Donnelly Brian: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Donnelly Brian: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13945] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I used to often tell my students: “You don’t make your own candle shine more brightly by blowing out somebody else’s.” and the converse of that adage is: “My own candle will not glow more dimly if I should light somebody else’s.” Therefore I ask this question: how will my own marriage be diminished by the passage of this legislation? The answer and I am convinced it is the correct answer is it will not make one iota of difference. If that is the case what is so dreadfully wrong in allowing other New Zealanders of a different disposition to make a long-term public commitment to someone they love? 
During the debate on the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill I argued there were three categories of sexual relationships: the forbidden such as incest and paedophilia; the accepted tolerated and legal such as casual de facto or same-sex relationships; and the preferred—in other words marriage. My opposition to the Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill was based on the fact that all legal relationships including marriage were being brought down to the same denominator. I felt that those different relationships should have been treated separately. The Property (Relationships) Amendment Bill is an example of what happens when we deny a group of people who are in legal relationships any way of publicly expressing that relationship. I believe that this Civil Union Bill rather than diminish the law’s recognition of marriage as a special relationship between a man and a woman will serve to protect that relationship as the preferred form of relationship. The alternative is to have marriage morph into other relationships to the stage where it is legally considered to be no more preferable than a one-night stand. That would be hugely detrimental to the well-being of our society. 
I want to approach this issue from another angle. I say to those who would have us believe that the passage of this legislation would lead to the destruction of our society that the real issue about which we need to be concerned is not whether the exclusive relationships of couples who either do not wish or are presently unable to express publicly a long-term relationship can be recognised; the real issue is whether this legislation would affect levels of promiscuity. It is levels of promiscuity that public policy should be concerned with. By the way the institution of marriage has not eradicated promiscuity completely but there is no doubt that it has reduced it. Within the homosexual population there are no such incentives. Without a public recognition process the incentives towards exclusive relationships are lessened. My contention is that this legislation will over time reduce multiple relationships within the gay community with concomitant health and social benefits because it incentivises long-term exclusive relationships. 
There is no doubt that this legislation will change the social fabric of our society—I believe for the better but others may disagree. This being a conscience vote the result should reflect the conscience of the nation. However there can be no denying the political agendas that will determine many people’s decisions. Political consideration in many cases will override principles. The question I ask is whether with legislation such as this the final determination should be made by the people of the country. Even if it is the will of this House to proceed with this legislation should not such a decision be ratified by the public of New Zealand? I believe so. Therefore I give notice that I will be seeking an amendment later on in the process to add to the legislation a clause like the one Peter Brown had in his voluntary euthanasia bill that will require a referendum to be held at the next election and only if that referendum were passed would this legislation become law. 
What is not being told to the public is that at present the law discriminates in some cases against married couples in favour of same-sex partners. This comes about because gay couples are treated as individuals when it comes to benefits superannuation student allowances etc. The two unemployed owners of the dog that savaged young Carolina Anderson for example receive from the State much more than a married couple does. This Civil Union Bill is the precursor of the bill that will eradicate some of those circumstances that discriminate believe it or not—and it has been mentioned—against marriage and married couples in favour of same-sex relationships. Therefore I argue that many of the things that have been said in this House do not make any sense. 
To finalise I will be voting for this legislation. In doing so I hope I will be able to light the candles of many New Zealanders who for so long have been forced to live in the dark.