Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Baldock Larry: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:627;Page:22045] 
10.  
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she stand by her response to the question in  
Express  
Magazine last year whether she would consider amending the Marriage Act 1955 once the Civil Union Bill had passed to allow for same-sex marriage that “I think you need to see how the civil union settles in … see how it goes see how the times are moving and keep in mind international developments. We tend to be as progressive as any country on these issues.”; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes. The member should note that the Prime Minister did not say she would consider amending the Marriage Act. 
Larry Baldock 
: Does this intention to keep the way open for same-sex marriage explain why she and the Labour Government were unwilling to give support to my Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill which would make it clear that marriage in New Zealand can be between only one man and one woman in the same way that the Liberal National and Labor parties in the Australian Parliament did last year; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: No. First of all I notice that the member is so keen on the bill that he has withdrawn it from the Order Paper for today which is the last opportunity before the election for consideration of it. The second point is that the bill is pointless because the law is clear. The courts have already ruled that marriage can be between only a man and a woman. 
Larry Baldock 
: Is she familiar with the advice from the Ministry of Justice regarding my bill which states: “Although it has been clear that the common law understanding of marriage is between a man and a woman this could be overturned because of some overseas decisions and the recognition of same-sex marriage in some countries.”; if so does she appreciate the concern of the majority of New Zealanders—confirmed in a DigiPoll this week—that my bill be passed to make our law clear; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that if the member was so keen to have the bill passed this week it is somewhat unusual that he withdrew it from the Order Paper for today. Perhaps that is not to be regarded in this context as some kind of breach of promise! In New Zealand we have already had the case of  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 on which the court has ruled extremely clearly indeed. I would also suggest that the passage of the Civil Union Act itself would suggest to a New Zealand court that in fact the Marriage Act does relate to a relationship between a man and a woman only. 
Larry Baldock 
: Will the Prime Minister give an absolute assurance to the people of New Zealand and this House that if any case is lodged in the courts to challenge the common law position of marriage being between only one man and one woman she—if she is the Prime Minister at the time—along with her Government will move immediately as it did with the foreshore and seabed legislation to amend the Marriage Act along the lines of my proposed bill; if not why not? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: That is more than hypothetical because certainly the advice the Prime Minister has is that the courts are quite clear on this particular matter and are not going to change their minds on this particular matter. I might say on the foreshore and seabed matter that we did actually wait for the court decision before legislating. 
Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I want just to save confusion. Given Mr Baldock’s new-found enthusiasm for his bill that he withdrew and that would have been voted on and sent to a select committee had he not withdrawn it could you Madam Speaker please advise him that he could seek leave of the House to put his bill back on the Order Paper so that members can vote on it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. That is not a point of order.