Dalziel Lianne: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
Dalziel Lianne: Marriage (Gender Clarification) Amendment Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:628;Page:668] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This bill purports first to clarify that the parties to a marriage must be one man and one woman and as has been said by at least one of the contributors to the debate tonight the bill is completely unnecessary as it merely seeks to confirm the law as it already stands. To vote in favour of the bill would constitute a poor process and be a waste of Parliament’s time. Second the bill also seeks to prevent overseas civil unions or gay marriages from being recognised as marriages in New Zealand. Again that is completely unnecessary as our existing legislation is clear that such relationships cannot be recognised as marriages in New Zealand. The third aim of the bill is to ensure that active promotion of marriage is not discriminatory. That part of the bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which is another reason to vote the bill down. 
I turn first to clauses 4 and 6. I am not aware of any confusion over the existing law in relation to what constitutes a marriage. The Court of Appeal in the case of  
Quilter 
 v  
Attorney-General 
 has very clearly ruled that the Marriage Act 1955 applies to marriage between a man and a woman only. It is interesting that the Opposition member says that the Supreme Court may overturn that. I think he will find that the make-up of the Court of Appeal and of the present Supreme Court are somewhat similar. Under the Marriage Act as it stands people of the same gender are unable to obtain a marriage licence and any such purported marriage would not be recognised or would be declared void. There is no confusion about the law. In light of that clauses 4 and 6 are unnecessary and consideration of them would not be a productive use of this House’s time or of that of a select committee. 
Equally unnecessary is clause 5 of the bill which seeks to prevent overseas civil unions or gay marriages from being recognised in New Zealand as marriages. Again our existing law is very clear. No overseas marriage or civil union between two people of the same gender can be recognised in New Zealand as a marriage. The Civil Union Act 2004 passed by this House makes provision for regulations to be made to prescribe the types of overseas relationships that are recognised in New Zealand as civil unions but not as marriages. Consideration of clause 5 would again be a waste of Parliament’s time. 
Clause 7 proposes that measures taken in good faith for the purpose of assisting or advancing marriage do not constitute discrimination. In his letter to MPs Mr Gordon Copeland states that his intention is simply to allow faith communities and others to run marriage preparation and marriage enrichment courses. Unfortunately the amendment he proposes has far wider consequences than that. I note that the Attorney-General’s report on clause 7 concludes that it unjustifiably limits the rights affirmed in section 19 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act: the right to freedom from discrimination. 
Clause 7 would actually allow private individuals to impose arbitrary and exclusionary policies in the field of employment and in the area of goods and services. Such provision would discriminate not just against people in civil unions and de facto relationships but also against single people and people who are widowed or divorced. Such discrimination would flow down to affect the children of such relationships. It is unacceptable that children could be treated differently because of the nature of their parents’ relationships. The previous Parliament passed legislation that removed unjustifiable discrimination on the basis of relationship status. I believe that it would reflect badly on us if we were to turn back the clock by voting in favour of this bill. To do so would run contrary to a range of international and domestic human rights obligations. 
My opposition to the bill is not a criticism of marriage. I am married myself. Marriage has an important place in our society. However our laws need to be appropriately framed to recognise all the relationships that provide a supportive environment for the raising of children and the building blocks of strong families. Although marriage may be my preferred form of relationship marriage does not have a monopoly on providing that. The strength of the relationship between the parents and the strength of their relationship with their children are absolutely fundamental. There is ample research to show that it is the way individuals in relationships and families interact not the status of the relationship that leads to successful outcomes for those families and for society at large. A man who beats his wife inflicts as much damage on her and their children as a man who beats his de facto partner. A loving committed relationship between adults is what matters to children. As in all matters it is the substance not the form that counts. The Government has committed to supporting families regardless of the legal status of the parents in the family and they are entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance from any Parliament.