Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Barnett Tim: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17452] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I mainly want to talk about public opinion because that has been an issue raised by a number of speakers but I would just like to start with a couple of challenges to members to respond to. One is in response to something Dr Nick Smith said earlier. I would like to know from Nick Smith in what sense the virtue and the purity of his marriage is threatened by this proposal for civil unions. He said it is and I would like to know how. In terms of Mr Baldock who talked about unintended consequences I want to hear from one of the opponents to this bill what were the unintended consequences of the decriminalisation of gay sex 18 years ago and what were the unintended consequences of the introduction of human rights protections 10 years ago. 
Those are fundamental questions but let us move on to the issue of public opinion. First of all in terms of opinion polls rather than just quoting who we listen to let us look at scientific opinion polls. Four polls have been held in New Zealand over the last 14 months on this issue. In October 2003 ACNielsen (NZ) Ltd found 64 percent support and 30 percent opposition; in April 2004 the One News Colmar Brunton poll found 46 percent support and 34 percent opposition; the 3 News poll in July 2004 found 59 percent support and 39 percent opposition; and in the  
New Zealand Herald  
poll in September 2004 the figure was 56 percent for and 39 percent against. So there seems to me to be quite a comprehensive public endorsement of the proposal of civil union. 
If we turn to the issue of the mandate three political parties in this Chamber committed in their manifestos at the last election to either introduce or support this legislation namely the Greens the Progressive Party and the Labour Party. That certainly is a mandate for this House to deal with the issue. 
Let us turn to the issue of media comment and what better source than the  
Ashburton Guardian 
. Thank goodness the narrow views of Mr Connell do not represent those of the people of Ashburton. In its editorial of 30 November 2004 entitled “Gays lesbians need their rights” the  
Ashburton Guardian 
 spoke of gay and lesbian people in New Zealand being allowed the same rights in its view as other couples. The editorial asked: “Do we not pride ourselves on being liberal in this country?”. While some people in New Zealand may not agree that people of the same sex should even be together and maybe their local MP is one of those the fact is it happens has happened for a long time and will never stop. 
Let us turn to its editorial opinion after the Destiny New Zealand march entitled “Bigotry might be their destiny but it’s not ours”. “The hysteria and homophobia over the Civil Union Bill show just how immature we are as a country. … Homosexuality isn’t a lifestyle choice. It’s a condition. If two men or two women live together in love we should respect their decision and commitment and move on. People shouldn’t be scorned because of their sexuality just as they shouldn’t be scorned because of their race or religion or gender.” It goes on to state that this bill has forced people to nail their colours to the mast. I can tell Mr Connell that it states: “You can support homosexuals without being judged one yourself.” It ends: “God knows New Zealand has problems. But homosexuality isn’t one of them.” 
Then we might like to turn to Dr Wayne Mapp’s scientific poll. I notice that he did not give us the wording of that poll. He gave me the wording during a select committee meeting after he challenged me on it. The scientific poll contained four factual inaccuracies. Any polling that does not have fair and balanced questions is not effective. Dr Mapp had the opportunity when he spoke to give us the wording of the poll that he used in his electorate and he failed to do that. 
I think one of the truest things said in this whole debate was a comment by Stephen Franks again when the Justice and Electoral Committee was meeting when he said: “Well in reference to the Civil Union Bill the issues actually are pretty simple. You are either for it or you are against it.” The issue is one of fundamental human rights and fundamental human dignity. Of course Stephen Franks rather spoiled that by first of all supporting it then going against it. I do not quite know what it says about him. I really just want to point out that at the end of the day public opinion is behind this legislation. It is good solid mainstream Kiwi liberal legislation.