Brash Don: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Brash Don: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17388] 
Dr DON BRASH (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 When the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill were introduced into the House some months ago I voted for both of them to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. I voted for the Civil Union Bill because I saw merit in same-sex couples having a legal framework within which they could manage their lives and commit to each other. I voted for the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill also because it was clearly a companion to the Civil Union Bill. But I did so with my fingers crossed because I was and am very uneasy about the State deeming de facto couples to be married. 
Today I will vote against the Civil Union Bill at its second reading. It is very clear from the thousands of submissions to the select committee the large number of people who have spoken to me directly and the many hundreds of emails and letters I have received that many hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders—indeed probably millions of New Zealanders—see this bill as a major attack on the institution of marriage. Despite the fact that many of us have failed from time to time to honour the institution of marriage in our own behaviour most people continue to recognise that that institution is fundamental to our society and in particular to the nurturing of children. This bill is seen by many New Zealanders as a serious attack on that institution. 
More generally this bill is seen as part of a broader Government agenda to change the moral and social institutions of our society. That makes a great number of New Zealanders very uneasy indeed. I do not believe that this Parliament should lend its support to that agenda. How is the Government seeking to advance that agenda? Firstly it seems intent on pushing the bill through Parliament in considerable haste—potentially under urgency next week. Why? It is hard to avoid the impression that the Government is doing so because it is concerned that if this bill drags on in public debate and in particular if it drags on into the election year it may cost it votes. 
Secondly we should not be changing one of the fundamental institutions of our society on the slimmest of parliamentary majorities. The Government scrapped our links with the Privy Council with a tiny majority. The Government changed the law regarding prostitution on the abstention of a single member. Now it looks likely that if the Civil Union Bill passes at all it will pass with the slimmest of majorities. For such a major change in our social infrastructure that simply is not good enough. 
Thirdly we are being asked to vote on this bill without even having the bill’s companion legislation the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill before us in order that we can understand the full implications of what could be involved in passing the Civil Union Bill. The Government rightly introduced the two bills together but now the second of those pieces of legislation is nowhere to be seen with talk of it not coming back to the House until well into next year and possibly not until after the next election. How can any member be expected to vote on the Civil Union Bill without knowing the shape of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill? 
Neither members of Parliament nor journalists or commentators have any special knowledge or superior judgment as compared with our fellow citizens on such crucial institutions as the family and marriage. Accordingly I believe that there should be a referendum on this issue so that all adult New Zealanders have an opportunity to express their view on it. Let me be clear that if a referendum were held I would vote in favour of allowing same-sex couples to form some kind of legally binding relationship. I am heterosexual but I am not homophobic. I do not regard homosexuality as a terrible sin but rather as a predisposition that some people are born with. As far as we are aware Jesus Christ never spoke of homosexuality let alone condemned it. But a decision to provide in law what is essentially a form of marriage to same-sex couples is a decision that all adult New Zealanders should have the right to express a view on. For that reason I will not vote for this bill today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise members that it has been indicated to me that the next speech will be a split one. I seek the leave of the House that the 11th call be 5 minutes for National and 5 minutes for New Zealand First. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There appears to be none.