Hughes Darren: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Hughes Darren: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17456] 
DARREN HUGHES (Labour—Otaki) 
: 
 I rise to support Part 1 of the Civil Union Bill. I say “Civil Union Bill” because that is what we are discussing. Parliament is debating whether to create a new mechanism for gay and straight couples in New Zealand to have their relationships legally recognised by the law—not approved in some kind of opinion poll or text message competition not accepted by everyone who lives in their street thinking they are an appropriate couple to be together and not determined by each individual member of Parliament. We are deciding whether two people who are in love with each other should be able to bowl up and have their relationship recognised by law. It is quite a simple matter. 
Instead a lot of members of Parliament are saying that somehow there has to be some great competition: that somehow in Parliament today we are trying to decide whether in the future every New Zealander should live in a gay civil union relationship or in a heterosexual marriage. But this is not a competition. This is about looking at New Zealand in the 21st century about seeing the range of relationships that exist throughout our communities our families our businesses and everywhere in our country today and about deciding whether the law should recognise the diversity of those relationships. 
We are not trying to say that one relationship is better than the other. We are not trying to say that marriage is a terrible thing that has failed and therefore should be abolished and replaced with a civil union. We are simply providing an option for New Zealanders who either do not want to marry in the case of heterosexual de facto couples or whom we are continuing to forbid to be married in the case of same-sex couples. But here we are in Parliament with lots of members as the new kind of moral crusaders and pioneers of righteousness puffing up their chests and trying to say that they are protecting marriage and all that is moralistic and right in our society while also saying that other members are somehow trying to tear apart the fabric of New Zealand. We are not in a competition in this debate. 
What members have been trying to do with the marriage side of things and the Marriage Act is to say that this is some sort of pale imitation of marriage. I challenge members on that. They say that the wording in the Civil Union Bill is similar to the wording in the Marriage Act. I see that Dr Smith has a copy of the Marriage Act. I suspect and I do not know whether I am right about this that that would be one of the first times Dr Nick Smith has read the Marriage Act. I suspect that when he became engaged to his wife and they had a wonderful romantic evening he did not read the Marriage Act. I bet that most members of Parliament had not read the Marriage Act before they were married to their partners—it is administrative law. 
So let us not get hung up on the words we are using in Parliament to give effect to people’s day-to-day lives because ordinary people out there who are at work at the moment be they gay or straight will not look at legislation for its wording to see how they want to live their lives together. I think that we are taking ourselves a little too seriously with regard to the way in which we are conducting the debate. In a very competitive manner we are trying to say that one relationship is better than the other and that somehow thousands of couples who want to get together will read administrative law before deciding what relationship will suit them better. 
On the issue of the referendum referred to by Mr Tanczos I tell members that I agree with the sentiments he raised. The referendum was kind of thrown up at the last minute by some members as a way to try to divert attention from the issue with the exception of course of New Zealand First members who have a longstanding policy on referenda. But there comes a time in this Parliament where we sometimes have to stand up and do what we think is the right thing even though we are not sure what the majority of people out there might think about it. For example I represent 55000 people. I will not tell members what is in the souls of 55000 people on this bill. I will not pretend to do that. I will make a value judgment myself and of course I will be held accountable for it. 
But I put this point to members: imagine if it were said that there ought to be a referendum about giving women the right to vote when the entire electorate was made up of male voters or when the entire Parliament was made up of men who said: “No this is far too important. Let’s have a referendum on it.” I suspect that that referendum would have been lost. I do not think that we would have ever freed the slaves by a referendum. I do not think that we would have ever done a whole lot of things around referenda so Parliament has to make the call on those kinds of decisions and show the leadership that is necessary for minority groups. I do not want to spend my life going around picking on minority groups and making derogatory comments about them. I am not interested in that; I am interested in our getting on with these things. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I hear Mr Franks interjecting. I knew that Mr Franks would end up opposing this bill because people like him always find some kind of superfluous at-the-margin kind of reason to oppose the extension of rights and protections to people. They always have some sort of last-minute objection. Even though on a good day with a tail wind they would support it they say: “Oh no here comes the reason why I cannot have it.” 
I will not do that because I will make sure that we do provide rights for people that we affirm people in what they are doing and that we do not run around the place in some sort of competitive mode. In the end I support Part 1. I do not think anyone’s marriage is undermined because Bob and Bob living four streets away will have the law recognise their relationship. That is totally superfluous when one thinks about everyone who lives in one’s community.