Robertson Grant: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeRobertson Grant: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — Third Reading[Sitting date: 17 April 2013. Volume:689;Page:9486. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): In 1977 Harvey Milk was elected as the first openly gay city councillor in the United States. It was a landmark moment in the representation of minorities in politics. Tragically Harvey Milk was assassinated by a fellow councillor just 11 months later. He was a strong advocate for the rights of gay people but also for all minorities. Before his death he spoke of the importance of his being elected because it gave hope to young gay people that there was a better tomorrow for them compared with the discrimination and bullying that they were getting in their home towns. He noted that this hope was not just important if you were gay; it was important if you were poor or black or disabled or old. As he put it: “I know that you cannot live on hope alone but without it life is not worth living. And you … and you … and you … Gotta give em hope.” He told the story of the young gay man from Altoona Pennsylvania who rang him after he was elected simply to say thanks for what he was doing.Well in New Zealand in 1986 there was a 14-year-old young man sitting in Dunedin who read the newspaper about the law to decriminalise homosexuality and he cut out of the newspaper the names of those who voted for and those who voted against the Homosexual Law Reform Bill. And that gave him—me—hope that maybe his life would be all right. There were 49 people in favour of the law that day. To Annette King Phil Goff Trevor Mallard and Peter Dunne who are still here today thank you for giving me that hope. Interestingly there were 44 votes against the bill that day as well. The good news is that today there are a lot more MPs in Parliament than there were back then and I want to thank MPs from all the parties who are voting in support of this legislation today. This is a true MMP conscience vote. It has made for some unlikelypolitical bedfellows—note the word “political” in there. I want to pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular. It is quite likely that is the only time I will ever say that sentence so I will say it again. I want to particularly pay tribute to Tau Henare and Jami-Lee Ross in particular and to all members of the cross-party working group. All members from around this House who are supporting this Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill are doing the right thing. I also want to pay tribute to the Campaign for Marriage Equality LegaliseLove and the thousands of others who have got us to this point today.As it was then in 1986 with homosexual law reform and again in 2003 with civil unions it is a Labour MP who is moving this important social change. Today I congratulate Louisa Wall. There is no doubt that we can all see how it is that Louisa made it to the top on the sporting field—“straight up the guts” determination. One of the many many emails that MPs got in the early stages of this bill was from a person bemoaning what would happen if the bill passed. After several paragraphs he reached his triumphant point: “And who will teach the children about rugby and netball?”. I think we might have that one covered Lou eh? I am proud that this bill is being promoted by a Labour MP and supported by the vast majority of our caucus because fundamentally it is about Labour values: fairness justice and community.At its heart this bill is about family and strengthening families. There are few parents who do not think about their children’s weddings. They are social occasions that mark a change in the relationship of parents and their children. They can make a dent in the bank balance but they are pivotal moments. The importance of this bill to strengthening families was beautifully articulated in the submission made by Gus Hodgson to the Government Administration Committee and I will quote him briefly: “This bill means that my parents can support all four of their sons if we marry the person we love and who loves us not three out of four. My parents have four sons. They love us equally. Likewise this House should demonstrate an equal love for its public too.” Angus went on: “My mother once told me that she doesn’t have any criteria for the people her sons might fall in love with. She would welcome any person into her home if they love her son too. That was an incredibly powerful message for me to receive.” So when this bill passes it will be a victory for families.I want to briefly mention those people who brought us civil unions. They were an important step towards fairness and equality. They gave recognition to relationships an alternative to the institution of marriage and equal rights under almost every law. I am proud to have been part of that campaign and I salute the hard work that went into it. I want to particularly recognise Lianne Dalziel David Benson-Pope Tim Barnett Katherine Rich and others for their work on that bill.Today we take further steps towards equality. That value of equality is a fundamental value for me and for the Labour Party. We believe that we are all born equal and that it is our job to ensure that equality exists in this world. It is the same value of equality that underlies this bill that also motivates me and Labour to fight every day for the 270000 New Zealand children who live in poverty. It is the same value that says that allowing someone to be paid $13.75 an hour to look after our grandparents is morally wrong. It is the same value that says that every person no matter who they are or where they were born has a right to an education that will allow them to achieve their potential. Equality a fair go for everyone is at the heart of Labour values and the heart of this bill.This bill is also about inclusion. Quite simply we will not succeed as a country or a society if we continually find reasons to exclude people. The only place that takes us to is division and hatred. Why on earth would we want to stop a couple who love each other and who want to make a commitment to one and other from doing that? Whywould we want to exclude some people from a cherished social institution? As David Do said in his moving and eloquent submission to the select committee this is an issue for people of all ethnic backgrounds. This is what he said: “Speaking as an Asian New Zealander it might be easy to think that in this debate Europeans are the only ones who want marriage equality and Asians and Pacific Islanders don’t. I just can’t accept that. I know it’s not true and it goes against our history and the values we are proud of as New Zealanders.” David went on: “There are many Asian New Zealanders right now who feel trapped because of issues with their culture religion upbringing or family circumstances along with their sexual orientation. It can be an incredibly difficult situation to be in but this Parliament can help change that.” Tonight we take further steps towards the inclusive society that New Zealand can and should be. This legislation makes us a better country. Many supporters of the bill have stressed that in the end this bill is about love and that is not a topic that politicians get to talk about very often. Former Prime Minister Norman Kirk used to say that New Zealanders wanted a job a place to live someone to love and something to hope for. Well we cannot guarantee you someone to love but I think we are putting the right incentives in place.As we have seen with previous advances in the recognition of the rights of New Zealanders there have been shrieks and howls about how society would end when women got the vote and when homosexuality was decriminalised and in the end as Maurice Williamson has eloquently told us the sky has not fallen in. I respect the right of people to hold different views on this legislation. People with religious beliefs have continued to have the freedom to exercise those. This should continue and it will. Nothing about this legislation will affect anyone else’s marriage. Husbands will still call their wives their wife and vice versa. I will let you all in on a secret: we have all been calling our partners husbands for years. Normally it is when I am being told off.I want to pay tribute to the thousands of New Zealanders who have worked to get support for this bill. It has energised and politicised many people. At an event in Auckland last weekend a straight Pākehā woman in her 30s said she made her first ever submission to Parliament in favour of this bill. Tonight is a victory for those people their friends and their families. But for all the victories that there are to celebrate when this bill passes—the victory for families for fairness for equality for inclusion for commitment and for love—there is to my mind a greater win. If there is a 14-year-old young man in Dunedin who is watching this like I did 27 years ago and he is wondering how he will cope with being a bit different from his mates and he is going to struggle a bit over the next few years today goes some way to fulfilling Harvey Milk’s plea. This bill is not going to solve all his problems. It is not going to prevent him from being discriminated against. It is not going to prevent him from getting hurt. But it will do something of huge value because what we will do in this House tonight is give him some hope. Because tonight hope has won.