Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Tanczos Nandor: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17518] 
NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) 
: 
 I want to begin by addressing a point that David Parker made yesterday when he said that giving rights to minorities does not take anything away from the majority. I say that yes that is true unless those rights of the majority are dependent on the oppression of a minority. Ending slavery took something away from American slave owners because it removed their supply of free labour provided by kidnapped African people. My concern is that much of the debate on this bill seems to be based on the assumption that giving rights to gay people will somehow disadvantage the majority of heterosexual people. What they are saying is that the State should privilege them in order to allow them to continue to feel superior and that is not a justifiable use of the law. Gay people are becoming a scapegoat for some of the members of this Parliament and for people in our society. Marriage is not from the State; it does not come from the State. The State simply recognised at a point in history what already existed and that is exactly what we are doing in this legislation. We are simply recognising a situation that already exists which is that gay people can have long-term committed relationships and we are simply allowing the law to recognise that. Marriage exists because it fills a human need and that is what this bill addresses. 
Some of this debate has been odious. Lynne Pillay talked about some of the comments made by Dail Jones for example. During the second reading debate Mr Jones described himself as a bigot and a redneck. That is how he described himself so we should not be surprised at the kinds of things that he said. He has become a caricature of what he is trying to represent. 
Peter Brown 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I listened carefully to my colleague Dail Jones in terms of how he described himself. In no way did he describe himself in the manner that— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no. Can the member please be seated; I am on my feet. If there has been a misrepresentation then that fact should be brought up at the end of a member’s speech. I refer the member to Speaker’s ruling 35/3. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I invite members of the public to check  
Hansard 
 and see what he actually said. Some people—for example Mr Eckhoff—say that they oppose the legislation because children— 
Ron Mark 
: He said: “Some people might say”. 
NANDOR TANCZOS 
: I do not think that is what he said but we can check that in  
Hansard 
. Mr Eckhoff says he opposes the bill because children may be teased in school if they have gay parents. Some of the comments of some of the members of this Parliament have been at least as childishly callous and casually cruel as any schoolyard comment. 
Some members have said they oppose civil union because mums and dads make the best families—that children need to grow up with a mother and a father. That may or may not be the case. I think that what is important is that there is love in the family. I would rather see a child grow up with two loving homosexual parents than grow up with heterosexual parents who fight and abuse each other and the children. So it is the love that is important. But we can also say that children will grow up better if they live in a family with a decent income—that is a true comment. So what do we do with low-income families? Do we forbid them to get married? No. We look at how we can support low-income families to raise their children. That is what this bill is about. Gay families already exist. There are already families in this country in which children are growing up with gay parents. This bill will allow those families some protection in the law. 
Marriage is not a competition. The Hon Nick Smith likened marriage to the All Blacks. He said that if we allowed just anyone to become a member of the All Blacks that would devalue our national rugby team. No the All Blacks are merely the best rugby players in the country. Rugby is strengthened by the number of people who participate in it. In fact the more people there are who play club rugby the stronger the All Blacks will be. So that member put forward a totally fallacious analogy.