Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Dalziel Lianne: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17611] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I am not opposed to referenda per se. I think that there are some constitutional issues that should be decided only by a referendum like the electoral system. But I think there was a flaw in the MMP referendum even though I was a very strong supporter of MMP. The flaw was the quality of the material that was presented to the public before they voted on the subject. People might recall some paper bags appearing on the heads of certain people as they said that list MPs would be invisible not known to the public yet we have some very fine list MPs in this Parliament today. Everyone who quotes Switzerland fails to mention the 20 years that lay between the law being voted on and passed in that country and the referenda that prevented it from becoming law. It was the law to allow women the vote in Switzerland. It is very interesting how a majority—in that case only men were able to vote in it—was able to keep women away from the polling booth for so long. 
I recall attending a seminar on alcohol policy a few years ago. We were told that binding referenda in California had completely tied the legislature’s hands over imposing taxes on the sale of liquor. It was interesting because price is a very powerful weapon against increased consumption. In fact taxes had been used deliberately to minimise the harm that alcohol causes. The graphs showed consumption levels before the referendum was carried. They showed a steady increase in consumption particularly amongst young people once taxes could not be imposed. We might think that that is the will of the people; they voted for it. However if we compare how much money the liquor interests poured into the advertising campaign with the pittance that the public health groups could put up against that campaign then we know that the powerful will always be better placed to persuade the majority. 
I was in the United States when the Hillary Clinton bill on health reform was before Congress. I sat in on some of the committee hearings so I heard stories from ordinary Americans who came to tell their stories of losing health-care coverage when they needed it most. I heard one man talk about being sacked when his wife became terminally ill and his company’s health maintenance organisation did not want to keep paying her for treatment. But it was not those stories that I saw on TV—the stories of ordinary people. I saw the insurance industry having a field day. I saw insurance company advertisements with actors playing the roles of a couple at work. One said: “Gee this health reform bill sounds great doesn’t it?” and the other one said: “Yeah but it’s a shame we won’t be able to offer our employees the benefits we have been able to offer them in the past.” 
Public opinion destroyed that legislation. That to me says that the real issue here is: why would we want a referendum when someone like Brian Tamaki who has plenty of money to spend on advertising campaigns will be able to outspend everyone else building fear and loathing amongst decent New Zealanders who give their hard-earned money in accordance with the Bible’s call for a tithe? I think it is very important that people realise that that is what opening up a referendum would do. I think a biblical reference to a camel passing through the eye of a needle might well apply to an evangelist on a Harley Davidson. But I am not prepared to give him and others like him a platform for the hatefulness he has brought to this debate. If anyone thinks that it is hateful I say that it is. 
I want to quote from an email that I received today: “I agree with many opponents to this bill who are worried about the erosion of the two-parent family as the core of our society but the experience of my siblings reminds me that no institution alone ensures the quality of a family’s care for its members. There is nothing inherently sacred or sacrosanct about a marriage between a man and a woman that produces violence physical and sexual abuse and self-hatred as it has done for my siblings. As you consider this bill I encourage those opposed to abstain or vote in favour so that the Parliament’s energies may be redirected towards bills that strengthen all family units in whatever form they take. The greatest threat to the institution of marriage lies in married couples who abuse their vows not with gay couples who wish to make a formal commitment to each other.” 
I feel very strongly about this. Two people who love each other and want to commit their lives to each other are not to be loathed or feared. All this bill does is give people who cannot marry or do not wish to marry access to a status that is recognised in law. This is a matter of civil rights. It should be decided by Parliament not a referendum.