Smith Murray: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Murray: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19132] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 I appreciate having the opportunity to respond to the taunts of New Zealand First and ACT members who asked why we keep this Government in office. I am actually quite astonished at the lack of primary school arithmetic evidenced by those members who try to do the numbers. If they add—as I hope most people would be able—27 plus 9 and 13 plus 8 they would get 57. For a Government 61 is needed. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to address the bill. That is most important. Otherwise I will have to terminate his speech. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Disparaging comments were made by other parties about this issue and I understand that under the Standing Orders I have the ability to respond to those. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: OK but would the member now just move on please. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Responding to irrelevant remarks has never made the response relevant. The rules are very clear. The member has been in Parliament for only a short time and he will not be here much longer. That is one Speaker’s ruling he should look up. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I ask the member to move on please. 
MURRAY SMITH 
: My colleague Larry Baldock was referring to the Doha declaration and because of short time constraints he was not able to finish everything he said. The Doha declaration he mentioned was the Doha Declaration on the Family that was passed in 2004 by 139 nations. That declaration called on nation States to “Uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage;” to “Take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by among other things encouraging the full and equal partnership of a husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship;” and to “Establish effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family including the establishment of public agencies to assist men women children and families in crisis;”. 
It is worth noting the latter point point 14 in the declaration about establishing effective policies and practices to condemn and remedy abusive relationships within marriage and the family. That is very relevant because New Zealand refused to sign the declaration on the ludicrous pretext that it did nothing to stop genital mutilation of African women. Well not only was that a very narrow line to take but it is in fact quite wrong. The declaration as I read it makes it quite clear that abusive relationships within marriage and the family are things that States are encouraged to dissociate from. So the Government did not support it. 
The real reason the Government did not support the declaration was that the declaration did not support civil unions and that is much evidenced in this bill. As made very clear here and as all New Zealand knows this legislation and the civil union legislation are all about legitimising same-sex marriage. The Government’s agenda then in relation to the declaration was quite clear in its refusal to support a declaration that said that States should “uphold preserve and defend the institution of marriage”. In terms of this bill the Government’s intention to try to equate marriage with same-sex relationships—and as it started with de facto relationships—is in direct contradiction to the direction in which the 139 nations that signed the declaration are heading. 
New Zealand is out of step with the direction the world is going in. There may have been a period—I know there was a period—when the world seemed to be adopting human rights issues and going down the path of greater and greater rights for people. That is now turning round. Particularly with regard to this whole area of marriage the world has cottoned on to the fact that marriage is the best environment particularly in which to nurture the next generation. That is important. Pansy Wong made a comment to the effect that she had not thought in terms of nurturing children when she got married. Well that is fine from an individual point of view and nobody is suggesting that people who get married necessarily have to have children. But the reason for the State’s interest in providing stable environments is that the State is looking towards the next generation and has a vested interest in ensuring that our children are raised in the best possible environment. 
In that context my speech on the second reading which outlined the statistics that quite clearly show—as all the social statistics do—that a stable marriage between a man and a woman is the best environment for raising children is entirely relevant. The Government and those who are supporting this bill are moving in the opposite direction.