Dalziel Lianne: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dalziel Lianne: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8537. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I have participated in more than one debate in this Parliament in my time here. The first time that I participated in a debate on a subject that really has been a platform for where we are now was on the 1993 amendments to the Human Rights Act that took effect on 1 February 1994. I have not been here as long as Trevor Mallard has but I remember that debate very very well. The second one was the civil union legislation. I do want to speak briefly to both of those because they are relevant to why we are here tonight. 
I remember participating in the human rights debate as if it were yesterday. In fact of the number of submissions that came into that select committee which I had the honour of serving on most of them did not actually deal at all with all of the amendments to the human rights legislation. They focused on the Supplementary Order Paper very bravely progressed by Katherine O’Regan who was an Associate Minister in the Government at the time. She made sure that sexual orientation and also diseases capable of causing—no infection—oh I cannot remember what it was but it was the HIV status clause. She enabled people to have a say about whether that should become part of our human rights architecture. Fortunately that was passed by this House and at the same time that legislation changed our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That was a substantial advance in this country and I was very proud to be part of that debate. 
Actually I remember standing in this House. I was standing up the front speaking in the third reading of the debate and it was about 9 o’clock in the morning because we were speaking under urgency. I remember standing here and I was so tired because we had been up until midnight the night before and I just said: “Today I just feel so proud to be a member of Parliament.” and I really really felt that way. If you remember the early 1990s there were not a lot of things that I felt particularly proud of back then so it really was a major achievement. 
But what I remember about that night after the debate was over was that I was invited to appear on television to stand up for what I had voted for. I appeared debating the issue with on the other side a gentleman called Graham Capill from one of the religious political parties. I just want everyone in this House to think for one minute about where he is today. So as I said I felt very proud of that moment supporting that legislation and it was a major major change. 
I should have been the Minister who introduced the civil union legislation. I really am very sad that I was not. Tragically I decided to take time out for bad behaviour at the time and as a result my colleague the Hon David Benson-Pope had the honour of taking that legislation through the House. The disadvantage of not being able to steer that legislation through the House was immediately overtaken by the great pleasure I had in hearing the submissions and I pay tribute to Ruth Dyson and all members of the Government Administration Committee for having taken up that challenge with this particular piece of legislation and for doing so in such a respectful way. The feedback I have had from people on both sides of the debate is that they felt honoured and respected by the committee so I do thank the committee for that and thank Ruth Dyson for her great leadership in that regard. 
As I said lots of the arguments that have been heard today were heard then but I have to say that the noise was much louder then. I have to say that the noise has dampened down. I do not feel that there is the strength of the objections that existed back then and I think there is a very simple reason for that. A lot of the dire predictions that were made at that time simply did not come to pass as they had not in 1993 and as they had not in the year—what was it—BC or whenever Trevor Mallard was debating the previous legislation. 
The point is that I went back and I looked at my first reading speech for the civil union legislation and I actually found a speech that I could have given tonight. I said back then that the Marriage Act was discriminatory. Every single thing I said in my speech was actually not in support of civil union; it was in support of an amendment to the Marriage Act. I wish we had been able to go there then but we could not and I am really proud of my friend Louisa Wall for bringing this bill to the House tonight. I quoted Baroness Hale who had recently made a decision in the UK. She said that the guarantee of equal treatment is “essential to democracy”—and it is.  
This is not the slippery slope. I actually went online before to find out what is the alternative what is the opposite of a slippery slope. I found that it was a leap of faith and that is what we are doing here tonight as we have done all the way along this journey. It is not a slippery slope; it is about understanding where our democracy must stand. It must stand for human rights.  
I said in my third reading speech on the civil union legislation that I had a lot of luck on my side when I chose the circumstances of my birth. I was born to the majority status in every single respect. I was white I was female and I was heterosexual and I was born into what was then called the one true faith—I was born into the Catholic Church. I said that what concerned me at the time was that some representatives of that Church had essentially asked me to set aside one of the principles it stands for and one of the values it taught me and that was the one that affirms committed faithful loving relationships between two people who wish to share their lives together.  
I stand by those values. That is why I stood by the civil union legislation that is why I stand by this marriage amendment bill tonight and that is why I believe that the people who have supported this bill actually speak to those values in exactly the same way that we did back then. I hope that this House can see its way clear to seeing the passage of this legislation today and the rest of the passage of this bill go down in history as a day that we stood proudly for human rights.