Horan Brendan: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Horan Brendan: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9027. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) 
: 
 Apology accepted Mr Chair. Thank you Mr Chair. I take a call tonight to urge every member of this Committee to vote for a public referendum by postal vote to bring this bill the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill into effect. That is provided for in Supplementary Order Paper 187 which is in my name. The opportunity to have a decision made by the public of New Zealand should be welcomed by those in support of and opposed to the bill. There is nothing to be afraid of and everything to embrace. 
Two speakers previous to me two members whom I respect very much the honourable Kevin Hague and the Hon Ruth Dyson said words that actually disturbed me in so far as they suggested that a referendum is contrary to the minority view. The connotation was therefore that somehow if this went to a referendum the will of New Zealanders would be against this bill. To hear fellow MPs suggest that leaves me in a conundrum because I was under the impression that we were here by the will of the people of New Zealand and therefore should be exercising that will. 
All of us in this Chamber have been inundated with mail and emails about this reform of marriage. It has generated strong passions on both sides of the debate. Same-sex marriage is an issue that many New Zealanders have a very firm view on and no one can argue that it does not have long-term social ramifications for our society. Consultation by referendum with New Zealanders is something that Parliament should do rather than asserting a right to a conscience vote on a dramatic social change such as this and importantly I would defend the right of every voter to be able to choose either yes or no. There will be a clear choice made. New Zealanders will make that choice in a referendum. It is the fairest and most sensible way forward. If the 121 men and women in this House purport to make the final decision on this major social change then I fear that it will not be readily accepted by broader New Zealand. There is a potential to be creating a new group—to use Louisa Wall’s words—of second-class citizens whose feelings of injustice and resentment will last for years. I am concerned that bitterness acrimony and bigotry could linger. However if we have a referendum and we go to the people of New Zealand there is a far greater likelihood of broad acceptance of the outcome and consequently harmony in New Zealand. 
I would like to address some of the things that have been said. The honourable member Chris Auchinvole said 2 weeks ago that a referendum is something you call for when you cannot make up your mind. On the contrary I say that a referendum recognises that there are times when this House needs to recognise that there are prudent limits to the changes that it can initiate limits when it is necessary to obtain the endorsement of the public of New Zealand who after all gave us the mandate to be here. 
 The honourable member Kevin Hague in the second reading identified the key divide: those New Zealanders on the one hand who see us as a pluralistic society in which Parliament creates a supportive framework and those on the other hand who see that Parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour. The referendum I propose is not to appease the chronologically advanced. It would not be able to be hijacked to become an election bandwagon. Rather this referendum is for all New Zealanders. It is for young New Zealanders including those too young to understand and also those not yet born. It is also for those New Zealanders who feel a sense of helplessness who have not been able to exercise their voice. This is about the new world. 
For the people in New Zealand who in 10 years’ time look back and ask whether this change this dramatic decision was the view of the nation or the decision of the State this referendum will give that decision to the nation and divorce it from simply being the view of the State. To give the decision to the nation and for the harmony and the oneness that our country’s future depends upon I ask members to vote for this Supplementary Order Paper. I would reiterate that there is no need to be afraid. We are not in a totalitarian State. There is no need to fear giving power to the people of New Zealand for after all we are one country we are one nation and together we are all New Zealanders.