Cunliffe David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Cunliffe David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17476] 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of State) 
: 
 In rising to take a call on the Civil Union Bill I want to acknowledge the high level of public interest in this debate and the fact that good and reasonable people find themselves bound by their consciences to opposing sides of the argument. Tonight however I want to acknowledge that something else is going on. Some are using this issue as a political football to divide this nation in what we call wedge politics. It has been observed that George W Bush won the US election on a campaign organised—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: As members know there was general agreement that interjections would be minimal. That was over the top. I ask members to respect that this is a conscience vote and to respect the agreement that we had previously. 
Stephen Franks 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. The Chair asked that there not be interjections. I do not believe that it was an agreement of the Committee. I did not understand it. When a member accuses people who have sincerely argued on what they think are principled grounds of indulging in wedge politics he should expect some response from members. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: That is not a point of order. The point is that interjections should be rare and reasonable and I will enforce that if necessary. 
Simon Power 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Nobody will dispute your ruling but I would ask that you apply the same standards to the Minister sitting in the chair beside you Mr David Benson-Pope. Since the Committee resumed at 7.30 on at least three occasions the member has interjected on members speaking. I would ask that you apply the same standards to him as you apply to everybody in the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There had been a comment from the Minister as the member said but certainly not in excess of what we heard just then. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In response to Mr Franks who has just resumed his seat I appreciate the fact that he does respect his neighbours who are a gay couple. What I cannot quite understand is the logic he uses to get from there to opposing the bill. 
Let us analyse briefly without regard to any particular member what wedge politics consists of. It is defined as hostility towards a minority group—in this case gays—being used to win favour with a minority; the conservative middle classes. In the US case of course it was helped by a small foreign war and the claim that God was on Mr Bush’s side. If I were God I would be a bit miffed at that suggestion. Back home we had a wee dose of it after Orewa— 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Before I call the member I tell members that there will be silence during points of order. 
Hon Bill English 
: By general agreement there has been a pretty wide-ranging debate wider than the usual Committee stage proceedings. However I do not think that the tacit agreement of the Committee extends to lectures on political campaign theory. It does seem to me that the Committee would expect any member whatever his or her point of view at least to debate the bill rather than range as widely as the Hon David Cunliffe is. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: I take the member’s point. The debate has been wide ranging. However I ask the member to come back to the bill. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: This week it is the Civil Union Bill that is attracting the same debate. Sadly recognising that the tactics of wedge politics is not in itself enough to prevent it from appealing to our baser instincts. The power of the attack is that it ostensibly uses high principle as its shield. Principle must be countered by principle. Supporters of a proud and inclusive New Zealand must clearly articulate their own ethical base. To quote Bobby Kennedy: “We must recognise the full human equality of all people before God before the law and in the councils of Government.” 
This principle is rooted deeply in the Christian tradition. Christ healed the sick accepted lepers pardoned sinners hung out with prostitutes and set tough standards. Tolerance does not mean nihilism. In a sermon on the Mount—Mount Galilee not Mount Maunganui—he based his standards on love and care for all meeting them where they were at and helping each to live a better life. 
Divine recognition of human free will and its consequences is as old as the Garden of Eden. People make choices about their lives. They have the right to make choices that others might disagree with. But Christ himself said: “Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar; render unto God that which belongs to God”. In Christ’s teaching there is recognition that the role of the church therefore is separate from the role of the State. While I fully appreciate the sincerity of the views of many of our Christian brothers and sisters what I cannot accept is the use of the institution of the State to impose that sincerely held view on all others. 
The essence of a liberal secular State is that it makes it all right for old white men like the fellows on the Opposition side slowly rusting their way to oblivion to be heard equally with the full diversity of New Zealand. What we cannot tolerate is the idea that any one group’s interpretation confers a God-given right to rectitude. I say it as a follower of the Christian ideals myself. I say it out of good conscience. I do not say it out of anything that is politically trendy because frankly the balance of input to my electorate office has been against this bill. 
I stand for this bill because in my conscience I believe it is the right thing to do as I support the right of members opposite to hold the view that the bill is wrong. Equally I support the right of all New Zealanders to live their lives as they see fit with the full rights and protection of the law up to the point that they are harming others. That is the appropriate distinction between church and State and that is why this bill must pass into law.