Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19064] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 This bill is one of a number of bills from this Government that attacks the family as an institution in New Zealand undermines marriage and imposes on our country the politically correct view that all relationships whether they be a marriage between a man and a woman a civil union or a de facto relationship are just the same. It is like a National Certificate of Educational Achievement of family life—that is it makes absolutely no difference to the Minister in the chair Marian Hobbs and to the Government whether a person is in a lifelong relationship or simply in a de facto relationship. 
I firstly want to draw the attention of the Committee to the quite deceitful way in which this Government advances its legislation through Parliament. We should be having a debate on the changes to the Care of Children Act the Income Tax Act 2004 the Estate and Gift Duties Act the New Zealand Superannuation Act the Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and changes to all number of statutes but the Government has developed a sneaky trick. Rather than the bills having individual parts so that this Parliament might debate each of them the Government has come up with this sneaky drafting technique called subparts. This means that rather than having a debate on each of the amendments the Government is able to rush through wads of legislation—hundreds of pages of legislation—and slam it through Parliament with disrespect for democracy. These are significant changes they will have major impacts on the lives of New Zealanders and they should not be rammed through in this rough and cavalier way. 
I want to focus particularly on the definitions that are provided in this bill in respect of de facto relationships. I draw the Committee’s attention to these because they are of enormous significance. Hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who are living in de facto relationships will have a whole number of their legal rights changed by this bill. They need to know and society needs to know whether they are in a de facto relationship that will be affected by these laws. The public needs certainty yet what we see is a quite secular definition in respect of de facto relationships. There is absolutely no certainty. In fact the select committee even took out the basic criteria. All we know now is that any two people who are living in a house—a couple of men a couple of women or maybe a man and a woman—will be in a sort of Reverend Moon exercise; automatically married off in their thousands by this Government. I say again that Reverend Moon will be jealous of what this Government is attempting to do. 
But I would like to know who is and who is not in a de facto relationship. If members look at the definition provided by the Government in clause 40 they will see that it gives us absolutely no clarity at all. And it matters. It is absolutely vital for a doctor in a hospital who is dealing with the emotionally charged environment of a person on life support and the decision as to whether that life-support machine will be turned on or off to know who is the next of kin. 
People need to know. But does this law give us any clarity as to whether a person is or is not in a de facto relationship? At least the matrimonial property legislation passed 4 years ago provides that the relationship has to be 3 years old. We still do not know exactly what the starting point is for the 3 years but at least there is some time required. But the way this bill is written means that all these legal requirements take effect the day after a person enters a de facto relationship. 
The importance of this definition is that all these legal changes suddenly take effect and cover issues such as who is a step-parent who gets rights under the Care of Children Act who gets superannuation payments who gets particular rights in the court who gets particular rights under our tax legislation and who gets particular inheritances under our estate legislation. It is my strong submission to this Parliament that we need to provide our citizens with clarity around that issue. 
There is clarity when a person gets married. It is absolutely clear. There is a date there is a certificate and there is an open ceremony. But how are our public authorities and more important how are our citizens to know when they are in a legally defined de facto relationship with all these provisions? 
The second point is the doublespeak from the Government with this bill. The Prime Minister said that we are not going to have gay marriage. She knew that middle New Zealand would not accept gay marriage. So what the Government did was to give it a different name but make it exactly identical in law! If we go through all the 168 statutes that are being amended by this bill we are saying there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple. That is not what the Prime Minister told the people of New Zealand. This bill is gay marriage by stealth. 
Members opposite do not have the courage to say to the people of New Zealand exactly what it is they are doing. They want to dress it up. They are not prepared to be straight with the people of New Zealand and say that this bill is about gay marriage. Let no member walk away from that. Then we have the cuteness around all the amendments where the Government says: “Oh no no. We think marriage is really important so what we are going to do is protect the definition of ‘husband and wife’ but all the legal rights will be exactly the same for those who are in a two-men or a two-women relationship.” 
I say that is wrong for this very simple reason. In this Parliament yesterday we had a fascinating lecture on the issue of demographics and the issue that fewer and fewer people are choosing to be parents. Little wonder when we have this Government passing one statute after another that attacks the family and belittles the role that parents play. The statement made by the Prime Minister that a mum staying home with children is not contributing to our economy is just one of a whole number of insults from this Government to families and to those who do the hard yards of raising the next generation in our country. 
What Labour does not understand is that the family is the most important institution in our society. What this Government does not understand is that having a man and woman a husband and wife committed to raising their children is an institution that pre-dates this Parliament it is an institution that pre-dates all the political correctness that has completely enveloped this Government. It has forgotten all of that and it will pay a high price for it. Middle New Zealand understands that the best social policy the best a Government can do for our children is to support families and not to support this PC legislation. 
It is extraordinary to look at the number of step-parents that a child will be able to acquire through this process. There is absolutely no time frame required as to when those sorts of rights will be acquired. That is where this Government completely ignores all the research. In all the social policy research—and it is highly contested—one factor is absolutely true. Children on average do best when they are raised in a stable family involving their mum and their dad. Of course there are situations of single-parent mums who work their heart out and do their best for their children and I salute them.. But I also say that this Minister and this Government ignore the social policy research that shows in terms of drug abuse in terms of educational achievement in terms of this country’s appalling youth suicide figures in terms of unemployment and in terms of youth crime that those children who grow up in stable households with a loving mum and dad are the least at risk. 
Why would the Labour Party want to ignore that social policy research in developing statutes of this sort? My simple view is that it is more interested in playing to its own politically select group of supporters than in the long-term interests of our nation. There will be no limit to the amount of difficulties and complications these legal changes will cause for individual New Zealanders as they suddenly grapple with the extent of this Government’s social engineering. I remember hearing somewhere that someone said this country needs engineering of our roads not of our families. I say that that is true. 
Finally I wish to say there was a huge amount of heat and debate around the Civil Union Act. In so many respects these changes to over 160 statutes are more significant than that legislation. It is more significant because this is the meat. This is the place where we are saying—right across the board—that the Government is imposing its will that there is no difference in a relationship. In Labour’s view two young people shacked up together same sex or different sex with no long-term commitment is the same as marriage. I do not buy the line that it is the same for all relationships simply to be treated equally or identically in law. Relationships are different. It is time this Parliament recognised that. It is also time Parliament recognised that society is best served by long-term committed relationships. That is why society for hundreds of years has provided legal protection for marriage. It is a mistake for this Parliament to undervalue marriage to undermine it and to say that in all these Acts marriages de facto relationships and same-sex relationships are identical. I say they are not.