Ardern Shane: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Ardern Shane: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17529] 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki-King Country) 
: 
 Is there not a real irony when one Labour speaker after another—with a couple of others in-between—completely contradicts what the previous Labour speaker said? In my submission earlier I said that the difficulty I have with the Civil Union Bill proposal is that 300000-odd New Zealanders almost as an unintended consequence will be swept up into some kind of legal debate which they do not want or understand or know about if their relationship fails. That was strongly rebutted not only by interjection but by the following speaker. Then the speaker who has just resumed his seat said that this bill was not about the small minority of gays whom the Opposition was opposing; it was about the 320000 New Zealanders whom the passage of the legislation would impact on. Which is it? 
We have a Minister in the chair. I put a question to the Committee before and it has not been answered. I have had legal advice that says that in the case of a de facto relationship where the couple has chosen not to get married or enter into a civil union there will be legal implications for that couple in the event of the failure of that relationship not only in terms of the children in that relationship but also with regard to property. I do not know whether that is so but what I do know is that there is a huge amount of ambiguity around it. In this debate the Minister and the Government should clear up that ambiguity for New Zealanders who want an answer to that point. 
I say to members of the Government that we should protect minorities. It is part of New Zealand’s culture. We are an egalitarian society. We should protect small minorities in this country. But this legislation does not do that. 
Ron Mark 
: I am a small minority. 
SHANE ARDERN 
: That member being a New Zealand First member I agree that he is part of a very small minority—but I do not think that was what he was referring to. The fact is that we should if we can pass legislation that is sensible in terms of protecting a minority as well as protecting property but not at the expense of what we know has been a cornerstone of New Zealand society. Coming from a very conservative seat and a traditional background I say that I am almost an endangered species being a white Anglo-Saxon married middle-aged male in this House. I am being threatened and the cornerstone of society is being challenged as well. 
I say to the Government that this is not an attack on those who suggest we are in some way lesser than they are in terms of our degree of enlightenment about what is acceptable in society. I ask the Government to justify what it is trying to achieve. So far nobody has. When we take its legal argument we see that it cannot be clearly won. When we take the emotional argument or social argument we see that clearly there is no strength to that argument. When we look at the argument about enabling people to live happily in society we see there is no strength to that argument either. 
If a power of attorney can be challenged as was suggested by a previous speaker or if a legal partnership can be challenged why then can a civil union not be challenged? I have a case in my electorate right now of a person who signed a pre-nuptial agreement. He has been taken to the cleaners. The argument put forward by the judge was that his partner did not fully understand the implications of signing it. Well what happens if a gay relationship fails after the couple have entered into a civil union and some clever lawyer or judge says that one of the partners was not quite sure of what it was he or she was entering into? Will that case stand? Can the lawyers tell me that? The answer is that no they cannot. They will not know until it is tested but it will no more stand up than a marriage agreement or any other legal agreement will stand up in those circumstances. 
So the reality is I cannot see what it is that the Government is trying to fix. Clearly this bill is no more than the Prime Minister and her team entering into a form of social engineering that most New Zealanders do not want and have not supported in any way shape or form. It is interesting to note that the previous speaker said that the email traffic to his office has been about even in terms of those in favour and those opposed. I have to say that overwhelmingly that has not been the case in terms of my email.