Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Smith Nick: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18980] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Firstly I acknowledge Stephen Franks and thank him for his generosity because I have another commitment and I have people waiting for me. This bill is another dose of this Government’s anti-family policies and puts it down as the most anti-family Government in the history of New Zealand. The bill has been described as the companion bill to the Civil Union Act but in every respect whereas that Act was the symbolic packaging this bill is the substance and the grunt of that radical piece of social engineering. 
This bill is based on two premises that are fundamentally flawed. The first of those is that all relationships are equal whether they are a married relationship between a man and a woman a relationship between two men or between two women or a de facto relationship. It is like the “NCEA-ing” of families—that is let us not have any difference; everything is going to be just the same. I say to Government members that all relationships are not the same for two very basic reasons. The first of those is that men and women are different but equal. The notion presented by the Government that a relationship between two men is exactly the same as a relationship between two women or between a man and a woman is wrong. It is wrong because for hundreds of years of culture and history a man and a woman have been the foundation of a family in which children are raised who are the next generation. 
The further point that is lost is the idea that the length of the relationship is relevant. Two people who make a public commitment to each other for life are considered by this Government to be absolutely identical to two people who go into a de facto relationship. It may be the view of Government members that every couple that goes into a de facto relationship is just very dumb and that the couple really meant to get married. It is my view that those are distinctly different relationships. The fact that a man and a women enter into a relationship with the intention of it being a lifelong relationship is quite different from a man and a woman living together without that concept of without that commitment towards it being a lifelong partnership. 
There should be no surprise at and I notice there is a lecture in Parliament this evening about the radical change in demographics. The reality is that fewer and fewer people are choosing to have children. In many instances in Western countries the number of children being born now is even fewer than that needed for the population replacement rate. That is little wonder when we have one Government bill after another stating that families do not matter—they are irrelevant. To the Government it does not matter whether someone is in a same-sex relationship a de facto relationship or a married relationship—it is all just the same. I say to members of the Government that for all the debates that we have in this House about issues of drug abuse youth crime educational attainment— 
Jill Pettis 
: You’re an intelligent man. Stop talking like that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —and all the risk factors all the social policy research I say to Ms Pettis shows that children overwhelmingly do better when they have a mum and a dad. 
Jill Pettis 
: That’s not true. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I challenge Jill Pettis on the Government side of the House to show me the research whether it be from the Christchurch school of medicine or elsewhere. I could quote sociologists who have said that if there is any area of sociology in which there is a consensus it is that in respect of issues such as drugs crime educational attainment self-esteem or poverty children generally on average do best in two-parent families. Now of course there are families—single-parent families—that do really well and I say good on them. But we as a Parliament need to think about what works best for society as a whole and it is my contention absolutely unapologetically that children in New Zealand will do best when they have a committed mother and father who are going to raise them. This bill undermines that very principle of our society. 
This is radical legislation; it changes 186 laws. It means in respect of superannuation of rights at the hospital of what takes place in the courts of the land and of the family relationships that are recognised that it is ground-breaking law. This is not an academic piece of tidying-up. It is radical social engineering in terms of the way that our society has functioned for hundreds of years. 
My concern is quite contrary to the contribution that was made by Tim Barnett. This legislation does not provide certainty. Let me explain why it does not. This bill states that any two people who are living together—two men two women or a man and a woman—are deemed to be living in a de facto relationship if the relationship is in the nature of marriage or civil union. That is all it states. If the court deems that one lives in a relationship that is in the nature of a marriage or a civil union then bang one is part of a marriage in every sense in terms of 186 different statutes. Now how is a young person at university who decides to flat with a person of the same sex or the opposite sex to know at what point he or she gets certainty as to way that he or she is clawed into all the very extensive legal obligations covering over 186 Acts? There is no certainty. Any court can deem that to apply—and we have even removed from the initial bill the criteria that would have given people some guidance as to whether they are deemed to be married. I tell this House that the Minister in charge of this bill has done more than the Reverend Moon could ever have dreamt of doing. He used to be proud of the fact that he had married 2000 or 3000 people at one time. Under the provisions of this legislation we are effectively marrying off over 250000 New Zealanders without their consent and that is wrong. 
I also say that Government members’ argument about semantics is quite galling. They are saying to the House that they respect marriage and respect a husband and a wife because they are going to protect those terms. But the reality is that in every legal sense a civil union will be identical to a marriage. The words change yes but the reality does not. That confirms the giant fib from the Prime Minister that this legislation was not a gay marriage bill. Of course it was because in every single respect and in every single law on our book a relationship between a man and a woman is to become identical in the courts of New Zealand—in the law of the land—to a marriage between a husband and wife. That is nothing less than a con job; it is a game in semantics. The reality is that this Government does not know the difference between those relationships. 
We do need to acknowledge people’s freedom to have relationships of their choosing. It is wrong for this Parliament to pretend that all relationships are the same. Marriage is a relationship and an institution that has served many many generations of people for centuries and it is quite wrong for this Government to engage in this sort of radical social engineering. It is not good for society. It is not good for families. This legislation is aimed around the interests of a few people rather than the interests of our country. We should reject this bill. We should acknowledge that marriage civil unions and de facto relationships are different.