Perry Edwin: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Perry Edwin: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17612] 
EDWIN PERRY (NZ First) 
: 
 I think the title should be: “Merry Christmas (Civil Union Marriage) Bill” which if this bill passes it will be. In the debate today we have heard many views on this issue views mainly putting down the suggestion of a referendum. I am not pointing the finger at Mr Darren Hughes directly but a number of Labour MPs protested against the right of all New Zealanders to participate in a referendum. I say to those members that the amendment for a referendum that Mr Donnelly is putting forward would be good for Labour because on the day of the general election if Labour wins it will be on the right side of it and if it loses—well sorry—it will be on the wrong side of it. But a referendum would give the people of Aotearoa an opportunity to make a decision about whether the legislation becomes law rather than have a number of MPs including Labour members make the decision to pass the bill. 
I say to United Future folk that they had the opportunity to put this bill to bed. But no they did not do that. This bill is no different from the bill about cannabis and I would not agree to that either. United Future put that bill down and it could have done the same with the Civil Union Bill. It could have told Labour that it disagreed with this legislation but that it agreed with putting it to a referendum. It could have pinched New Zealand First’s thunder but it has missed the boat. Now United Future members are wasting taxpayers’ money sitting here debating this bill. I say to the people of New Zealand that they should note what has been said by United Future members who had the opportunity to put this bill down. 
I remind our colleague from Labour Mr Choudhary that he swore on the Koran— 
Lianne Dalziel 
: Don’t be like that. 
EDWIN PERRY 
:—and just recently on  
Morning Report 
 I heard that reports are coming in that the people he represents are not happy about what he is doing. I say to him that he should save his face and vote against this bill. 
I say to members opposite including Lianne Dalziel that the poll taken on Television One showing that 21000 people had phoned in reported that 17000 were against the bill and 4000 were for it. 
Lianne Dalziel 
: That doesn’t mean anything. 
EDWIN PERRY 
: Yes it does. Where has Labour been getting its polls from? I do not know. All New Zealanders are wondering about that quite frankly. 
I say to the people of New Zealand that the Rt Hon Winston Peters introduced a referendum in November 2003. We are the only party as Mr Hughes said that has been consistent about referenda. We have been consistent and we are consistent now but everybody else has hung on the end of our coat-tails for a referendum on this bill. Obviously we are happy they are doing that because it puts more pressure on the Government to push our amendment put forward by Mr Donnelly. I tell Mr Hughes that more of his korero with regard to a referendum would be really appreciated. 
I shall read out a letter that was sent to me which has to disturb the Labour Party: “My name is Graham Turner. I am 65 years old. I have been married for over 39 years to Joyce Turner who is also 65 years old. We have four married daughters and 13 grandchildren. We have been loyal Labour supporters all our voting life. This is the first time I have had to contact a member of Parliament but this Civil Union Bill and Relationships Bill must not be allowed to go through. I would urge you to vote against this bill.” The letter was addressed to me and obviously I am voting against the bill. 
“Enough is enough” this person said who has been a loyal Labour supporter. He is not the only one; there are plenty out there who would vote against the bill in a referendum. He continued: “If this bill goes through it is watering down all the beliefs of the standard of the marriage commitment which I signed 39 years ago. All the studies taken show that the family means mum and dad and when a child is brought up in this happy environment they do much better.” How can one argue against somebody who has been married for 39 years? How can Labour argue against that?