I have said constrained within the framework of the licence that some churches and organisations write out and sign. I dare not tamper with the basic fundamentals and ethics of churches in this country but I think that what is going down is hypocrisy at the maximum— 
Brian Connell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member who is on his feet just used a word that is unparliamentary. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: I thank the member for raising that. I was waiting to see to whom he was referring with that word. Perhaps it is better if he does not use it. I am not sure in what context he was using it. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: I am very clear. If the word does not fit— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: No no. The member is now getting close to indicating where he was heading. I will ask him to desist and leave it as unknown. 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA 
: One is put asunder when one hears the negative challenges around this issue. People are so definitive because of the law but they want to corrupt that progression with their specific narrow view on lore. Certainly in relation to unions we need to recognise that in contemporary times things are changing. Members heard Moana Mackey give a fine description of young people’s relationships in this country. Because they are doing it differently does not mean they do not love or care for each other. There is no difference from the relationship of kuia and mokopuna. We love them because they are our own. It is recognised in Maori lore. Certainly there are tensions and challenges even from our own people but I think we need to take a couple of steps back especially those people who are hardening off and expecting everybody to live in the same little box behind the same silk curtains and are misbelieving and exaggerating what really goes on in this world in contemporary times. 
There will be challenges as this bill goes through and they will be no different from other challenges. But let us remember that people have a choice in this country whether they are immigrants tangata whenua or Pakeha Kiwis and whether or not they are married. We can play with the percentages but for the opponents of this bill to try to bully everyone else into a certain position whether it may be perceived as conservative or as the status quo or as historically inherited through church union or whatever else begs a lot to be asked and answered. 
I certainly do not have total support from my own whanau in relation to the stance that I have taken. But one thing that I am very clear on is that people have choices in this country and this Government has been about that. It has recognised that and has given people choices and the Civil Union Bill is about that. It is about a group of people and about practices that people are involved in. That is their business. What is so untoward about recognising how people choose to live?