Dyson Ruth: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Dyson Ruth: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9020. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 Can I first of all acknowledge the member who has just resumed his seat Kevin Hague. I hope that at some point during the rest of the Committee stage of the debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill he is able to elaborate on that issue he raised because I think the voting ability for citizens and the proud record that New Zealand has in comparison with those countries where that right to vote was determined by referendum is very worthy of comparison. I know there may be some who think the downfall of our society started when women won the right to vote but I am not one of those who share that view and I know David Bennett does not agree with that either. He supports the right of women to vote. 
I want to acknowledge the work of the Government Administration Committee on this process particularly in relation to the Supplementary Order Papers that the Committee of the whole House will be considering but also the work of the select committee generally. This is not an easy issue for us to have considered as a select committee and I want to pay tribute to all the members of the select committee those who sat on every single day of it and those who joined us just at some times. Some of the stories that we heard were really hard to listen to. Some of the stories told of how people from when they are very very young feel about being excluded from their families and being excluded from their communities always feeling different and how frustrating and how demoralising that was and actually the worst part how suicidal that made people feel particularly young people. We heard factual evidence of the much higher rate of suicide amongst young people whose sexual orientation was different from what they had expected it to be and different from what their families and their communities had expected it to be. They were gay and lesbian and were not that out of their own choice; they were that because that is how they were born. 
More than anything in this Parliament we should strive to make sure that our laws and our leadership and our attitude ensure that people who do others no harm are made to feel part of our community and are made to feel as valued as they are valuable. In my view every gay and lesbian law-abiding citizen in our country deserves the support of our Parliament to ensure that they never feel second-rate that they never feel less worthy than anyone else and that our law backs them in their love which is the proposal that we are progressing tonight. 
I also want to acknowledge the officials of our select committee. We did not give them an easy time frankly and that again is directly in relation to some of the issues that we will be debating tonight. We had some interesting tensions. The tension between religious freedom and protecting human rights was one that we found quite difficult to resolve. I think we have got it absolutely right and that is why I would be urging every member of the Committee to oppose the Supplementary Order Papers that extend discrimination provisions to all marriage celebrants. I do not agree with that. I think that when we say in this House “What should we tolerate as discrimination? What should we accept as being actions that clearly breach our human rights provisions?”—because you know they have been in place for how long? A long time—two decades. They are old provisions. They are sacred provisions. When we say “What actions should breach our human rights provisions?” I think we should do it with care and we did that at the select committee. 
We said that religious freedoms should be exempt from those human rights provisions and therefore that marriage celebrants who are associated with religious associations should lawfully be backed to decline the obligation of solemnising a same-sex marriage. Our view was that it was already covered in the law but we took a belt and braces approach to make sure that that religious freedom is maintained. We have specified it in our amendments to the legislation. Any further amendment whether it is Supplementary Order Paper 202 in the name of Su’a William Sio or the amendment in the name of Dr Paul Hutchison goes beyond what I think is fair and reasonable for this Parliament to justify. The Supplementary Order Paper in the name of Su’a William Sio actually extends it and narrows it at the same time in a way that I think will give a confused message—