English Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
English Bill: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17466] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) 
: 
 If this bill was all about human rights then I guess it would be a lot easier to debate. But it is actually not about that; it is about a stupid theory that this Government has about relationships. A number of people have debated the similarity of the civil union idea to marriage. The silly idea that the Government has about relationships is that they are all the same. This bill is part of a legislative programme—which includes the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill which is still before the Justice and Electoral Committee—that would create one set of rights and obligations for all adult relationships in New Zealand. 
Hon Member 
: That’s not true. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is true. It is evidenced through this bill in a number of ways like the ability to swap between civil union and marriage. The Government is headed down a track where it believes that any adult relationship in New Zealand will have the same set of legal rights and obligations. I say that is stupid. It is totally impractical and it is one of the main reasons I oppose this bill. 
New Zealanders will now be in a situation whereby either they join a relationship on Helen Clark’s terms or they had better make sure they have no relationship at all. People choose their level of commitment. Traditionally this Parliament has offered people essentially a menu. If one marries there is a set of rights and obligations that go with that and they have been clearly understood. If one is not married and is in a de facto relationship there is a somewhat different set of rights and obligations. In fact if one is in a de facto relationship there are different rights and obligations depending on the circumstances—they are different for welfare entitlement as compared with property issues when a relationship breaks up. There are two different legislative definitions of the term “de facto”. 
That has reflected the messy reality of how people live their lives. This Parliament is now contradicting that directly. It is going through a bizarre process of saying to every adult New Zealander that this is how it is going to be. There are a number of gay couples who think they will have a choice about whether they have a civil union. Well they will not have a choice. When this legislation is passed they might not have a little certificate with their registration on it but they will have all the rights and obligations of a married heterosexual couple by virtue of their living together. They will not have a choice about civil union; they will be civil unionised because the Prime Minister says that they should be. They will have the same set of rights and obligations as I do and I have been married for 18 years and am a father of six. There will be no legal distinction. 
That is why that other bill sits in the select committee—because Lianne Dalziel and Tim Barnett have finally figured out that every couple in New Zealand will be treated as if they are in a long-term committed relationship. I am one of the more conservative people in Parliament on these issues and I think that is stupid. It will wreck lives. It does not reflect how our society is. We do not have a monolithic view of what a relationship should be. Relationships change and they break up and two people in a relationship can have completely different views about the extent to which they are committed to that relationship. But the Prime Minister says they are not allowed to any more. When this legislation passes there will be one set of legal rights and obligations regardless of the individual choices that people make or the individual commitment that people make to a relationship. 
The wrong people are worried about this bill. If I were 25 and exploring relationships I would be very worried. The traditional freedom of the gay community is about to go. If I were a young gay male I would be very concerned about this legislation.