Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Instruction to Committee In Committee 
[Volume:622;Page:17458] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 We have only to raise our eyebrows slightly at Craig McNair and he absolutely explodes into this huge tirade of enthusiasm. I was not even referring to anything that he was particularly talking about at the time. If the member is happy when the amendment concerning the referendum comes up later in the Committee stage I will be pleased to give him my views on a referendum. At this point I will say only that my concern with referenda is that a country like Switzerland which uses referenda regularly did not give women the vote until 1971. 
I would like to address some of the comments that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made. I never quite understand the comparison between School Certificate and civil unions. I thought that everyone in this country was allowed to sit School Certificate. Some people passed and some people did not. It is just like marriage. Some people do really well and some people stuff up. But they are allowed to have another go at it just like School Certificate. I find it difficult to understand the comparison. Of course with marriage not everyone can have the opportunity to make a really good go of it or learn from the experience. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Everybody can get married. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I say to Dr Smith that if they are gay they can only marry if they pretend to be in love with someone whom they are not actually in love with. Dr Smith might endorse that but I do not. 
The other point which came up quite a lot at the select committee is to say that somehow it is like the Olympics or the All Blacks. Would we let everyone be an All Black or be an Olympian? It would mean that not everyone who is an All Black or an Olympian would feel special. Here again we have this misguided idea that we are choosy about the people whom we let marry which of course we are not. If we let only the top 26 couples in New Zealand marry that might not be a bad idea because they would probably be quite good at it. But we do not do that of course. We do not let only the people who are good at marriage get married; we let anyone get married. As long as someone is heterosexual or gay and pretends to be heterosexual as long as someone is not already married and as long as he or she is not marrying someone who is a close blood relative then that person can get married. 
I find it funny that all these people stand up and say that marriage is about all these wonderful things—which it absolutely is it stands for the raising of children and it stands for good parenting—and they then turn round and say that it is not about religion because that is not in the Marriage Act. Being a good parent is not in the Marriage Act either. We have many many wonderful parents in this country who are not married. We might not like it we might say we wish they were married but the reality is that an increasing number of New Zealanders do not want to get married. We can give them another opportunity to formalise their relationship because let us face it it is easier for a Government if people are in legal relationships. 
We see the problems that we have. The Justice and Electoral Committee at the moment is looking at the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We are looking at the issues around social security and superannuation when it comes to de facto couples. It is really hard. I would much rather that they were in a legal formalised relationship so that there would not be any question whether this person is in a de facto relationship or whether we will have to spend lots of money investigating the relationship taking the advice of neighbours who say they saw this person staying at someone’s home for 3 nights a week then that person having to go to court to say that it is not a de facto relationship they are just friends. 
It costs a lot of money it is difficult and it is becoming a bigger problem in New Zealand because more people are choosing not to marry. Even if it is only a small percentage of people—and bear in mind that in countries like the Netherlands and France there has been a huge uptake in this type of scheme for heterosexual couples—it is a lot easier for the Government. I think that is a pragmatic point that should be raised. 
Another issue that I want to touch on is the children in these relationships. While it is true that most of these relationships do not involve children a number of them do and they will continue to regardless of whether this bill passes. The research—and committee members read an awful lot of research—states quite clearly that two-parent families have better outcomes for children than single-parent families and that is just common sense. When we look at the financial constraints on families and the parenting questions if there are two people to share them it is a lot of easier. But the research does not say that heterosexual parents are better than homosexual parents. This research has started to develop only in the last 20 years but it does not say that. The research says that the commitment of the parents to each other and to the children is what is important. 
I can get the research for the member Nick Smith who is shaking his head if he wants to read it. We can choose to make law here based on emotion on myths and on fallacies or we can choose to make law based on facts. The select committee has looked at a large amount of research. The research does not say that de facto couples are worse parents. It does not say that gay couples are worse parents. In fact funnily enough a lot of the research has come up saying that because gay people cannot accidentally become pregnant then often they are so enthusiastic when they do have a child that they are far better parents.