Prebble Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Prebble Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19076] 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE (ACT) 
: 
 I have been motivated to rise in this debate by the last contribution which I have to say was somewhat bizarre. The Committee was told that if United Future can only get back in after the election it will stop the godless Labour Party from introducing the next horrible thing which apparently is same-sex adoptive parents. The problem I have with that is that if United Future was so good at stopping these sorts of things why are we having this debate? Why did United Future not say to the Government 3 years ago that it would not give its support if the Government introduced the Civil Union Bill and if it then followed it with the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill? 
Dail Jones 
: It wasn’t their policy. 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: It was the Labour Party’s policy but I am asking this question of the United Future party. It is a mystery to me and it must be a mystery to most people who supported United Future although very few people now admit to having done so. Those who do admit to having done so must question how it is that the United Future party can give stability to the Labour Government day in and day out enabling the Government to introduce legislation of this sort. I think Murray Smith will have a great deal of difficulty persuading anybody that United Future will stop the Labour Government from carrying out any of its lifestyle politics. I would like to think that Mr Smith would do a bit of work on the bill and support Stephen Franks’ measure. [ 
Interruption 
] I am pleased to hear that he says he will because Stephen Franks’ measure is one that not only people like Mr Smith but also genuine liberals should support. What he is drawing to the attention of the Committee is that under the Human Rights Act as amended by this bill it will become illegal for a person who is providing services for things like civil unions—which I understand the United Future party thinks are the work of the devil—not to provide them if asked. 
It seems to me that it is wrong that the Parliament of New Zealand should decide that regardless of whether we are for or against civil union—and I voted for that legislation. If people want to make choices they should. I will support Mr Franks’ measure because I do not think we should force people to provide services. The most dramatic example will be churches that have church halls that are let out for hire. Sometimes the church itself is let out like the Assemblies of God church in Auckland. 
Hon Member 
: Where is it? 
Hon RICHARD PREBBLE 
: I am talking about the church in Beaumont Street right by the Harbour Bridge. I was invited there on Good Friday by one of our ethnic groups which had hired it that night to listen to an Indian pop concert. Unfortunately they put me in the front row so I was somewhat deafened. I realised that under this bill if one wanted a rip-roaringly big civil union—because one would be inviting a lot of people to fill that church—by law that Assemblies of God church would not be able to refuse the hire request even though it is opposed to it. That has to be wrong and that is why I say that anyone in this Chamber who is a genuine liberal should support Mr Franks’ amendment. 
If people run a bridal service with bridal cars then under this bill they will be required to provide those cars for civil unions even if they are members of the Destiny Church and Brian Tamaki says that they will go to hell for having done so. I say to the Committee that it is a great mistake when Parliament starts to pass measures that people of Christian persuasion think are wrong because that is a church that believes in martyrdom and those people just will not do it. If people just will not do it we then will find ourselves starting to penalise people all to carry out the social programme of Margaret Wilson—but we are not allowed to mention her any more—or of Helen Clark and this Labour Government who intend to enforce their particular social views on the rest of the country.