Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Peters Winston: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17644] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 The real issue is whether we can give credence to people’s words. The supporters of the Civil Union Bill argue that this is an equality issue an equity issue a fairness issue and a one-law-for-all issue. The real question is whether that is correct right and factual. For that to be right correct and factual the proponents of this bill know full well that it would have only one clause in it: a clause that gave homosexuals the same right as heterosexuals under the Marriage Act. In order to be correct right and factual that is what this bill would state. Mr Barnett after all promised that to the gay community. Does this bill do that? No it does not. It does everything but that which is why so many fundamental homosexuals do not want a bar of this bill. Why is it that Mr Barnett says he supports it yet condemns those very people to second-class citizenry? He is condemned out of his own mouth. Fundamental homosexuals do not support this bill and the proponents of this bill know that. But not having the courage of their convictions they throw a sop to the homosexual community and say homosexuals can like it or lump it but they are here for them. 
What has happened to the courage of those members’ convictions? What has happened to their integrity? What has really happened to their honesty? They know that some gays want equality under the Marriage Act. Why do they not come here and admit that? Why do they not admit that this bill does not give gays that? Is this bill what Mr Barnett claims it to be or is it a lie? Is it deceit—more double talk? Is it more duplicity? As I said before this bill means that those who have argued for equality will not get it and members should not let anybody here disabuse them of that. 
My colleague Brian Donnelly quite properly put up the issue of a referendum in which the people of this country would decide this issue not Parliament. The argument to counter that was that Labour said it was here to govern and to make decisions. Members will recall that between 1984 and 1990 Labour sold about $9 billion worth of this country’s assets without any conference or consultation with the people of this country whatsoever. That is the kind of power Labour usurped for itself even though it had not promised to do that. Labour has also said that referenda are costly which is a palpable dishonesty when we know that at a general election we could run the two processes together. 
Mr Benson-Pope by denying us a referendum denies members of the gay community the opportunity to gain the public acknowledgment that today he claimed for them: the endorsement of the relationships they are in by the public of New Zealand. If Mr Benson-Pope meant what he said why would he not give members of the gay community the chance to have their relationships endorsed by the people of New Zealand—why not? That is quite ironic given that one of his real concerns is that they currently do not enjoy such acceptance. How odd is that? On the one hand we argue that the public should have a chance to give their view but on the other hand Mr Benson-Pope will not give the public a chance to decide whether they accept the issue. If Mr Benson-Pope is so confident that the Government would win a referendum why does he stand in the way of delivering to gay people a message from New Zealand that says: “It’s OK; we accept you.” Rather he has taken the dictatorial autocratic imperious arrogant elitist and superior view so often taken by Labour that the public cannot be trusted—the view that says: “Trust only we who are Labour.” I say to people today that if they are Labour voters and think that the people should have had a vote in a referendum on this issue then they should not vote for Labour in 2005.