Jones Dail: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18977] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 The bill that we have before us is the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. It follows on from the Civil Union Act and it really should be called the “Civil Union and Other Relationships (Statutory References) Bill” because without the Civil Union Act having been passed we would not need this legislation. It is all to do with civil union. 
There is a conscience vote on this bill and there is almost a total majority on the part of New Zealand First members against this legislation. Our policy is quite clear on this type of social engineering. There should be a referendum on the issue and all the people of New Zealand should decide rather than a few of us here in Parliament expressing our own personal views. 
When this bill was before the House on its first reading both myself and Stephen Franks commented on the fact that somehow or other de facto relationships had become dragged into a civil union type of bill. I think we were the only two members who really grasped that that was the situation. Of course the question of de facto relationships has received a considerable airing before the Justice and Electoral Committee. Many changes have been made in this area—some for better some for worse—and various comments have been made by committee members. I am a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee but I regard this bill as being rotten to the core and there was no point in wasting my time in the select committee on it because I knew that regardless of what happened I was always going to vote against a civil union bill. From time to time I tried to take some note of what was going on—and I have noted the various comments made in the select committee process—but I note that the majority report talks about “most of us” which in the select committee tends to mean I think the Labour Party and the Greens. I do not think it includes—[ 
Interruption 
] No the Labour Party and the Greens. So when people read this report and see what is before— 
Stephen Franks 
: And Clem Simich. 
DAIL JONES 
: The Labour Party the Greens and the Hon Clem Simich who is a member of the select committee. That is what is meant by most of us. It does not include New Zealand First the ACT party the United Future party or any other National Party member who might have been present like Richard Worth. The report itself shows the confusion in the minds of committee members when they looked at de facto relationships. The commentary under the heading “De Facto Relationships” states: “Although this leaves a degree of uncertainty most of us believe that the ability to tailor the definition to the purpose of the law is preferable to courts struggling to stretch a common definition…”. That is very true. This bill does leave a lot of uncertainty. 
The United Future party member tried to make an amendment. As a lawyer he made the point as the commentary states that he “…believes that not including the common law provisions in the bill creates greater confusion.” I am absolutely sure he is right. Again if we look at the amendments made by the select committee we see that the commentary states under the heading “Social Security Act 1964”: “Most of us recommend that some of the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act 1964 relating to de facto couples be omitted.” There was a considerable degree of change messing around and alteration in the select committee as far as I can see on this bill. As far as de factos are concerned there seems to have been a considerable degree of gutting of the bill in so far as those relationships are concerned. 
But of course the vast majority in New Zealand who support decent family standards are even more gutted that this type of legislation should proceed in any form at all. This bill makes it clear that the Government does not give a damn about the welfare of New Zealand and decent family relationships. As I have said before in this House this bill is being debated here only to please the coterie of homosexuals and lesbians who surround the Prime Minister. It does not matter what Mr Tim Barnett has said about it in trying to give us an exposition on what is meant by “de facto relationship” and suchlike because all those changes are being made for only one reason which is that there was a Civil Union Act in the first place. If we had not had this Act we would not have had this bill. 
I ask this House and the country why we are wasting time on legislation that will benefit less than 0.2 percent of our adult population when there is an enormous amount of important legislation on this Order Paper some of which has been waiting for years to be completed. There is only one reason. Again I say it is that coterie of homosexuals and lesbians who are more important to the Prime Minister than the rest of the people of New Zealand especially those who have decent family relationships. We should be here in the House to establish decent standards of behaviour in our society. This Labour Party Government which has been kept in office by the United Future party and which receives the full support of the Greens in this legislation is signalling to all New Zealanders that the standard for New Zealand society is that of a homosexual and homosexual relationship or a lesbian and lesbian relationship. 
I also note that in particular the leader and the deputy leader of the United Future party support this legislation and have voted for it— 
Murray Smith 
: On the first reading. 
DAIL JONES 
: I will be interested to see whether they change their minds on the second reading but so far the leader and deputy leader of United Future support this legislation. 
What a difference there is in Australia. No wonder New Zealanders are leaving to go to live in Australia. Why would they ever want to come back? The Labor Party the National Party and the Liberals in Australia have rejected this appalling type of family-bashing legislation. Why would anyone want to come back to New Zealand to put up with high-cost housing low wages and an atmosphere where families are derided by the Government of the day which is supported by the Greens and kept in office by the United Future party? Why on earth would they want to come back? This bill does not even have the courage to consider the question of those people living in relationships having the best part of all worlds. 
 The majority of the select committee was not capable of confronting many of the questions and decided that some of the issues should be dealt with by the Law Commission. What a waste of time! The Government and the majority are saying that they want to pass some of the problems over to the Law Commission instead of making the decision here and now so we can vote on it here and now. 
New Zealanders are making it clear in their tens of thousands that they cannot stand this type of legislation any more. The prostitution legislation has gone through this Parliament thanks to the Greens vote and United Future supported the Government on supply matters. We have seen gender-bending legislation in which fathers have been called mothers and mothers have been called fathers pass through this House thanks to this Labour Party. We now have legislation that is aimed at assisting barely 0.2 percent of our population. New Zealanders cannot get health care they have to pay through their nose for education yet this Government’s priority is to rush this type of legislation through the House. 
No wonder families in New Zealand are on their knees and just about down and out. What consolation is it to a solo mother on her own who is trying to bring up three children and get them into school this year who sees this bill go through the House at a cost of about $10 million to $20 million when we look at both pieces of legislation? That money should be spent on her and her children instead. She has to pay school fees and pay for school uniforms and for all those unforeseen incidentals that crop up. If her child loses his or her shoes or if they are stolen perhaps even on the first day at school she has to find the money to replace them while Helen Clark and her coterie waste the public’s money on a civil union statutory relationships bill. 
What an absolute load of nonsense to have this type of legislation going through the House. Of course to top it all off as Richard Worth has said on members’ day we will have to put up with this gender-bending cross-dressing legislation from Georgina Beyer. What an utter waste of money. Presumably she had the approval of the Labour Party to bring her bill into the House. 
Jill Pettis 
: Oh Dail go and have a lie down. 
DAIL JONES 
: The senior Government whip cannot take it any more. She has to put up with it in her caucus and she will have to vote for it too. That is what we have to put up with in this House. The Labour Party is pushing cross-dressing legislation in this House and somehow or another is making that law as well. 
What is this country coming to? No wonder New Zealanders prefer to live in Australia and do not come back to New Zealand. We should be concentrating on real issues rather than wasting all this money. We should be looking at encouraging decent family relationships in New Zealand rather than this type of rubbish. New Zealand First has a conscience vote on this issue and just about all of us will be voting against it. I will have the utmost pleasure in doing so with my New Zealand First colleagues. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I call Stephen Franks.