Hereora Dave: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
Hereora Dave: Civil Union Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17402] 
DAVE HEREORA (Labour) 
: 
 As a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee I take the opportunity to declare that I am in support of this bill. Over the past 24 hours there has been a huge campaign in relation to lobbying members of Parliament as to which way we will vote. In the matter of a conscience vote I often call my niece as at the end of the day she has some influence over which way I vote. She explained: “Uncle if you are hesitant vote for the second reading. Come back at the weekend and we’ll have another talk before we get to the third reading.” 
I want to make it very clear that I not only support the second reading but also intend to support the passage of the legislation all the way through the House. One of the reasons I support it is simply that I believe this bill is not about gay marriage. Marriage remains solely available to a man and a woman. This bill is in no way undermining marriage or altering the Marriage Act. It simply enables couples who choose not to marry or for that matter who cannot marry to have their relationship legally recognised as a civil union. 
The other issue is the claim about gay rights. The law currently differentiates between people depending on their marital status with a number of legal rights and responsibilities accessible only to married couples. Those potentially discriminatory laws expose the Government to risks of complaint and to litigation. A number of submitters were also concerned about the terms “husband” and “wife” being removed from the law. I know from the bill that those terms will not be removed; they will be retained. 
I would like to quote this passage from the commentary: “The existence of good de facto parents and bad married parents shows that the structure is not the key to a happy or functional family. The key is the parenting skills of the individuals involved and their commitment to each other and their children.” That in my mind is paramount. The key is the manner in which we treat our children and the brand or the type of relationship that we are in does not determine that. The research is clear on the fact that generally speaking children do better in two-parent families than in a single-parent family. That is common sense when we consider that the financial emotional and parental pressures are exacerbated when there is not another parent with whom to share the load. But what opponents of gay and de facto parents then do is try to attribute the outcomes for children from single-parent families to every family outside of marriage. That is not the case. Quality peer-reviewed methodically sound research shows that there are no significant differences between outcomes for children raised in same-sex families and for those raised in marriage. The main difference is the stigma that the children from those relationships face as a result of prejudice against their families. Marriage on its own does not make good parents. The existence of good de facto and gay parents and bad married parents indicates that the family structure is not the key to happy functioning families. 
This House should not tolerate a position in law that says that gay couples can have a casual relationship but not a committed one. For those who say that gay couples do not need this measure and that we can just pass some other laws to protect their interests I ask them whether they would be happy for us to remove the State recognition of their relationship as well. 
The Relationship (Statutory References) Bill covers areas around burial cremation etc. but not next of kin for hospital visitation or decision-making rights. Those are cases of gay partners and disapproving families conflicting over hospital care and I cannot imagine anything more difficult. The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill cannot help this. However if the couple is in a civil union there is no argument. In that respect the Civil Union Bill is the “Next of Kin Bill”. 
Given that I raised the question of the future of our children I want to move on to the issue of the journey that we are on as a nation and to look at the vision of how we might see the future of our society evolve. It is my feeling that we are on the brink of moving from grievance mode to inclusion and development mode but do we possess the courage commitment and responsibility to live in good grace and harmony with each other? To oppose this bill is to oppose that too.