Goudie Sandra: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Goudie Sandra: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17508] 
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 In speaking to Part 2 I note clause 12 “Issue of licence and forms where solemnisation by civil union celebrant or exempt body” and I recall that about a fortnight ago two women were married joined or united in a ceremony in my electorate. So I have to ask why we need this bill as that couple has already done that. 
There is nothing like a conscience vote to set the debate exercise the mind and make one stop and consider the rationale for whatever position one decides to take. On the lowering of the drinking age and on the Prostitution Reform Bill I had no difficulty at all in having a pretty clear rationale for opposing those two bills or proposals but it is not quite so easy in respect of the Civil Union Bill. For me it is about setting parameters and about a way of living that has proven to be the optimum not just for children but also for families and thus society as a whole. 
We all need boundaries and rules. We can set some of those boundaries for ourselves but some of them are also set through the parameters we set in this Chamber. That is of course what we are doing here today. The discussion on this bill is based on members of a small sector of society wanting something that they consider is important to them. Many sectors of society have aspects that they consider are important to them and they lobby for those issues but that does not necessarily mean they will be successful. After all we are meant to be in Parliament to govern for the good of New Zealand as a whole and to make decisions for the greater good and in the best interests of all New Zealanders. 
In this case members of the homosexual and lesbian community want a law for themselves. They want to be able to have a ceremony where they can have a licence and form issued by a civil union celebrant or some such. However in arguing for the case someone who happened to be homosexual said to me: “Let’s be honest about it.” Well if we are going to be honest about it why are we not calling it the “Homosexual and Lesbian Civil Union Bill”? 
However there is not necessarily a lot of honesty around. This Government does not support a referendum on the matter because it knows that it would lose it. So I think there is not much honesty in that regard. I think a referendum is absolutely necessary. After all I believe that the majority of New Zealanders want a benchmark for their children something that they can aim for. It is about saying that there is an optimum—the best for themselves for families and for society as a whole. 
I have not been able to see any reason why legislation is necessary to give same-sex couples a feeling of self-worth so that they can feel happy and feel good not bad—as just reported by Dr Cullen—when those people can already create any sort of contract to suit themselves and be “joined” for want of a better word in a ceremony even a ceremony conducted in a church. It is my understanding that any other concerns can be addressed through various legal mechanisms. 
If one supports this bill on the basis of human rights and loving relationships then why would one not support polygamy? After all is that not a human right? Is that not a set of loving relationships—a man with multiple wives or a wife with multiple husbands? At what point does one set a parameter by which society has a level of standards that we can all aspire to? I think that is what we are seeing in Parliament. People are saying that they want a set of parameters. 
I was listening to Larry Baldock speak earlier and I was very impressed by some of the comments he made and he acknowledged the respect he has for individuals. But he also said that the issue was about setting standards for society and I fully believe that. We need to have a benchmark. We need to have a set of parameters by which society will function as a whole and in the best interests of the whole of society. That is what Parliament’s job is supposed to be—to make law in the interests of society as a whole; not necessarily to make law that addresses just some of the needs of a small section of society. We have not even gone into the whole AIDS issue but somebody may have. That is about the whole point of setting parameters and about governing in the interests of New Zealanders as a whole. Is the Government doing that here? I do not believe that it is. 
I want to see my children have a set of benchmarks and standards that they can aim for. It may not necessarily mean that they will get there.