Roy Eric: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Roy Eric: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:674] 
ERIC ROY (National—Invercargill) 
: 
 I take a call to state a few concerns I have and why I will be supporting the Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill. 
As a first principle I say that this is members’ day. It is members’ opportunity to seek to enshrine in legislation things for which they are representing a constituency—or certainly that they have the impression they are representing. So I think this House has a responsibility to consider very seriously whether a bill such as this should at least pass its first reading to give members of the public an opportunity to state their preference. We have heard from the member in charge of the bill Mr Copeland that 57 percent of New Zealanders would support this bill. I have no doubt that the figure is somewhere near that whatever the exact nature of it. So I believe we do have a responsibility to give the public an opportunity to comment by passing this bill in its first reading. 
I make no claims to have any great knowledge of the law and I listened with interest to both Katherine Rich and Chris Finlayson. They may well be right. So why would the public wish to see the Quilter 
decision codified? I will summarise some of the comments that have been made in this debate. The Hon Lianne Dalziel stated that she would not be supporting the bill. One of the reasons she gave was that it could be discriminatory against the children of parents in a variety of relationships outside the norm. If in fact the Quilter decision stands there will be no married same-sex couples upon which that discrimination will fall so there is some confusion about that particular item. The Quilter decision is enshrined in a law report and it will not be changed. We had some contradictory or at least ambiguous comments from Lianne Dalziel. Then the Green Party member Metiria Turei got up and said she would not be supporting the bill because she has a definite programme to ensure no discrimination in relationships. So it is exactly her plan to see marriage for same-sex couples. Is there any reason why then the public at large wants to see this matter codified? 
I say that this bill is not wasting time despite the claims of members. This is members’ day and we are not wasting the Government’s or Parliament’s time. I have to say that having being in this House for more than three terms I have noted on the odd occasion behaviour that could be termed as wasting Parliament’s time. When we have a significant proportion of the public saying that we need actually to codify this matter in legislation and that it needs an opportunity to speak to it in a submission process at a select committee then this bill is certainly not wasting time. 
Mr Copeland the promoter of the bill also mentioned situations where law reports in various countries had been overturned. I repeat that certainly the situations in Canada South Africa and the state of Massachusetts saw the expected outcome of law reports turned over. In times gone by this Parliament has codified law reports to take all possible ambiguity out of a situation. I say that this is an opportunity for members to listen to what the public are saying and if we are wrong if the submissions overwhelmingly condemn this legislation then what harm is done? We will have listened to what I believe a majority of New Zealanders are saying. I support the bill.