Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
Jones Dail: Civil Union Bill — First Reading 
[Volume:618;Page:13947] 
DAIL JONES (NZ First) 
: 
 I oppose this bill as do 11 members of New Zealand First including the Rt Hon Winston Peters. I am a simple sort of person. I have listened to some of the speeches here today from members about how this legislation would affect their marriages and whether they should take their marriages into account. If I were really concerned about my marriage and if all of us married people were really concerned about our marriages we would not be members of Parliament because it puts the greatest strain on marriage of anything. I believe that members talking about their marriages is absolutely irrelevant to this legislation. We show how much at risk we place our marriages by being here in the first place. 
As I say I am a simple sort of person. I looked in  
The 
Concise Oxford Dictionary 
 to see what a marriage is meant to be. It stated it is the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children. I just happen to regard that that is what marriage is meant to be. If people do not want to get married today—and many people do not—they can live in a de facto relationship. If people want to have a civil union they can go to the registry office sign up and be married because that is all that this bill does—it takes away the reference to the Marriage Act and refers to a civil union. There is no difference between entering into a de facto civil union and getting married in a registry office. So there is a lot of camouflage behind this bill and behind some of the statements that have been made today. 
Of course I was concerned that members are saying that marriage is purely a Christian concept. We know that it is a Hindu concept and a Muslim concept. I was disappointed that the Minister for Ethnic Affairs did not make that point as well and that the Greens suggested that marriage was somehow only a Christian matter. I will be very interested to see how the Muslim member of this House votes on this issue knowing what the Koran has to say about the concept of marriage. 
Quite simply I believe that marriage the living together of a man and a woman sets some sort of standard in society. I think this type of legislation reduces standards in society. I think that our role as members of Parliament is to try to set standards in society not to reduce standards in society. 
Over the years I have been very concerned about the way in which homosexual legislation has been introduced into this House. I have been concerned about the relationship property legislation. I have been concerned about the way in which immigration regulations have been specifically changed by the Labour Party Government to encourage and permit by definition and reference to lesbians and homosexuals lesbians and homosexuals specifically to come into New Zealand. That is clearly Labour Party policy. This bill is another part of the agenda. The Civil Union Bill is supporting homosexuals and lesbians. I do not call them “gays” because I can see nothing “gay” or happy about a homosexual or lesbian relationship. In my view it is another distortion of the English language. I am a simple sort of bloke and for me “gay” is being happy not being homosexual or lesbian. That is my way of looking at “gay”. I would say that “distortion” aptly describes the situation and the use of the word. 
That is really all I want to say about the matter. I support family life being that of a man and a woman. I cannot believe that two males or two females can have the same degree of enjoyment of life as a man and a woman can. Two males or two females will never know but as a man living with a woman in a heterosexual relationship I am sure that my way of life is infinitely better than the others.