Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Parker David: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17493] 
DAVID PARKER (Labour—Otago) 
: 
 I would like to deal with a couple of issues that have been raised by earlier speakers. The first relates to the idea that somehow this is a Labour Party agenda being pushed out and ahead of the will of the people and that there is not a broad mainstream viewpoint in favour of this bill. It is interesting is it not? That viewpoint really has no credibility. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 editorial the  
Press  
editorial the  
Timaru Herald 
 the Ashburton paper the  
Southland Times 
—from Mr English’s own electorate and from mine—and the  
Otago Daily Times 
 were all unambiguous and are clearly in favour of this legislation. There is absolute unanimity on the part of all those editorials. How in the face of those considered editorials from hardly left-wing rags or harbingers of advancement of radical issues can the Opposition still try to assert—I say without any credibility—that this bill is some outrageous Labour Party agenda ahead of the nation? 
Dr Smith and Mr English have both made reference to an issue that Stephen Franks has raised previously about how we should not be automatically conferring on de facto relationships rights that should be reserved for or opted into through marriage or civil union. Those members say through marriage only; I say through marriage or civil union. I actually agree with that point. I think that most of us do think that there is something special about some relationships symbolised in some way by an official recognition of a long-term relationship and that we ought not automatically give the same rights to all de facto relationships. I agree with that. What I disagree with is that we should for reasons of gender exclude gay people from having a legally recognised relationship that gives them certain protections which might be different from what is given to de facto relationships. 
Hon Member 
: Vote for Richard Worth’s amendments. 
DAVID PARKER 
: No I disagree with Mr Worth’s amendments. I agree with the general proposition I have just put but what I disagree with is the leap of faith and the lack of logic that takes that argument to the next step and says that because that issue is not yet resolved we should not actually deal with the issue of civil unions. Why not? 
I take this back to the first comment I made in my first call. I am married and I have children but I do not believe that civil unions threaten the institution of marriage—not my marriage nor any other marriage. Giving rights to a minority never undermines the majority. It is that simple. It does not undermine the majority. Anyone who has a view to the contrary I am afraid with respect is wrong. If members look at any other area of human rights they will see that affording human rights to the minority never takes away anything from the majority. It just gives rights to the minority. It does not undermine the majority in any way. 
In terms of the suggestion that we should have a referendum again the newspapers have been pretty clear and wise on that. That would be abrogating the responsibility we have as parliamentarians to hear the arguments and make a wise decision. It is no more appropriate to have a referendum on this issue than it is on the foreshore and seabed or any other contentious issue that comes before Parliament. We are well able to hear the arguments. We take responsibility and I will take responsibility for the vote I cast. I will be judged by my constituents and I am confident notwithstanding the rhetoric from National to the contrary that at the end of this term my constituents will be satisfied that I have taken my responsibilities seriously and cast my vote wisely and will return me in Otago. The idea that we should devolve the difficult decisions involving the rights of minorities to referenda is one that would always favour the majority over the minority and would abrogate the rights of the minority in favour of the majority.