Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13930] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the introduction of the Civil Union Bill and thank the Minister for acknowledging the work that had been done prior to his very ably taking over responsibility for the bill. I too want to acknowledge those who have gone before—in particular Russell Fairbrother who did a lot of work on preparing a member’s bill on this subject. 
The year 2004 is a significant anniversary for this Parliament. It is the 10th anniversary of the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 1 February 1994. The Human Rights Act was significant for a whole range of reasons in terms of expanding human rights in this country. It applied for the first time non-discrimination laws to volunteers. It expanded the definition of “age” and it applied to disability. By way of a Supplementary Order Paper introduced by the Hon Katherine O’Regan it applied to sexual orientation and organisms in the body capable of causing disease. These measures were both conscience votes in this Parliament were passed by this Parliament and must be honoured by this Parliament. 
 Despite the wide-ranging nature of the changes many of the over 800 submissions received on the bill focused on the subject matter of the Supplementary Order Paper rather than the bill. The weight of evidence supported the inclusion of those grounds in our human rights laws. However many submissions opposed the inclusion of sexual orientation on morality grounds. The dire consequences predicted by many who submitted on the bill have not come to fruition in the 10 years that have passed since the bill was enacted. 
There was a provision in the legislation that is highly relevant to the debate today. It was a sunset provision. The Government of the day was given 5 years to review all existing legislation that conflicted with the Human Rights Act. The subordinate status of the Human Rights Act to all other legislation was to have lasted 5 years and within that time the Government was to have been required to make express decisions to continue with any discrimination—if that was the intention. Unfortunately the Government of the day allowed the situation to continue beyond the 5 years and extensions were required by legislative follow-up in both 1999 and 2001. 
The Civil Union Bill is part of a commitment this Parliament made 10 years ago. The Marriage Act allows only for a man and a woman to marry. That is discrimination. Essentially the Civil Union Bill maintains that discrimination but in order to meet the underlying civil right or human right that marriage allows only to a man and a woman an alternative mechanism is proposed for legally recognising a relationship between couples who cannot or for personal reasons do not wish to enter into marriage. 
Let me say at this point—as people have said on occasions—civil union is not for me personally. For those who argue about setting aside personal interest there is no personal interest for me to set aside. I am a very happily married woman. I am proud to refer to Rob as my husband and to me as his wife. What I like about being married is that I have a way of explaining my relationship with Rob with a single word that requires no further explanation. The ceremony itself entailed a public statement of commitment that we made to each other but in front of friends and family. I know it sounds old-fashioned but it truly was the happiest day of my life. 
So will the Civil Union Bill affect me personally? No not at all. It does not undermine my commitment to Rob or Rob’s commitment to me. If civil union had been an option when we decided to make that level of commitment we would not have chosen it. We would still have chosen to get married. That was our choice. So how does providing choice to those who cannot by law choose marriage affect me or anyone else who chooses marriage? It does not. 
If two people want a mechanism to have the State recognise their public declaration of love for each other their commitment to fidelity and support for each other how does the strengthening of the support for that relationship diminish the strength of another relationship? It does not. Does it undermine marriage? There are those including me who believe it gives strength to the principles of marriage—love honour respect fidelity and lifelong support. People can already live together in a de facto relationship without any public declaration of those commitments. 
I guess the question that can be asked is does the relationship change after making those commitments? I used to think not. However my experience says it does. It will not save a failing relationship. Marrying somebody in order to save the relationship will not save it. However I believe it strengthens a committed relationship because the public ceremony is the calling upon of friends and family to support the couple in meeting the declarations and commitments they have made to each other. To offer this opportunity to other couples denied marriage must be a societal benefit. 
I noticed a news report in the  
Dominion Post 
 yesterday whereby the survivor of a same-sex relationship secured through the House of Lords the same legal rights as a married couple even though the rights were expressed in the Rent Act as applying to those living together as “his or her wife or husband”. Baroness Hale said in the leading judgment: “Homosexual relationships can have exactly the same qualities of intimacy stability and interdependence that heterosexuals do. The guarantee of equal treatment is essential to democracy. A homosexual couple as much as a heterosexual couple share each other’s lives and make their home together. There is no rational or fair ground for distinguishing one couple from the other in that context.” 
Those comments are just as relevant to this bill as they will be to the next bill on the Order Paper. This bill at its heart is about human and civil rights. The guarantee of equal treatment is to quote Baroness Hale “essential to democracy.” Ten years ago this Parliament extended the grounds in our Human Rights Act to sexual orientation. If we as a Parliament make no provision for the State to recognise such relationships legally we will not be meeting our obligations under the law. 
This bill is designed to uphold human rights. That is what it is all about. The fact that it provides a choice for gay men and lesbians to have their committed relationships recognised by the State does not increase the prevalence of homosexuality any more than the Human Rights Act did despite its outlawing of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. That was one of the dire warnings the select committee heard back in 1993. It simply has not come to pass. This bill is about human rights. 
I am on the Justice and Electoral Committee that will be considering the bill. I look forward to scrutinising this bill and making any necessary changes. I look forward to both reading and hearing submissions from people who are committed to New Zealand’s human rights and reporting back to the House so that this bill can become law in this the 10th anniversary year of the coming into effect of the Human Rights Act.