Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17461] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I rise in support of the bill. I am married and I have children. I am not at all threatened by civil union. I do not think it undermines marriage. The easiest way to assess it is by applying the general principle—does the conferring of rights on a minority ever undermine the majority? The answer is no. It never does. The conferring of rights on a minority does not undermine the majority. It really is that simple. We have seen it expressed that simply in just about every editorial in every major newspaper in New Zealand. Why would conferring rights on the minority undermine the majority? It does not in other instances of human rights; why would it here? If we were to find there was a cause for panic in that that would be the outcome we would look to what has happened overseas. If we look at a map of Europe most of Europe now has civil union—certainly most by population. It is throughout Scandinavia France Denmark The Netherlands Germany United Kingdom and Belgium. They are even considering it now in staunchly Catholic countries like Spain. 
If we look at the countries that have had civil union the longest there is no evidence that there has been an increase in the rate of breakdown in marriage. There is no evidence that there has been a decrease in the rate of marriage. In fact the trends are the same as they were previously. In most Western countries and our country is no exception we have slightly increasing rates of marriage and slightly decreasing rates of divorce and that will not change through the passage of this legislation. 
People say we should be doing this by way of changing the Marriage Act. The previous speaker said that is the way; that if rights were to be accorded to gay people to have their union recognised we should do that through a change to the Marriage Act. I disagree. I think this bill is the appropriate way to do it. Marriage does have religious connotations. Marriage pre-dates legal institutions. It was originally an institution of societies regulated through churches. If we were to have a revolution in New Zealand and legal authority were to break down we would still have the institution of marriage. It has at its heart its legitimacy in those religious institutions. Many in those religious institutions say that marriage should remain the province of a union of a man and a woman. I agree. That is why we are not doing this through the Marriage Act because that would be to undermine the institution of marriage in the eyes of those who see it in religious terms as being the sole preserve of a man and a woman. So it would be inappropriate to do it by way of amendment to the Marriage Act and it is appropriate to do it outside of that paradigm through civil union. 
Some say that we should have a referendum. Well that is just an abrogation of responsibility. If we look overseas what has happened in referendum-based countries? The one that is most quoted to us is Switzerland. In Switzerland which does place great reliance on referenda when do members think that women through referendum gained the vote? Does anyone know the answer? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: 1970s. 
DAVID PARKER 
: It was 1973. I thank the member. So as late as the 1970s women in parts of Switzerland did not have the vote because they had referendum-based decision-making on issues such as that. The rights of minorities will never be protected in a referendum— 
Hon Judith Tizard 
: Women weren’t a minority. 
DAVID PARKER 
: They were a minority in terms of voting because if one put that issue to the vote those who had franchise to vote on it were men. So they would not extend the right of voting to women. 
The  
Timaru Herald 
 represents an area that—like my own electorate of Otago—some would say is conservative. I would not say it is conservative; I think most southern electorates are actually liberal. The paper reported what people were saying about the Civil Union Bill and the call for a referendum. It stated that Dr Brash and others were clutching at straws last week in trying to have the matter decided by public referendum. “Dr Brash was trying to win cheap political points. He actually supports the bill. But a referendum is a bad idea. Would it be binding? If so the bill would likely be defeated. And that would go against Dr Brash’s stance. So to win votes he’s prepared to compromise what he believes. That’s pretty shallow. Non binding? What would be the point?”.