Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Worth Richard: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19187] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 The debate on what was originally the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill is moving to a close. It has certainly been a marathon effort and the previous speaker Tim Barnett dwelt on that issue to some extent. 
I am intrigued that he has seen much more clearly than most of us—which is code for my saying that perhaps he has not seen—that there is a necessary linkage between the Civil Union Act and this legislation. The Civil Union Act is now part of the law of the land. How long it continues to exist as part of the law of the land will no doubt depend upon what happens after the next election. I sense that there is a growing mood of concern in the land and it is well reflected in the increasing number of groups that take up the challenge of family values. I look at the Maori Party—I would like to say that I look at United Future but I am not wholly sure where United Future stands on many issues— 
Darren Hughes 
: Unlike the National Party. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It is always helpful to have an interjection from a very young member of Parliament. I know where National stands. I look at where the new Samoan party—which I think might be called New Zealand Family Values—stands and I look at the Destiny Church and the views that it expounds and I see so clearly that family values have suddenly become of critical importance. This legislation is not about family values in any way at all. 
There are anomalies in this legislation and that is not surprising because it is incredibly complicated. We saw that complexity in one of the Supplementary Order Papers which proposed to divide the original bill into 23 separate Acts. In addition to that there are changes that make substantial amendments to a number of regulations. There is nothing that is straightforward about this legislation. In an earlier part of these proceedings in Parliament I made the comment that it is unsurprising that errors have occurred and doubtless further errors will be discovered. 
I gave an illustration that I think establishes well how foolish this legislation is. Take the case of a male aged 16 who is in a civil union which is quite possible under this legislation. It could occur in one of two ways. It could occur as a result of his parents consenting to the young man being in a civil union or it could occur by way of a court order. The illustration I am talking about is of a male aged 16 in a civil union with another male aged 40. 
Georgina Beyer 
: It could be a marriage. 
Dr RICHARD WORTH 
: It could be a marriage but I am talking about the situation of a civil union; it is the better example because of what I will go on to say. What could happen under this legislation is that the younger male could be the stepfather of the children of the older male’s first marriage. How ludicrous is that? But the issue is more important than simply the fact it seems absurd because significant property issues could arise if the younger male had substantial assets. We are talking about legislation that should protect children but the reality is that this legislation may give rise to the exploitation of younger people. 
The bill does two things. Firstly it gives legal effect to civil unions. I am not sure whether it was really necessary to do that because the Civil Union Act already gave legal expression to that possibility. The second thing it does which I deeply reject is that it takes the view that all relationships should be protected. When I say all relationships I am talking about the proposition that relationships should be protected to a broadly similar extent. I do not have any problem now that the Civil Union Act has passed with the relationships of marriage and civil union being protected—although I voted against the Civil Union Act for what I thought were well-deserved reasons. But I and I think many members in this House who support family values have a real problem with giving de facto couples the same rights and responsibilities that affix to married couples. 
 There is a good reason for that: people enter into de facto relationships—or I would say often drift into them—for reasons that are quite different from the reasons why people enter into marriage. Marriage has a very clear starting point; there are at the lowest vows in the registry office or at the highest vows in church. There is an established starting point. It is possible to say the marriage started on 3 July 1961 but that is not so with de facto relationships. I have previously offered in Parliament this challenge: when does a de facto relationship start? Does it start with the first furtive kiss in the dark in a picture theatre or does it start with the first act of coitus? 
These are quite tricky issues that have implications for property and they may well have implications for the care of children. The Government has decided to fudge that or to be more correct—but the Government has endorsed it—the majority of members on the Justice and Electoral Committee decided they did not want to establish any tests as to what a de facto relationship was. Instead they came to the view that a de facto relationship is a relationship between a man and a woman a man and a man or a woman and a woman who live together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union. I think that for those who are strong on family values to contemplate a man and a man or a woman and a woman living together as a couple as being in a relationship in the nature of marriage is foolishness in the extreme. It is just not consonant with the values that an increasing number of people in civil society would like to see as the paradigm case. Yet the Government is determined to establish that the paradigm case may well include such relationships. 
It is really important that we value diversity in our community. I believe that it is really important that we are tolerant of relationships that are other than in the nature of marriage but this is a Government that is certainly not prepared to do that. That is why for my money if we had become involved in the whole issue of “When did the de facto relationship start?” or “What is a de facto relationship?” the indicators or indicia that the original draftspeople—I myself am in danger of falling into political correctness—proposed in drawing up this legislation might have been retained. What they wanted to do was to say that a de facto relationship is evidenced by these particular hallmarks which might include the duration of the relationship; the nature and extent of common residence; whether a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial dependence or interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the people; the ownership use and acquisition of property; the care and support of children; or the performance of household duties. 
But all of that has been abandoned and we are now being invited to accept a test that is simply this: the relationship between a man and a man is a de facto relationship if they are living together as a couple in a relationship in the nature of marriage. To me that strains incredibly the statutory language that has been established in the past. To me it is not consonant with family values. I make the point that although we must be tolerant of other relationships we should prefer those relationships that offer stability to society.