Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17492] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 Despite the previous speaker wanting us to get into true confessions I will not take that course. [ 
Interruption 
] I should have been so very lucky perhaps. 
I make the point that this is a gay marriage bill and it is this part above anything else that makes that absolutely clear. Clause 8 “Age of eligibility” tells us when one can get involved in a gay marriage. The previous comparative section is a section from the Marriage Act. Members should compare this bill to that Act of 1955—Act No. 92—because when we look at it we can see a similar section with regard to marriages. As far as this bill is concerned partners are not to be already married or in a civil union so we are talking about marriage in the same breath as civil union. 
Clause 9 is headed: “Partners not to be within prohibited degrees of civil union” and we can compare that to another section in the Marriage Act. There is the same type of degrees of relationships as exists in the Marriage Act. 
I do not know much about the gay marriage that is proposed but when it concerns a man and a man and when in the legislation there are prohibited degrees of man and man I ask whether it is really necessary. I would not have thought so. It is irrelevant but here we are pretending. 
That is what this bill is about. There is a lot of pretence and make-believe. The Government wants a gay couple to be like man and wife so it pretends that the same prohibited degrees of man and women apply to a homosexual or lesbian relationship. The reason we have these prohibited degrees for a man and a woman is to prevent the problems that arise from an incestuous relationship—people marrying first or second cousins etc. as the case might be. That is something that goes back hundreds and thousands of years because it was known even in those days that those close relationships could result in problems. 
So we have the gay marriage situation. It is like little boys and girls playing doctors and nurses—or little boys and boys playing doctors and nurses I suppose. The Government still wants them to play at being husband and wife so it plays at having prohibited degrees of civil union. It is grotesque to have this type of thing in the bill. It is absolutely grotesque for one to possibly believe that this thing could exist but that is what this Labour Party—with Helen Clark as its leader—is imposing on us. 
Before I came to the House I used to hear people talk about “Helengrad”. Now we are well and truly going to live in “Helengrad” if this type of grotesque relationship is being foisted on the House supported principally by every Green member of Parliament. 
In clause 10 we talk about: “Order dispensing with prohibition on civil union within prohibited degrees of affinity” and we carry on with the same provisions that are in the Marriage Act. We even talk about solemnisation by civil union celebrants. We use the word “solemnisation”. In my view that is nothing to do with anything other than a form of formal marriage between a man and a woman—one solemnises something with a celebrant. But the Government still has to go on with this grotesque pretence and pretend that it is something wonderful and new—just like a solemnisation between a man and a woman which it will never be and can never be. There is solemnisation by a registrar and couples have to get licences. There is more solemnisation by a civil union celebrant and then solemnisation by an exempt body. The Government loves these words and loves this pretence of people being in a marriage situation but we know that it is not a marriage situation. It is just something utterly false and make-believe. 
Then in clauses 17 and 18 the Government talks about the “Changing form of relationship”. I will be supporting the amendments being put forward by United Future members to delete or amend clauses 17 and 18 as the case may be just as I think about 11 New Zealand First members who supported the amendments put forward by Richard Worth. I think that that should be put on the record as well. That is the way we voted. 
We do not want to be intolerant and Richard Worth came up with a very reasonable suggestion. In taking a tolerant view of it we thought we would go along with that provision even though we opposed the bill bearing in mind that Richard Worth’s provisions also had a referendum linked to them as well. New Zealand First is prepared to have an open mind on this issue; our members are prepared to look at other members’ views. So the views of Richard Worth and United Future members have been and will be supported by New Zealand First.