Turei Metiria: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Turei Metiria: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13934] 
METIRIA TUREI (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party is very proud to support the Civil Union Bill at its first reading. The Greens have had a longstanding sexual orientation policy that gay lesbian and heterosexual partnerships are equally entitled to respect and support and therefore we support the extension of legal partnership arrangements and rights to same-sex couples. The Civil Union Bill is merely one form by which that extension can occur. 
The Civil Union Bill sets out the process by which different-sex and same-sex couples can formally solemnise their relationship in law and be entitled to the same legal rights and obligations as those who are married. It reduces any discrimination against couples because of their sexual orientation. 
Marriage as understood in our society and as formalised in law is a specific culturally and historically bound institution. Contrary to the beliefs of some this institution is not universal but stems out of a particular Christian tradition. That is nothing to be ashamed of. I encourage those who try to claim that marriage is universal to embrace the particular historical and cultural tradition from which marriage was born. 
Prior to the colonisation of this country marriage in this tradition was not the institution that existed here in our country Aotearoa. Rather personal loving relationships between adults were formalised and validated in other ways by other processes culturally appropriate to the whanau and hapu. Legislation made some changes to that process. The Native Land Act 1909 declared Maori customary marriages to be valid for some purposes only and required Maori to undergo legal marriage ceremonies. Prior to 1911 only marriages between Maori and Europeans were required to be officially registered. Among Maori customary marriage practices continued and were common and were to some extent recognised by the State until 1952 but thereafter only marriages registered and conducted by a State-licensed marriage celebrant were deemed legitimate. 
In New Zealand as a result of colonisation the institution of a Western system of marriage was introduced and other traditional forms of validating and recognising relationships were sadly lost. Since that time the institution of marriage has become the sole means by which this society recognises these kinds of personal relationships. But not everyone in our community wants to participate in that institution. Couples who choose not to marry have developed other means to solemnise their relationships to make public declarations of their love and commitment to each other. None the less law has built up over time around the institution of marriage and we are now in a legal situation where only those who are married can access a significant body of legal rights and responsibilities. But what is the important value here—the institution that derives from a particular culture and history or the validation of stable and committed personal relationships to which the law applies equally? 
Over time legislation has developed to recognise in some circumstances different kinds of relationships—most commonly de facto relationships and more recently there has been some recognition of same-sex relationships. But this development has been piecemeal and has not addressed the principle that the law should apply equally to those who choose to formalise their personal relationship whether by the institution of marriage or in some other form. We finally have in the House legislation that enables couples who are in a committed stable and exclusive relationship to have a choice as to the means by which they formalise their relationship so that they can have access to the law. It is a mark of a mature and tolerant community. The Greens are very pleased that the civil union process will be accessible by both same-sex and different-sex de facto couples. For both these groups exclusion from some legal rights causes considerable distress and difficulty for no good reason. 
One example is that de facto couples cannot ensure they are able to be buried together because the Burial and Cremation Act overrides any personal agreement or contract between de facto people. This causes extraordinary hardship in times of crisis for no reason other than a historical discriminatory anomaly that has no application in a modern tolerant and diverse society. 
For same-sex couples there is the very serious problem that a person’s partner is not considered in law as the next of kin. Where for example significant medical issues arise for this couple often in very stressful situations the same-sex partner no matter how long the couple have been together or how stable their relationship is not entitled to make the very serious decisions necessary in those circumstances. 
The issue of next of kin is not however a problem simply for same-sex couples. Many unmarried people would welcome the opportunity to identify a particular trusted person to exercise that special responsibility. The Greens would support an additional simple next of kin register that would enable any person to identify a particular person as his or her next of kin. 
I have received some terribly violent and vicious mail from those who oppose this bill. There has been some extraordinary vitriol levelled at gay and lesbian people and couples and I am sad that much of this has come from a minority of Christians. Where is the compassion of Christ? 
Others have tried to explain how the bill will undermine the institution of marriage. I have not found any single compelling argument as to how allowing some to solemnise their relationship through a civil union which then entitles them to recognition under the law will undermine the institution of marriage. This bill does not affect the Marriage Act. It does not change in any way the structure the validity of the institution of marriage. Those who consider marriage a divine responsibility of God will know that human law cannot disturb divine law so therefore nothing that we do in this Chamber will undermine the divinity of marriage. 
Those who argue that stable and committed relationships form the fundamental basis of a good society should welcome this bill as supporting and identifying in law an even greater number of stable committed and exclusive relationships with legal rights and responsibilities. It is miraculous that there are so many stable committed same-sex relationships when our law provides such little support for them. 
The news is not all bad. I have received some fantastic supportive mail on this issue from people from a variety of relationships. It has been really heartening to know just how tolerant and accepting New Zealanders from all sorts of religious denominations and other sectors in our society really are. 
In the end despite the vitriol that comes out of both the public and this Chamber it is important that we do not get too precious about this issue. Marriage is an important institution in our country revered by some and practised by many New Zealanders including myself for a variety of practical and at times religious reasons. But despite the technicalities of law and the moral imperatives of religion relationships whether marriage de facto heterosexual or homosexual in the end are matters of the heart driven at worst by fear or resignation at best by passion commitment respect and love. 
Our personal choices as to whom we will love and commit to should be subject to no judgment but our own. The Civil Union Bill simply applies the law equally to all couples without judgment or favour. It is time that in our country the law recognised how our society is changing and that our law reflected people’s lives in the 21st century. The Green Party of Aotearoa urges all members of this House to vote for equality before the law for all New Zealand citizens.