Alexander Marc: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Alexander Marc: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17533] 
MARC ALEXANDER (United Future) 
: 
 I rise to make just a few points based on the commentary we have heard in the past. If this bill goes through the sun will still shine and the birds will still sing tomorrow. The world will not end. But this bill is a bill that this country does not need full stop. I too would like to see tolerance. I would like to see tolerance towards those who do hold marriage sacred who do not want a carbon-copy mockery of it handed out to people who only want social approval but none of the inherent responsibilities attendant on the Marriage Act. I also want to see respectfulness and loving relationships but we do not need law for that. 
There are a number of gay people in this Chamber and out in the community who are in longstanding relationships and that is to be commended. That is great but a law is not needed. The fact that those relationships survive proves the point: we do not need legislation to try to support that; it happens regardless. 
This bill is nothing more than about formalising an arrangement pushed along by a social agenda that is not publicly demanded—for the simple reason I guess of trying to legitimise a want. It is more about scratching an itch that is in the public. There is absolutely no need for it whatsoever. It is not the job of Governments to legislate such things. It is not the job of Governments to give people a qualitative analysis on the type of relationship they have loving or otherwise. Many gay relationships last much longer and are of a far better quality than some marriages but that is not the issue. The Marriage Act—the act of marriage—is all about the support of the children who are a natural consequence of that relationship. 
Such consequences do not normally ensue from the types of relationships that civil union is supposed to cover. In fact if children were involved the guardianship laws would kick in. So again there is no need for the State to intervene. We have categories for just about everybody now—de facto civil union perhaps marriage divorce and on and on it goes. We will end up in a situation where we will legitimate 4 million types of relationships simply because people want them and not because they actually need them. There is no necessity for this law at all. In fact the very arguments that are put forward in favour of it are not even considered in the bill. They will be addressed down the track next year with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which we have yet to see in its detail. 
This bill is also absolutely and utterly short-sighted. It is not the job of the Government to change such a fundamental aspect of our civil society without there being a clear mandate from the people. Given the differences of opinion in the House and the community it seems reasonable I think that the people should decide. That would be the most representative thing for this Government to do. So certainly I will be supporting the referendum call. But the bill is also short-sighted because it does not address the questions of civil union in terms of its impact on the relationship between civil union and marriage. 
For example if this bill passes people will be able to get civil union in New Zealand then go overseas to a country that does not recognise civil unions and get married to somebody else. Upon returning to New Zealand with a spouse from another country is the person a bigamist? |A person’s civil union is recognised in this country; will we recognise that person’s marriage in another country? How will that work? I would love that question to be addressed. Another country that does not recognise a person’s civil union registered in New Zealand will be more than happy to register that person’s marriage to a different person in that country. 
What does that make a person? From that other country’s point of view he or she is not a bigamist but from this country’s point of view he or she might be because according to the law in this country people cannot be in a civil union and married at the same time. Where are the legal boundaries here? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It actually creates a problem that is not already there which is simply that a person can be in a civil union with one person and married to another person somewhere else. That I think needs to be addressed. I would love to hear a call from the sponsor of this bill to address exactly that concern. 
I just end on this note: this bill is about legitimating wants. That is all it is. Some small segment of the population has stuck its hand up and said: “I have a want.” It is cloaked in the language of rights but it is not that.