Dalziel Lianne: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13979] 
LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 In support of the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I point out that the legislation meets obligations agreed to by this Parliament just over a decade ago. In 1993 this Parliament debated the Human Rights Bill which introduced significant changes to our human rights framework. I was extremely proud to be a member of this House on the day that bill was passed. I am the first to acknowledge it was a National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the bill that made it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of marital status and another National Government Minister’s name that appeared on the Supplementary Order Paper that extended the grounds of unlawful discrimination to include sexual orientation. I take my hat off to both those members and other members of the National Government of the day. The human rights legislation did a lot more than that of course but it is very relevant to the bill that is before us today. 
My pride in being an MP that day came in part from the fact that MPs from different sides of the political spectrum joined across that spectrum in order to do the right thing. Now by enabling a free vote on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill individual MPs across the political spectrum can again provide real meaning to the decision that took effect 10 years ago this year. 
The Human Rights Act contained a sunset clause. A period of 5 years was allowed to the Government of the day to assess the variety of statutes that contained discriminatory provisions and to make a decision about each—namely to repeal the provision to amend the provision or indeed to continue the discrimination if there was good cause to do so. If I were to express disappointment in the former National Government it would be that it failed to meet the time frame set by the legislation which is why two separate amending bills had to be introduced—one in 1998 and the other in 2001. 
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill generally provides that the law will be neutral in respect of relationships. As I said before the prohibited grounds of discrimination on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation were decided 10 years ago. We are not revisiting that issue today. We are introducing a bill that will take us through the process of determining how to address our obligations which we have already entered into as a Parliament. This bill promotes all three options. It contains repeal it contains amendment and by way of omission it allows for the retention of discriminatory pieces of legislation. 
There are other issues that have not been dealt with in this bill because they are being dealt with in the context of specific law reform measures. An example is the spousal immunity provision contained in the Evidence Act. That measure will be addressed in the reform of evidence law which the Government will be introducing later this year. For those members who were at my wedding they will know how distressed I am at knowing that that provision in the Evidence Act may be disappearing from our books. 
The Relationships (Statutory References) Bill contains both minor and significant changes. I guess the most significant ones relate to the next-of-kin examples we hear about in the media where the next of kin has been denied the ability to be part of the most crucial aspect of his or her partner's life—in fact the ending of someone's life—at the time of death. For example the Burial and Cremation Act provides only for a husband or wife to be buried with each other. There is no provision for somebody in a de facto relationship same-sex relationship or otherwise to be buried with his or her partner. “Lifelong” does not matter how long a couple has been together; it does not count. This Relationships (Statutory References) Bill says that lifelong does count it does matter so the bill resolves that very serious anomaly in the law. 
Another really significant change in the bill relates to benefit rules which at the moment recognise opposite-sex de facto relationships but not same-sex de facto relationships. I believe that while the State does not provide a mechanism for the legal recognition of same-sex relationships then discrimination is justified. How could we say that a lesbian couple or a gay couple were not entitled to treat themselves under the law as separate and individual when the law does not recognise their relationship or give them a mechanism for recognising their relationship in any legal sense? So the provision of this civil union legislation resolves that issue. It does not matter whether individuals take up the option of civil union. The fact that the State has provided recognition for same-sex relationships addresses that matter. 
The laws to be amended by this bill largely proceed the obligation to make the law neutral on the question of marital status and sexual orientation. I do pay tribute to those who were in Parliament in 1993 and who voted to enable the law to be changed in order that this human rights measure could be put in place. It is time to face up to our responsibility to meet the obligations that were passed by this Parliament just over a decade ago.