Sio William: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Sio William: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Sitting date: 29 August 2012. Volume:683;Page:4917. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I stand here as an elected representative in this House elected by the people of Mangere. It is an electorate that is close to my heart. Its people put me here by giving me their confidence that I would fairly and fully represent them. As the Mangere member of Parliament I am privileged with the stewardship that I have been given by the community and their key priorities determine the things that I advocate for and stand on. They expect me to represent their voice without fear and even at the risk of standing alone or being called names that hurt and upset families watching on. With that in mind I appreciate that I represent a different point of view one that is perhaps contrary to the majority view of this House. So to my colleagues whose views may differ from those that I represent I stand in opposition to this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill with the total commitment to defend your right to disagree with me. 
As a member of the Labour Party I say that we are a broad and diverse party of people with different points of view on almost every issue and on this particular issue it is Labour Party policy that this matter be voted on as a matter of conscience. I therefore claim that right to vote on this issue in accordance with the dictates of my own conscience and allow all MPs the same privilege. 
This is a matter that is very sensitive for many in my constituency. Within the Pacific and faith communities even within my own family within the fa‘afafine fraternity and even within the Pacific same-sex community it is a difficult issue and the views are very divided. Many in the community want Parliament to focus on the weightier matters of putting food on the table and paying the bills and not on matters that are considered private personal and religious in nature. 
In the Samoan community many recognise Samoan same-sex relationships and fa‘afafine to the extent that they are given very high-ranking titles but everyone conducts their affairs within the boundaries of culture and religion. I understand the desire of the gay community who want to have same-sex marriage but many who oppose this bill believe that the civil union and the statutory relationship laws already provide these legal rights to same-sex couples. Many believe that that legislation ought to be strengthened rather than changing marriage to incorporate same-sex marriage. 
If Parliament is to change this long-held standard of marriage between a man and a woman by passing this bill we not only change the definition of marriage we change its meaning and the fundamental basis of marriage. This change will have enduring ramifications for future generations. We do not know what those ramifications are but there is concern within my community. It is not a small change. It is a significant move. All I would say to members of Parliament and to the wider community as we have conversations about this bill and its ramifications is that I would implore everyone on both sides of the argument to keep the conversation safe respectful and dignified. Peace to you all.