Adams Paul: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Adams Paul: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19078] 
PAUL ADAMS (United Future) 
: 
 Perhaps Nick Smith would be good enough to enlighten the public on what his own leader will be voting for on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. But I stand as a United Future member who will definitely be voting against this bill. 
I think that the Human Rights Commission—and we have heard much spoken about human rights—has a lot to answer for in respect of the condition of families in this nation. It is pleasing to see that the commission is starting to wake up in many ways to some of the errors of its ways. It is now under the Doha Declaration on the Family which has recently been passed by the United Nations again beginning to uphold and to promote the institution of marriage. 
I stand here as a proud father a married man and a grandfather and if time permits I look forward to the day I may even be a great grandfather. But as Pansy Wong mentioned in her speech yes some people do get married and choose not to have children and that is fine. Yet when I compare that situation to that of our Minister of Conservation whom I saw on national television expressing great concern that a particular breed of bird was not breeding and when I think of his chosen lifestyle I say: “Hello what’s wrong with this picture?”. 
To continue life in this country we have to have a male and a female involved in the production of children. This bill unfortunately sends out a very mixed message. Young children need to know what is right what is wrong and what is the preferred lifestyle. We will never take away from them their right to choose but like any young trees I believe they need to be staked as they begin to grow. 
Much has been said about the ability for two women or two men to bring up a child and there is no doubt that many such couples are capable of looking after children. But let me assure members that every child in this country needs not only the benefit of a mother and a father but also such a stable relationship preferably that he or she has the benefit of grandparents and even great grandparents. I know that my own children had a 96-year-old grandmother and when they went to visit her they had the benefit of the wisdom of her age and of hearing stories of how life was in the old days—how frugal she was with her savings habits and many things like that. 
I stand here to esteem marriage again. I am glad the word “marriage” has not been taken out of this bill but I am greatly concerned that for so long as a Government we have been taking away the promotion of marriage as a preferred institution. I believe that that is to the detriment of the families of this nation. I believe that we need to give a clear message to young people that if they make a commitment for lifetime it is called marriage. I do not believe that there are any young ladies out there who do not dream of the day when they will be married. I have worked with many young people and I know that they do have a desire to marry. 
Jill Pettis 
: Ha ha! 
PAUL ADAMS 
: That member can laugh and mock at me. That is fine; I can take that. But I know that in reality the long-term loving commitment that is called marriage which is for life—till death do we part—brings a tremendous stability to children. I know that in my home the children see that dad truly loves mum—but I do not say that others who are not married do not love each other. 
I think we have watered down most of our legislation so that children no longer see the necessity of having marriage as a preferred institution because we have muddied the waters. We have not given a clear message; we have given a mixed message. In Allan Peachey’s book  
“What’s Up with Our Schools?” 
 he says that even in schools children are getting mixed messages from media such as television. They no longer understand what is a preferred pathway and I believe that that is a bad mistake.