Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Baldock Larry: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17594] 
LARRY BALDOCK (United Future) 
: 
 I apologise to members and to those listening to the debate for the quality of my voice; it is not that I have talked myself out. But I will do the best I can to make a final speech on this very important debate. 
We are addressing the Civil Union Bill. I believe that a better title would be “Civil Relationship Bill” as provided for in Richard Worth’s amendment which I voted for. It is a shame that the bill is not to be entitled “Civil Relationship Bill” because I believe that most members would be supportive of legislation that addresses the issues that were raised as the very basis of the bill—the issues that we have always called the “next-of-kin rights” which in some instances may be denied some same-sex couples in this country. 
We have discovered through this process particularly as a result of some of the excellent submissions that were made to the select committee and one in particular from the Maxim Institute—which took the lid off the next-of-kin rights because the institute went to many hospitals and places around New Zealand to find out exactly what was happening in regard to next-of-kin rights—that in very few cases at all was real discrimination taking place and that in most cases the rights of same-sex couples are being addressed. It is really not a case of bad law but of bad policy operating in many places that results in some instances of injustice occurring. 
We have always said that we are supportive of addressing those issues because they are issues of rights. As I said in my first speech on the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill I believe that those rights apply not just to couples who have sexual relationships but also to other relationships in society in which people take care of each other without having a sexual relationship. We could have addressed their need for a recognition of that relationship and of next-of-kin rights in the amendment promoted by Richard Worth. That would have been covered by the “Civil Relationship Bill” concept. It is regrettable because the Committee is divided and the vote on the third reading will be very close. 
Again many who have opposed the legislation will be called homophobic and not concerned about homosexual people which is not the truth. We are simply concerned about the erosion of marriage and the desire for those couples to gain acceptance from Parliament for their relationships by having a civil union that is seen as the same as marriage in all but name. 
I will also address the issue regarding the amendments to clause 2 calling for a referendum before the legislation becomes law. I personally would support that it ought to go to a referendum in New Zealand and as my colleague said earlier I believe that matters dealt with by conscience in this House should go to a referendum when the House does not have at least a 60 percent majority. If we are not clear on the matter in this place we should submit it to the people of New Zealand so they can have a say on the issue. 
Personally Gordon Copeland and I have been involved in a citizens initiated referendum to deal with the fiasco from the Prostitution Reform Bill of a year ago which passed because of one abstention by Ashraf Choudhary a man who could not make up his mind— 
Peter Brown 
: No you’ve just had the Leader of the Opposition say he voted the wrong way. 
LARRY BALDOCK 
: I think most of the Muslim community think he voted the wrong way. He is certainly voting the wrong way this time as well. That bill ought not to have passed into law on the basis of one abstention. That is a very good example of something that should have gone to a referendum instead of us having to go around the country to gather the necessary signatures in order to force a referendum on the issue. 
I have just returned from the Muslim world. I was in Doha last week at a meeting on the Doha Declaration dealing with family values and issues that has been signed up to by 139 countries. Throughout the debate members have been quoting examples of the European nations that have been so forward in their thinking as to have gay marriage and civil unions. I tell members that they are still a very small minority in the world. The overwhelming majority of nations are opposed to seeing civil unions or gay marriage established in their nations. There were 139 signatory countries to the Doha Declaration. It was approved by consensus at the UN General Assembly on Monday this week and has been adopted as a UN declaration. It is very interesting to read that declaration with its specific and clear statements about protecting marriage and upholding the natural family in our countries.