Peck Mark: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
Peck Mark: Civil Union Bill — In Committee Procedure 
[Volume:622;Page:17521] 
MARK PECK (Labour—Invercargill) 
: 
 I am pleased to follow on from that member. I quite enjoy following on from people who can take words and make them mean what they want them to mean at any particular point in time in a debate. I have a daughter who is a lawyer and one thing I have learnt about lawyers is that they can make an argument around any position—as long as they are getting well paid for it. There are two professions: the oldest profession of course and that of lawyers which is the second-oldest profession. Both of them have pretty similar ideals. 
I wish to comment on the debate that has been held so far. I think that the strongest statement against proceeding with this bill has come from the Hon Bill English who at least has drawn attention to the fact that a tandem piece of legislation needs to come into being as well at some point in time. That has been the strongest principled position against passing the bill at this stage. He said that we should hang on until the second bill was ready to go. That is it; that has been all. There has been no other good logical strong reason not to proceed with this bill at this time—none at all. 
Members fascinate me. They stand up and go on about how difficult it will be to exercise a conscience and how important it is to have a referendum. I really enjoyed Sue Kedgley’s speech. It is not often that I listen to Sue Kedgley and agree with her but a lot of what she said was absolutely dead right and bang on the money. It is extraordinarily clear to me that if we run a referendum it will not be about civil unions. The debate will be to demonise homosexuality—full stop. That will be the debate. 
I have mentioned what Brian Tamaki and others will do during that debate. We will see 800000 people petitioned again we will see the ghost of Norman Jones revisited upon us and the doomsayers will say that society as we know it is dead and will become even more dead as a result of this legislation. 
But we all know that the experience since 1986 has been absolutely to the contrary. Will somebody look around this room and tell me who is homosexual and how we can tell? Will somebody look around the gallery and tell me who is homosexual and how we can tell? 
Brian Connell 
: Tim Barnett. 
MARK PECK 
: How can the member tell how anybody is homosexual? 
Brian Connell 
: Because you told me. 
MARK PECK 
: Exactly. As the member said somebody is because somebody said so. There we go—wonderful stuff! 
I lived in the United States as a kid. I will tell members about some other intolerance that I lived with and had to put up with as a child—intolerance for black people. People were scared of black people. One thing I will never forget as a child was taking part in a march in my town after four children—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. He will have a minute added to his time. The reason is simple. Mr Chairperson directed that there would be no continuous barrage of interjections and that people’s rights to be heard would be respected in this Chamber. This is an emotional and passionate issue for many people. As members of Parliament with people out there listening to us we should have respect for others. Mr Peck has 2 minutes and 30 seconds remaining. 
MARK PECK 
: I took part in a march in my town because four little children in Alabama had been killed by a bomb from a bunch of racists who were so scared of black people and the right of those people to ride on buses that they decided to become violent. 
There are people in our society now who will become violent over homosexuality. That is just as wrong as what happened to those four little children. I was hugely delighted to read in the newspaper as I was going to speak to a Grey Power meeting not that long ago that one of those bombers was finally caught 35 years after the act. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the act that he carried out on that occasion. 
One of the reasons why my family immigrated to New Zealand was that it was a tolerant secular society and in a tolerant secular society we tolerate differences. What appals me about this debate is that we cannot for the life of us seem to get our heads around the fact that people are people. Whatever they had for breakfast or whatever they did on Sunday does not change the fact that they are people and all people have the right to dignity and respect. 
Having listened to some who have gone through the agony of having to put up with this debate and revisit it time and time again I ask members to put themselves in their position for a moment. Can members imagine always being told by what one heard in Parliament and read in the newspaper that one was not a fit and proper human being that one could not have a fit and proper relationship and that one should have nothing to do with one’s whanau—the children one might have fathered or been a mother to or one’s uncles and aunties or nephews and nieces—because of one’s sexual orientation? 
That is what is wrong. It is time we grew up. Members can put up all the arguments they like for voting on a referendum now but the truth of the matter is that holding a referendum means that those people will have to relive that nightmare. As a member of Parliament I will not see that visited on anybody in this nation.