Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17392] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 As a New Zealand First member of Parliament I have the right to vote according to my conscience on this bill. In doing so it would seem that I need not represent any other New Zealander. I believe that marriage is a relationship of a man and a woman with a view to having children. It is very simple. I do not need any research to prove or disprove that simple statement. I will vote against this bill. 
I suppose I should feel rather flattered that certain types of people who cannot live in a male-female relationship wish to copy that relationship. I am not flattered. The relationship of a man and a woman is a natural relationship of two opposites. The attempt in this legislation to pretend that two people of the same sex can ever form a relationship equal to that of two people from opposite sexes is doomed to failure. But Parliament can do anything. Parliament can make black white create systems of apartheid and prevent women from being educated and this Parliament has made mothers fathers of children in the Care of Children Bill. The laws of nature continue regardless of anything Parliament might make believe to be otherwise. A marriage can only be that of a man and a woman. It is unique. If it was capable of being copyrighted it would be. But there is no need to copyright something that is so natural. 
I made my views on homosexuality known to the public before I stood for Parliament in 1975. I repeated them in my maiden speech in this House in 1976. I see no reason to change my views. What one sees and hears from me is what one gets. But am I fit to represent the people of New Zealand on this subject? As the dictionary states “fit” means “well adapted or suited in a suitable condition ready good enough”. Perhaps I am not. I do not have an open mind on this issue. That is why I am delighted as a member of New Zealand First to be able to say that this matter should be put to a referendum for open discussion and debate. Why should the people of New Zealand be forced to accept my possibly right-wing biased rednecked conservative out-of-this-world and off-this-planet view on this issue? My views are not necessarily just Christian views; they are also based on the fact that I was born and brought up in a Muslim country Pakistan and some of the standards required of Muslims—namely respect for the elderly respect for the family and respect for male and female relationships and high standards of decency—might have rubbed off on me. So why should my views bind those of the rest of New Zealand? 
I look across to the other side of the House when Tim Barnett is here and I ask myself why the views of Tim Barnett a homosexual should bind the rest of New Zealand. Mr Barnett does an excellent job on the Justice and Electoral Committee of which I am a member and I have no difficulty at all in working with him on that committee. But why should the views of either of us bind the views of the rest of New Zealand? We live in a democracy but our form of democratic process really consists of placing ticks in boxes every 3 years. We have the right of free speech but we know sadly that most of the time no one is listening. The politicians peddle their own agenda or that of the bureaucrats and most people are left muttering to themselves or complaining to talk-back radio. The democratic process that we take part in actually leads to a tyranny of a handful and New Zealand First believes that this is happening in New Zealand. In fact that handful here in the Labour Party includes a non-elected few. 
What say do New Zealanders have on the following issues and who is listening to them: legalising prostitution; gender-bending legislation in which women can become fathers; the release of genetically modified organisms into the ecosystem; killers drug dealers and rapists on home detention; the Treaty of Waitangi industry; mass immigration; the sale of State assets; and speculation in large tracts of farmland lakeside coastline and the high country? The list is endless and the fact that New Zealanders have not generally been consulted on those matters makes a very clear point: democracy is too important to always be left to the politicians. 
When Peter Brown presented the voluntary euthanasia bill it was the bill previously presented by Michael Laws which had a referendum provision in it. The views expressed by Peter Brown on that bill and the views expressed by Brian Donnelly on the first reading of this bill when he said that there should be a referendum on this issue—and that is now a fait accompli in Supplementary Order Paper 311 which I hope members will support by way of a majority—fully express New Zealand First’s view on this issue. We ask Parliament to support a referendum on this issue. New Zealand First is committed to the introduction of binding citizens initiated referenda or direct democracy as it is known overseas. That was made very clear by the Rt Hon Winston Peters in a speech at the Loaves and Fishes some years ago. 
 Under that system voters take ultimate responsibility for the health and well-being of society. A healthy democratic society is not produced by casting two ticks for 3 years of political tyranny. Only the people can create a democracy that is of the people and for the people. Under direct democracy the Government is constitutionally bound to accept the will of the people—no ifs no buts no maybes. New Zealand First for example will honour the result of the 1999 citizens initiated referendum to reduce the number of MPs to 99. The loss of 21 MPs could only benefit the country and would actually result in considerable savings. 
Shane Ardern 
: Most of them from New Zealand First. 
DAIL JONES 
: That was a typical interjection from the National Party. New Zealand First is leading the country on this issue. Dr Brash of course is again trying to copy our policy. 
We have a situation in this House today where United Future elected on so-called Christian values allowed itself to enter into an alliance with the Labour Party knowing full well that the Labour Party had an election policy of supporting a civil union bill. It would have been common sense—I repeat common sense—surely for United Future immediately after the election to insist in any agreement with the Labour Party that a Labour Party Government should not introduce any civil union legislation. United Future did that on the issue of marijuana. Why not on civil unions? We have only to look at the way in which United Future’s leader Peter Dunne supports civil unions in the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill to understand why that must have happened. That bill confirms and enhances civil unions and the leader of United Future Peter Dunne supports civil unions in that bill. I regard the views of United Future on this issue as—well I will not say. In the old days the Christians were eaten by the lions. If United Future is a Christian party then one has to say that the Christians are now sitting alongside the lions and destroying those people who believe that marriage can be only a relationship of a man and a woman with a view to having children. 
The only party committed to hearing the voice of the people is New Zealand First in the referendum solution. We will be going to the people on this issue. We should not be wasting the time of Parliament on a civil union bill. We should not be rushing it through in this manner. New Zealand desperately needs checks and balances and a system that makes politicians accountable. We simply have to trust the people and rely on their goodwill and common sense. All that this social-engineering Labour Government is trying to do is to get this matter rushed through the House before Christmas. Is there some irony here—that Labour wants this bill rushed through before Christmas a time when we celebrate the relationship of Joseph and Mary and the child Jesus?