Baldock Larry: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
Baldock Larry: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13981] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I appreciate this opportunity to explain my personal concerns regarding this bill which United Future is treating as a conscience vote. The Prime Minister was quoted in the 11 February issue of  
Express 
 magazine as saying: “The omnibus bill will take out any discrimination so the Marriage Act will not have any practical effect. In essence we are carrying on the work started in the Property Relations Bill.” The omnibus bill she was referring to is now called the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill and she is right—this bill will make the Marriage Act have no practical effect. 
My first question in relation to this legislation is where the Government’s mandate is to make marriage have no practical effect. Did the Labour Party campaign in 2002 with a promise that if it were elected it would remove any distinction in law for marriage so that it would have no practical effect? Was that one of its credit-card promises? No. Was that in its printed manifesto that I have here? No. All that Labour can claim is that it was on its website under “Rainbow Policy”. How will a dear sweet old lady know about this sinister plot if she has to get a computer and learn about websites to find out what the Government’s plans are? Even on that website there is no mention of making marriage having no practical effect. Something with no practical effect has become useless in anyone’s interpretation and I for one will not support this legislation. 
It is clear that a Government does have a responsibility to provide laws to enable the just and equitable outworking of many relationships in society. These vary from the relationship of marriage to employer versus employee client versus customer teacher versus student male versus female child versus parent Maori versus Pakeha new immigrant versus established Kiwi young versus old able versus disabled and a host of other relationships that we tend to take for granted. Many of those relationships require different treatment by law within the context of an equality of human rights. This bill seeks to treat marriage de facto and same-sex relationships as equivalent for the purposes of pensions social security taxation next of kin and other entitlements and responsibilities supposedly on the basis that we are removing discrimination on the basis of marriage. Yet in the Prime Minister’s own words we are in fact making marriage have no practical effect. 
The main problem this bill is supposed to address has to do with the need for people in relationships other than marriage to be able to make decisions on behalf of their partner in situations we refer to as next-of-kin issues—that is the right to give approval to cremate a deceased person’s body the right to visit a partner in hospital etc. There clearly are some issues that cannot be adequately covered by the enduring power of attorney legislation currently provided in law. We should address those concerns but we do not need two bills to address those issues. This response is like using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut. 
Let me first talk about de facto heterosexual couples. They are people who for whatever reason have chosen not to marry despite the fact they could legally recognise their relationship without any religious connotations at all. A civil celebrant could conduct a completely non-religious ceremony and then all the rights of next of kin would be theirs. The solution to any legal difficulties is entirely in their hands—that is get married or live with the consequences of a relationship that is de facto. The Webster dictionary definition of de facto is it means “without legal recognition.” That is the choice people make if they do not want to marry. And people should be free to make their own choices with minimal Government interference. This bill is not about choice; it is about removing choice. I have not had one single email from a de facto couple urging me to support this bill. 
The Government should be looking for all means possible to support and improve marriage relationships and to encourage more people to commit to marriage for the benefit of society—not elevating de facto relationships to the same status. Do the female members of this Government not know that all sociological research indicates that women in de facto relationships are many many more times at risk from violence than those in marriages? Their children are worse off by far statistically and in danger of abuse. Of course there are de facto relationships that are exceptions and not every marriage is a good one but it is still absolutely true that married couples are healthier live longer are richer and happier and have better sex lives than de facto couples by any means or measure by which sociological researchers look at it. The children of married couples do better as well. Why give support to legislation that would make marriage have no practical effect and treat de facto relationships as equal to those of married couples who have had the courage to front up before their families and friends to state and pledge their commitment to one another in a lifelong covenant of marriage? 
Whenever Parliament has sought to address problems in marriage by altering the law society has had to cope with many unintended consequences—no-fault divorce the domestic purposes benefit the Property (Relationships) Act and now this. Again I say that if de facto couples want the rights of married couples then let them marry. It is that simple. 
However when it comes to people in same-sex relationships the solution is not so simple because we know that they cannot marry. I have always said that I am concerned about their right to fair and just treatment by the law. It would have been a simple matter for the Government to make it possible for these couples to assign next-of-kin rights to each other under an extension of the enduring power of attorney provisions or some other similar legal action. I would not have opposed that and I do not believe that many who oppose civil unions would have any problem with it at all. 
However these next-of-kin dilemmas may arise not just for gay and lesbian partners but also for other single adults living together in relationships of care and support that are not sexual relationships in any form at all. Focusing the debate around sexual relationships and preferences in my opinion is far too narrow. As we suffer increasingly from family breakdown across society and as more and more never married separated or divorced adults grow older they often form relationships for companionship and support. These adults may share the same house but not necessarily the same bed and their needs in law deserve consideration by Parliament as well. Some may want the opportunity of transferring next-of-kin status to someone they trust rather than having to rely on their closest relative whom they may not know well at all. But to offer them a civil union as an option or recognition as a de facto couple is not likely to be an offer they would consider. This bill ignores their needs even though these issues are just as relevant to them as they are to gays and lesbians. 
These problems of inequality in law could be resolved by Parliament without civil unions and without this massive bill—this sledgehammer to crack a peanut of a problem. But it is clear from statements made by the Prime Minister and Tim Barnett that the real intent is to make civil unions equal with marriage and ultimately render marriage as a relic of the past with no practical effect. New Zealanders are tolerant and the majority are prepared to tolerate same-sex relationships and to give people in them the rights and respect every human being deserves but no Government can force me or the majority of New Zealanders to give our approval to those relationships. To do so would be to deny our rights of freedom of thought and speech and conscience. While many gays and lesbians cannot wait to run down the aisle to formalise their relationship I suggest that this desire is born out of not so much a legal need but rather the desire to gain approval from society. 
Under the disguise of addressing simple next-of-kin legal issues the Government is imposing on Parliament not one but two bills whose real intent is to legislate for the morality of same-sex relationships. People say that a Government cannot legislate morality; I say that a Government does it every time it passes a law and on this occasion it is clearly attempting to change society’s morality by law. Without learning the lessons from history we are now intent on moving towards a society that will no longer make any distinction between marriage and de facto relationships of people of the same or opposite sex. In the midst of appalling social statistics that portray New Zealand as one of the worst countries in the OECD on a whole range of issues the best that our leadership offers is to make laws to approve of the lowest common moral denominator treating all relationships as equal with an anything-goes philosophy. That is not leadership. 
Our children and young people deserve better. In my opinion discrimination in favour of marriage is justifiable. In fact it is essential in the interests of the public good and the health of our communities as a whole. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes when the State— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but his time has expired. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have actually had my stopwatch running during my speech because I was concerned about the amount of time. The 8-minute bell actually rang after 7 minutes and I ask that you look into the timekeeping during that speech. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member thinks that I will give him another 20 seconds to finish off. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: Thank you very much; I have one more paragraph. When nearly 50 percent of our children are growing up in fatherless homes when the State is supporting 100000 single-parent families and when we spend an estimated $6.5 billion on the cost of family breakdown this bill does nothing to address the real issues confronting us as a nation but is a very dangerous social experiment for the benefit of a small minority at the expense of our future as a society and I shall vote against it.