Smith Lockwood: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Smith Lockwood: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17512] 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 When speaking on Part 1 yesterday I shared with the Committee the dilemma of constituency members as they grapple with the fact that their constituents have a valid expectation that they will represent them in this House and with their responsibility to vote in the interests of all New Zealanders especially minorities. That is not easy. In speaking to Part 2 I want to continue to try to explain to members what I see as the fundamental problem with this legislation. 
As I mentioned yesterday a survey showed that my electorate is deeply divided over the issue and following the vote on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill in 1986 I had to live with the fact that I knew in my heart that I had in my view voted wrongly on that legislation. So I wanted to support this bill but my problem—and Part 2 really emphasises it—is that it is a real shame that something as important as this bill will not pass through the House with clear majority support. I believe that it would have been possible to draft legislation that supported same-sex couples—and maybe heterosexual couples as well—being able to enter into legally recognised partnerships that would have had the overwhelming support of this House. 
I ask those who are promoting this legislation why they went about it this way. Why draw up a bill that so clearly parallels the Marriage Act? Why could it not have been possible to draw up legislation that spelt out the legal requirements simply the fundamental process that couples would have to go through to obtain a registration certificate that registered their relationship then left them with the freedom—and I would have thought this would be so important to so many people—to celebrate that partnership or union in whatever way they wanted? Why with this legislation that will probably be passed in 2004 are we bothering to put into law stuff that is totally unnecessary? There is stuff in this bill that is totally unnecessary to achieve the long-term legal commitment wanted by the people who want this legislation. That is what I ask those who are promoting the bill. 
It is not too late now to amend this legislation so that it gets the overwhelming support of Parliament. I believe that my constituency could clearly support this legislation if it were not seen to parallel the Marriage Act and if it set out just the fundamental legal requirements for a civil partnership to provide for a long-term legal commitment between same-sex couples or whomever. I believe that my constituency would support that. But what troubles my constituents so much is that this legislation so clearly parallels the Marriage Act. 
I have not heard in this debate why that has been necessary. Why was it not possible through wider discussion across the House to work out legislation that could have had an overwhelming mandate from this Parliament? I think that would have been hugely desirable for New Zealand. I believe that it would have been possible to have law addressing this problem passed by a two-thirds or three-quarters majority of this House and I think that would have been better. 
It is not too late now. It is possible to make amendments to this legislation that I think could receive the overwhelming support of Parliament because I know there are many members in Parliament who do not want to deprive same-sex couples of the right to be able to register their relationship and have it recognised. I think there are many people who feel quite deeply about that and who want to see it available to same-sex couples. The problem is that the way this legislation is drafted offends people and that is unnecessary. Why do people who are promoting and supporting this legislation want civil union to look like marriage? I want to hear the answer to that.