Henare Tau: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Henare Tau: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Second Reading 
[Sitting date: 13 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8538. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Thank you for recognising me for the eighth time Mr Deputy Speaker. You know there is nothing quite like an idea whose time has come. There is nothing quite like an MP with an idea whose time has come. I want to say all power to my colleague Louisa Wall. I will not take too much of the House’s time. I know there are a few people across the way and even in my own party who will be silently clapping. 
What I despise most of all about the process that we are going through tonight—or what I am going through—is the blatant gerrymandering of the process. I want to say to my party that I am appalled by that behaviour. I am appalled at some of the behaviour I have seen tonight and the outright not telling of the truth. 
When something like this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill comes before the House a person has to ask themselves how it impacts on them. How does the decision that the House makes impact on me my wife and my family? The funny thing is that most legislation impacts on you somehow. This bill on the other hand does not impact me one little bit. It does not affect me it does not hurt me and it does not help me. It has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with my sanity with my lack of sanity with my happiness or with my lack of happiness. It has everything to do with other people’s sanity everything to do with other people’s happiness and everything to do with how they choose to run their lives. 
I am remiss. I was a bit angry at the beginning—just a wee bit. I dedicate this speech not only to my very dear colleague Louisa Wall but also to my cousin who passed away 3 or 4 weeks ago—to Kathryn Henare my first cousin. I was remiss in not saying her name. 
The other question I like to ask myself when legislation is brought to the House is whether the sky is going to fall in. I have got to say that it ain’t going to fall in and tomorrow the sun—actually that might not be a good thing to say because there is a drought—is going to come up again. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Rain’s on the way. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: And rain is on the way but not because of this bill. 
I do want to have a free shot. I want to make mention of the referendum issue which my former leader colleague party mate bench mate— 
Andrew Williams 
: Mentor. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —mentor brother in arms spoke about. I want to say to New Zealand First that it is the only party in this House that steadfastly believes in the issue of referendum. I take my hat off to New Zealand First for having that position throughout the years. If there is one thing that it has been consistent on it is the issue of a referendum. 
But now I turn my little wee guns on those who have conveniently found the issue of a referendum; those who have suddenly become revolutionary on the issue of a referendum— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Resolute. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: —and resolute in their determination to push the idea of a referendum. If I was to believe them then why are we not having a referendum on asset sales? Why are we not having a referendum on all sorts and all manner of things? So to my colleagues whom I hold dear to my heart including Mr Bennett who has tried vigorously all day to get me to support a referendum I say that it is a bit late brother to be thinking about a referendum. It is a bit late and quite frankly it is wrong to think that you can govern a country through the referendum issue. It will not work it has never worked and I do not support it. 
One of the final things I want to say is that if the so-called institution of marriage was so sacrosanct then why are there so many people opting out of marriages? Why are there so many divorces? I am not an expert on marriage. I have been married for only just over 365 days. But what I do want to know is why we cannot offer the same opportunities to everybody rather than only a few people in our nation. I have to say—and I suppose I should quote Dr Paul Hutchison when he said in the first reading of this bill that he could not find any good reason to vote against it. I too am like that. I think that everybody should be like Dr Paul Hutchison and think very seriously and have a look at it and say that they cannot find any good reason to vote against this piece of legislation. I commend this bill to the House and I commend my colleague Louisa Wall.