Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
Hobbs Marian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — Second Reading 
[Volume:624;Page:18972] 
Hon MARIAN HOBBS (Associate Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the 
 Hon David Benson-Pope (Associate Minister of Justice) 
: I move  
That the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill be now read a second time 
. Today we have the opportunity to consider a bill that will strengthen New Zealand’s human rights record. This bill supports the different choices people make about their relationships. One in every five New Zealanders living in a relationship—some 300000 people—have chosen to live in a committed exclusive stable relationship other than marriage. However the law does not currently support that choice. This bill will remove the unjustifiable discrimination people face on the grounds of their marital status. De facto couples will no longer need to cope with injustice and feel distressed over the lack of recognition of their relationship. Furthermore same-sex couples are unable to marry and therefore have been unable to have their relationship either formally or legally recognised. 
The bill will ensure that couples in a civil union have the full rights and obligations that should be attached to the kind of commitment they are making. This gives meaningful effect to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act by ensuring that New Zealand’s laws are consistent with our human rights obligations. It also recognises and embraces the diversity of committed exclusive and stable relationships that exist in New Zealand. New Zealand will benefit from the legal recognition of different relationships because people will be able to focus their energy on strengthening their relationships and positively contributing to society knowing that the law supports their relationship decisions. 
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee; its chair Tim Barnett; and the officials who worked on the bill for all their hard work. The select committee has done an excellent job in carrying out the lengthy task of carefully analysing each proposed amendment in the bill to ensure that the amendments will not cause any unintended consequences. 
The select committee has recommended a number of worthwhile amendments to the bill. In particular it has suggested that some legislative provisions not be amended to include de facto couples because they do not in fact discriminate against de facto couples. The two main areas in which the committee wanted to limit the bill’s application to de facto couples relate to laws about minors and those that bestow certain interests in property upon surviving spouses. The committee was concerned about removing existing legal protections for minors if they enter into a de facto relationship. I agree that there are some difficulties with provisions relating to minors and therefore support the approach taken by the committee. 
The committee has also recommended that a number of laws bestowing interests in property on surviving spouses particularly in Maori land legislation should not be extended to de facto partners. The committee decided that people in de facto relationships would need to expressly nominate their partner as a person to whom they wish to leave their property interest when they die. The committee considered it inappropriate to vest automatically a property interest in a surviving de facto partner when the deceased partner may never have intended such a result. The committee believes that that amendment will respect the choice of de facto couples to make their own property arrangements. 
The committee has not recommended however as has been reported in the media that surviving de facto partners should no longer have relationship property rights under the Property (Relationships) Act. The select committee has suggested amending the statutory definition of de facto relationship that was to be inserted into the Interpretation Act. Rather than accepting the original definition which included a list of factors characterising a de facto relationship the committee prefers one that refers to two people who are living together as a couple: “… in a relationship in the nature of marriage or civil union” and requires a decision maker to have regard to all the circumstances of the relationship and the context or purpose of the law in which the question is to be determined. Although I still think that the list of factors could have proved useful I understand that the committee was concerned about the uncertainty of the types of relationships that could be covered by the definition. I think that the amended definition will achieve the right result. 
It is also noteworthy that a number of amendments have been added to the bill during the select committee process. Many of the amendments arose out of legislation that was previously subject to review or that was passed after the introduction of the bill. I am aware that some submitters objected to the drafting in the bill and in particular to civil union and de facto partners being included in definitions of spouse in some legislation. The committee has recommended amendments to ensure that marriage is referred to separately from civil union and de facto relationships in each provision that accords rights and entitlements to persons in those relationships. The terms “spouse” “husband” “wife” “widow” and “widower” will be defined or used only in the context of marriage. I am happy to support those amendments. 
Finally the committee has recommended that the Law Commission could review the issues it has raised around the extension of rights and obligations to de facto couples. The Government will carefully consider that recommendation from the committee. Overall the amendments recommended by the select committee maintain the essence of what the bill is designed to achieve. 
This legislation will ensure that New Zealand continues its fine tradition of leading the world in the area of domestic human rights protections. It is about legally recognising the diversity of relationships that people choose to form and promoting a fair-minded inclusive and tolerant society that respects differences. I strongly commend the bill to the House.