Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Franks Stephen: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17520] 
STEPHEN FRANKS (ACT) 
: 
 In the nearly 2 hours since 9 a.m. I have listened to many speeches and I think that only three were memorable. One was a draught of cool water from Dr Cullen who spoke about the connection or lack of connection between this bill and religion and about the religious view of marriage. Then Dr Lockwood Smith asked why the Labour Government had not put forward something that would achieve exactly the same legal objectives and end discrimination in terms of legal privilege preference or disability but would not stick it up the noses of the 20 30 or 40 percent of New Zealanders who have values similar to those that nearly everyone held 30 or 40 years ago. In other words Dr Smith may not have referred to Dr Cullen’s address but he was referring to the fact which is evident in this debate that no one wants to talk about the words. 
No one is looking at what this law actually does or does not do. No one is looking at the clauses because they are all busy making precious statements about their own morality and world view—smug speeches that support one side or the other but those primarily made by the proponents of this bill are about how intellectually superior they feel to the poor benighted traditionalists who happen not to agree with their sexual morality. This bill is Parliament acting as a bunch of priests. Instead of Parliament approaching this and asking what the law provides or what the law ought to do about status it is setting out to try to decree respect—it is not tolerance legal permission or legal rights and abilities that are being claimed but respect. 
I think Sue Kedgley for the Greens said it as her entire speech was about how Parliament must make sure that people are not traumatised by derogatory remarks or feel judged and attacked. That is why I will vote against this bill. When I asked the Justice and Electoral Committee for some assurance that this would not be converted by activist judges the Advertising Standards Authority film censors or anyone else who exercises authority delegated from this Parliament into an instruction that their role was now to decree respect instead of protecting freedom I could not get it. In fact the Labour members scoffed at the idea that we should revisit the absurd provisions of the Human Rights Act that state that no one can discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or marital status. That is where the law should stop. It should state that the State cannot discriminate on those grounds; that the coercive powers of the State should not decree someone’s morality. But for private individuals how else do they express their views? By what other way do ordinary people—people other than the elite who stand in this Chamber and pontificate—try to propagate and promote their values except by drawing distinctions and acting on them? The law should protect everyone from coercion or violence. 
When I look at this bill I see that it is simply a deliberate mimicry. It is deliberately the revenge of that coterie as someone explained it of covert lesbians and gays who have authority within the Labour Party. It is their revenge on straight New Zealanders. It could so easily have been done along the lines of the Worth amendments. This is not just a criticism of the Labour Party. I am stunned that I have not heard Richard Worth explain this morning why his amendments would have made such a better job without trying to decree respect. He would have amended the law in a way that was more facilitatory cheaper easier to operate easier for everyone to understand and less discriminatory because it would have covered people in caring committed stable and loving relationships who did not consider that those relationships needed to be seen as sexual. That would have been the way to approach this legislation if all one was concerned about was ending discrimination and legal disability making sure that people who loved each other got hospital visiting rights could go to the mortuary could decide how the burial went or were able to access superannuation benefits. All of that could have been done without this fatuous provision that has a $5000 fine for someone who pretends to be a marriage celebrant. Why when the marriage contract does not specify content and when the words that are uttered are only about identifying the parties and stating that one wants to be in a civil union?