Bradford Sue: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Bradford Sue: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19178] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 I stand today to support this legislation as without it the Civil Union Act means nothing. All nine Green MPs will be voting for this legislation as we have throughout its passage through the House. Our policy calls for equal treatment of people and couples irrespective of their sexual orientation. We believe that as a society we should celebrate diversity and encourage the appreciation of each other’s differences rather than condemn those who have a sexual orientation or gender identity different from our own. How dare we do that? Amongst other things the Greens are pleased that this legislation addresses some important issues such as giving a civil union partner rights to compensation for the death of a partner or the right to determine whether a partner can be cremated. We want the Government to continue to progress equity despite the hateful and vitriolic speeches made by some of the conservative moralists who cannot support it seems loving relationships. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee has made some sensible amendments to the legislation. I know that it has done a lot of work on it and I acknowledge them for that. Some of those amendments will ensure that we avoid unintended consequences for de facto couples. We hope that the Law Commission reports on the matters relating to next of kin which have already been talked about here this afternoon. The Greens are supportive of a type of next of kin register and hope that the commission will progress that issue positively. The Greens support the very different ways that we all establish our own families and relationships including what happens in that very difficult and sensitive period after a partner dies. 
The Green Party lives in the 21st century and recognises that the concept of a family with a mother father and 2.4 children is not necessarily the norm for many many people these days. People form different relationships for a whole variety of reasons. In fact many people never marry at all or never have a de facto relationship but instead have a very strong long-term bond with a sister brother or friend who fills that role of next of kin. It is ludicrous that independent adults cannot choose their next of kin who can make decisions for them if they are incapable without fear that distant or long-lost family members will seek a court ruling to overturn that. 
As I mentioned during the Committee stage I have a particular interest in the aspects that deal with the removal of some of the proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. The Greens were pleased to see that the select committee took out some amendments that would have changed the situation in relation to how de facto relationships are dealt with by the Ministry of Social Development. We were pleased to see that the checklist or tick-box approach—which would have in effect overturned aspects of the Ruka Court of Appeal judgment—was done away with. Likewise we are pleased to see the removal from the legislation of attempts to codify court judgments on relationships in the nature of marriage. Those clauses in the original legislation were subject to widespread criticism from beneficiary advocacy groups and others and we are glad that the Government has taken a common-sense approach to that and has put off doing anything about it in this particular legislation. 
During the Committee stage the Green Party put up two amendments. I will mention them just briefly. The first was to do with citizenship. We believe that this legislation should extend the rights of citizenship to civil union partners of New Zealand citizens. We could not understand why the Government given the enormous progress it has made with this legislation could not take the next step in relation to citizenship so that those entering a civil partnership would have the same legal rights as married couples do now. Secondly we put forward an amendment to the Adoption Act so that same-sex couples could adopt children. I am aware of the uproar that that caused in the House but again I simply cannot understand in the context of this law why we cannot go that next step and confer on same-sex couples the same rights to adopt as other couples have in this country. This legislation is about ending discrimination. We are not quite there yet and we are disappointed that the Government did not see fit to allow our amendments to go forward. 
I would now like to address some of the issues that have been raised by church people Christians who have been writing to MPs—probably to all of us—and encouraging us to oppose this legislation. I acknowledge some of those people who are in the House tonight. I respect the beliefs and the sincerity of the beliefs of the people who have been canvassing us on this matter but I say first of all that we do not live in a theocracy. We are not in a State in which Christianity any one form of Christianity or any other religion is our State religion. Therefore I do not understand how any group of people from any particular faith can think that they have a right to determine through Parliament that somehow their belief must govern all or any of the laws we pass here. In fact many Christians and people of other faiths support the recognition of civil unions everything that goes with them in this legislation and non-discriminatory practices. They recognise that gay and lesbian people are part of the glorious diversity of creation. At the time the Bible was written its writers did not understand the very nature of homosexuality—that it is part of us; that it is as natural as being straight. It is nothing new. It is as old as the history of the human race—in fact a whole lot older because homosexuality exists throughout creation; throughout all animal species including our own. 
Our understanding of science has moved on enormously in the last 2000 years or more from the Old Testament days. Just as we know that the Earth is not flat and now understand millions of other things so do those of us who are aware of scientific and biological reality realise that homosexuality in all its wondrous diversity is part of nature. I believe that whatever our religious faith or lack of it this legislation is about nurturing expressions of love and commitment between people and is part of the compassionate message of Christ and other religious leaders; nothing else. 
Finally I will respond briefly to some of the comments made by MPs in this debate. Firstly Paul Adams made some comments that stunned me. He talked about the need for every child to have grandparents and great-grandparents. I absolutely agree with Mr Adams but how on earth could he imply as he did the other day that somehow the children of gay and lesbian couples do not have grandparents or great-grandparents? It is simply a biological impossibility. 
Paul Adams 
: How do they? 
SUE BRADFORD 
: No human being can be born without parents. If the member would really like me to show him pictures later I will. Mr Adams also said among other things that he does not believe that there are any young ladies who do not dream of the day they will be married. That is likewise a rather quaint notion. I wonder how many young ladies he actually knows. 
Other members like Mr Adams’ colleague Murray Smith and New Zealand First’s Bill Gudgeon continue with that old canard that somehow because one group of people will no longer be discriminated against other people in society will be harmed or diminished as a consequence and that civil unions will impact negatively on those who are married now. Mr Gudgeon talks in particular of this law destroying families and destroying the love and cherishing that goes on within families. Obviously in his mind that means conventional families. That is simply incredible nonsense. This bill is not about damaging or destroying families—anybody’s family. It is about fostering a legal environment in which all families and all the children within them have the same rights as all others. Those rights and the increased sense of belonging to our society that this legislation will bring will actually help nurture good relationships within families and surely that is a wonderful thing for all of us. 
Mr Dail Jones keeps talking about Labour’s coterie of lesbians and homosexuals. I find that quite objectionable but I would like to assure him that the Green Party also has some quite fine coteries of lesbians and homosexuals. To conclude I would like to reiterate the Green Party’s firm commitment to both the Civil Union Act and this raft of legislation that goes with it. I congratulate the Labour Government on sticking to its guns on this legislation despite the massive campaign that has been waged against it over the last few years. Like most Labour Party members the Green Party believes that the future of our nation lies in the celebration of diversity not in stagnation and ancient prejudice. [ 
Interruption 
]