Dunne Peter: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Dunne Peter: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13938] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Today is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when the decision we make is the responsibility of the Parliament as a whole and not just of the Government of the day. Every single one of us will make a judgment at the end of this debate about the way we will vote and the reasons for that vote. For my part my colleagues in United Future have treated this issue as one on which we have made individual decisions. We happen to have decided individually that we will vote against the bill probably for eight different sets of reasons. In the time available to me this afternoon I want to outline my reasons for opposing this bill and why I for one do not believe it ought to proceed any further. For me this is not a moral or a religious issue but is an issue about what is in the best interests of our society as a whole. 
I start personally from the premise that the nature of people’s relationships is actually their own business and that relationships are not strengthened or weakened by the possession of a certificate or a piece of paper. The only reason that we have a Marriage Act as a civil institution is the so-called consanguinity—in this bill we use the phrase “prohibited degrees”—option. In other words as an earlier speaker said we recognise that one of the products of the union we know as marriage is often children and that we need to put in place protections for those children in terms of their genetic strength to put it bluntly. That is the only reason I can see why the State ought to be involved in sanctioning a person’s choice. I start from the position that where there are discriminations or limitations on people’s ability to live their lives freely and openly we ought to deal with those. I have heard and dealt with many sad and tragic cases over the years where issues such as next-of-kin status have arisen and the rights to be with a loved one in his or her last stages of life in a hospital to be buried together to make other financial and insurance arrangements and so on and so forth have been denied people.I am strongly in favour of the elimination of those discriminations. 
But here is where for me the rub comes: I do not believe that the Civil Union Bill is either honest or necessary. It is not honest because it purports to import into people’s lives a state that cannot be achieved. I have listened to various advocates of the bill over recent times say that it confers rights and entitlements upon people. The bill—and Mr Franks was quite right when he said it is the Marriage Act with the word “marriage” twinked out and replaced with the words “civil union”—merely sets up a process by which a civil union can be entered into and established. It does not confer any new or additional rights on anybody. We have even had confirmation that if this bill does not go any further then the issue of the rights that are the cause of concern is dealt with in the second bill the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which we will debate after this one. So I say this bill is dishonest because it purports to create something that is in fact not there. The rights that people clamour for and seek to have recognised are not adjusted in any way by this legislation and that is why it is unnecessary. 
The bill is unnecessary because if one thinks about the types of people who are likely to benefit from it one draws some very quick conclusions. According to the last census in New Zealand there are approximately 1.3 million New Zealanders who are married. Just over 300000 New Zealanders are living together in a relationship akin to marriage but are not married to each other and about 10000 New Zealanders are in same-sex relationships. If one then starts to think about what is in it for each of those groups the following conclusions can be drawn. There is not much in it for married couples. The 300000 people who have chosen not to enter into a civil form of marriage as they can today are probably in the main unlikely to choose to enter into a civil union. After all if they had wanted to have their relationship recognised codified and solemnised without the religious overtones they could have done so already. So then we come back to the question of the 10000 or so New Zealanders in same-sex relationships. We have been told by the proponents of the bill that it is not about same-sex marriage and that marriage will continue to be available only for a man and a woman. Yet we have a bill that legislates for something that looks like marriage walks like marriage talks like marriage and sounds like marriage but is called a civil union. I think that that is far too clever by half. 
What we are doing is establishing a parallel form of marriage even though the proponents of the bill say that is not what is intended and that marriage will be only available for a man and a woman in the future. If that is so let them answer this question: if we are talking about two completely distinct and separate institutions where ne’er the twain shall meet why is there a provision in this bill that states a civil union can be traded in for a marriage and a marriage can be traded in for a civil union? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot say that we are setting up a separate distinct institution that is completely different from marriage while at the same time saying that people can go along to the registrar and have that separate and completely distinct institution that is not related to marriage turned into a marriage—and then say that we are keeping the two separate. That is a logical inconsistency to put it at its most charitable. 
Over the last few months many New Zealanders have expressed their views on this matter. They have been divided right down the middle between those who favour the idea of a civil union because they want to see the rights issues resolved and those who oppose it. If this bill goes no further and the second bill—which I give notice I will be voting for—does proceed then those matters will be resolved to their satisfaction. Nothing will change as a consequence of the proceeding forward or the defeat of the Civil Unions Bill. It is therefore irrelevant which brings me back to my point about the fundamental lack of necessity for it and its dishonesty. I think we owe it to our people to be honest to be straightforward and to make decisions that we consider to be in their best interest and to deal with the issues of concern. This bill because of its limited nature and the inconsistencies within it will not achieve that objective and that is why I will vote against it.