Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Smith Murray: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17650] 
MURRAY SMITH (United Future) 
: 
 It has been a cornerstone and persistent argument of the supporters of this bill that this issue is about human rights. This is not a human rights issue. The issue of same-sex marriage is not a human right. It is not a human right to have one’s relationship recognised by the State. It is not a right akin to the rights of free speech freedom of religion or freedom of association. Those rights are not created; they exist. The State simply is implored to uphold and defend them. 
Human rights are typically unconditional except on the one condition that they do not infringe on someone else’s human rights. Nor is this an issue really of civil and political rights. Civil and political rights are created and granted by the State are usually conditional and are frequently discriminatory. The right to vote is not provided for people under the age of 18. The right not to be arrested without charge is currently being challenged with regard to Mr Zaoui. Even the right to appoint another person as one’s next of kin could be considered to be a civil right. Marriage is not a civil right. It is an institution like Parliament. Until now it has been unique and it is illogical—indeed nonsense—to suggest that creating a parallel to that institution will not affect that institution. In removing its uniqueness clearly it will. 
The State’s recognition of marriage is therefore not a human right a civil right or a political right. It is a privilege. It is a recognition given by the State to people who meet four criteria: that there are two people only that they are not too closely related that they are not already married and that they are of the opposite sex. It is a recognition the State gives because the State recognises that society has an interest in providing for the next generation and in particular in providing the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Marriage overwhelmingly does that and that is the reason and the sole reason in my view that it is endorsed. 
Should that privilege be extended to civil unions? The answer is no. Firstly we do not know what civil unions are. We do not know whether they will be relationships that are permanent or exclusive and any suggestion that that might be the case and what Parliament wanted was removed by those who supported the bill. To the extent that civil unions will duplicate marriage then extending that privilege is clearly unnecessary. To the extent that it extends to same-sex relationships it breaches one of the four key criteria—that partners must be of the opposite sex. That is not discriminatory. The Court of Appeal in the Quilter case made that abundantly clear. 
So is it a realistic provision that there should be a marriage that the State endorses only of opposite sexes? Yes it is. We recognise that a mother and a father are necessary to give the best environment to nurture and teach the next generation. Male and female are complementary. Boys need fathers and mothers; girls need mothers and fathers if they are to grow up to be whole and fulfilled people. That recognition was endorsed only this week by the United Nations by consensus. In its document celebrating the 10th anniversary of the International Year of the Family the United Nations this Monday stated: “We emphasise that marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses and that the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised and that husband and wife should be equal partners.”; “States should take effective measures to strengthen the stability of marriage by among other things encouraging the full and equal partnership of husband and wife within a committed and enduring marital relationship.” So the United Nations is clearly stating that marriage has a unique and an important function—a function that this bill is watering down. 
The real motive for this bill is not to recognise another form of relationship but to encourage society’s acceptance of homosexual relations as equivalent to and of the same value to society as heterosexual ones. As such it will not deliver without additional rights being granted. Typically overseas we have seen those additional rights to be the repression of human rights the freedom of speech in particular and the freedom not to associate. The public knows there is a qualitative difference between the two. 
This bill is a watering down of an institution that although not perfect has been tried and tested over centuries. I make a final plea to each of those who have supported the bill thus far to in all good conscience vote against it. This bill should not pass.