Donnelly Brian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Donnelly Brian: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19183] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I am very grateful for the opportunity to take a call on this third reading largely because it gives me an opportunity to remedy some statements I made during the Committee stage that I later found to be incorrect and that influenced the way I voted at that stage. They led for example to a nice little press release which stated that Donnelly had done a flip-flop. I have to tell the person who wrote it that physically that would be impossible these days! Lianne Dalziel was not very clear on how I came to be misled on the issue or how I got on the wrong track. It really started with a Government staffer who made a statement that all the social welfare stuff had been shelved. That led me to believe certain things. I have to say that that Government staffer was not being categorical. He told me to read the report in order to find out for myself so I cannot put the blame on him. Dail Jones when I went to him thought I was right but once again he advised me to read the Justice and Electoral Committee report. I did not read it because I thought that a person like Dail Jones being such a good legal man would know the situation exactly. Unfortunately I should have taken his advice and I take the responsibility for getting it wrong. 
The issue I got wrong was around the treatment of same-sex de facto relationships when it comes to benefits. I have always been of the belief that if we are going to make a level playing field then it has to be a level playing field across the board. The issue which I ask those people who are voting against this legislation and who say we have to support marriage to consider is that at present—under the present law—we actually discriminate against heterosexual couples when it comes to benefits because we treat homosexual couples as individuals but heterosexuals as couples. Let us face it: homosexuality is not illegal. Female homosexuality has never been illegal and male homosexuality has been legal for quite some time. I have not seen any member of Parliament put up a member’s bill to recriminalise homosexuality. It is a legal relationship so therefore there should be a mechanism whereby people can register a homosexual relationship. But that is not the issue. I believed that the bill was going to state that we would park de facto homosexual couples and the way we treated them in relation to benefits for a future time and that we would perhaps fix up the legislation later on. 
The reality is that the bill—and Tim Barnett who was quick to get to me and point out the error of my ways has just walked in—states that de facto same-sex relationships will be treated in exactly the same ways as heterosexual relationships within 2 years’ time. I personally— 
Peter Brown 
:Why 2 years? 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Let us hang on a second—I have no difficulty with that 2 years’ grace where people can get themselves organised around that particular fact. Now my understanding of the bill is that that is the way things will be for benefits into the future. If that is the case this bill will save the Government money—save taxpayers money. I have not worked out just how much the saving will actually be but there must be some members in the gay community who are not very happy with this Government because this measure will hit them in the pocket. But that is the test of whether the Government is committed to its principles or whether the supporters of this bill are committed to those principles. As far as I can see what we have now come up with is a consistently level playing field regardless of the form of a relationship—whether it is a marriage a civil union a de facto heterosexual relationship or a de facto homosexual relationship. 
I was asked during the debate on the Civil Union Bill what the difference was between a civil union and a gay marriage. The guy who was giving me a hard time said that a civil union was just a gay marriage. My response had to be that for starters one started with an “m” and the other with a “c”. In reality one would expect that the responsibilities and rights that flow from any of those relationships—a civil union a marriage or a de facto relationship—would be fairly similar and that is what we have. 
I want to finish off by making a remark I made in my first reading speech on the Civil Union Bill which is that my own candle will not shine any less brightly by allowing someone else to light a candle for himself or herself. I do not believe that the passage of this legislation will affect the quality of my marriage one jot.