Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Worth Richard: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17657] 
RICHARD WORTH (National—Epsom) 
: 
 I am saddened that this is an anti-family Government. In the curious world of MMP we need to remind ourselves that this is a minority Government with a clear agenda of social engineering. It is difficult to legislate on moral issues and it is often unwise to do so. It is also not certain even at this point that the Civil Union Bill will pass the third reading. I was privileged to be a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee. It was to that committee that this bill and its companion bill which is now in a state of disarray were referred. I was one of a minority on that committee. I stated the following things in a minority report that was provided to the House: “I am strongly opposed to the passage of the Civil Union Bill without a referendum from New Zealanders as to whether they support this controversial legislation. That referendum should be binding. A binding referendum would enable the country to express its views and in particular for concerns to be indicated on issues such as: The fact that the legislation is Labour Party manifesto policy. Marriage is a valuable institution in civil society and it is important that its value is not degraded or diminished by Act of Parliament. In the case of heterosexual couples there is no significant difference between civil union and marriage. Both events are registered under the Births Deaths and Marriages Act. The significant law change proposed by the Civil Union Bill is to enable the legal recognition of same-sex relationships.” 
As a member of the select committee that heard submissions on both bills I spent literally days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills. Not only did this issue receive more submissions than any other has received but it has been one of the most emotionally charged that I can remember. It is relevant to reflect on the numbers. There were about 6000 submissions and 91 percent were opposed to this legislation. Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise their loving and committed relationships in law but with equal sincerity most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage in New Zealand—something that they believed would undermine the unique status of marriage. 
I think we should also remind ourselves that as New Zealand is moving in one direction in other parts of the world quite contrary directions are being followed. In Australia for example the federal Senate has set its heart against what the New Zealand Government proposes. In the United States as we have seen in 11 referenda held in separate states in the context of the presidential election the populace has said no to what our Government proposes. 
I believe that both sides of the debate have raised valid concerns that deserve consideration. Unfortunately the Government’s haste to be done with civil unions before the next election has dominated the debate. That should never be the case. It is completely wrong that in circumstances of urgency the Committee stage of this bill has been rushed through. There are hallmarks all the way through of the Government’s determination to see this legislation passed no matter what the cost of that is. We see that in the early reporting back of this bill. We see it in the urgency that has characterised the Committee stage. We see it in what seems to be the short-circuiting of a clear Cabinet rule that requires a specific time period to elapse before regulations can come into force. There is in every sense an urgency to clear the decks of this controversial legislation. 
One of the things that the select committee heard about was that not being recognised as next of kin has created a daily uncertainty for many same-sex and de facto couples who fear for example that they will not be able to visit their partner in hospital if he or she becomes ill. The right to be at the partner’s bedside and the ability to be buried together were understandably of great importance to many submitters who supported the bills. I believe that there may well be supporters here today who actually believe that the passage of this legislation will deal with those issues. It will not at all. We heard accounts of people being denied the opportunity to view their deceased partner’s body or to be involved in important medical decisions. Although those stories are tragic and the situations should not have happened the fact is that this bill and its companion piece the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill will do nothing to change those situations. 
That is why I embarked on another course which was to propose in the Committee stage a set of detailed amendments to the bill that would have enabled in a very simple way a next-of-kin relationship structure to be set up and recognised. The result is that although that proposal secured about one-third of the votes in the Committee it has failed to pass into law. The Civil Union Bill does not grant certainty regarding a person’s next of kin as claimed. What I proposed would have done just that. I am interested in seeing law passed that considers the long-term consequences for all—law that is honest about what it will and will not achieve and that protects important social institutions like marriage. The passage of this bill will simply not achieve those objectives. 
I will talk in summary about my concerns. I put them in this very simple way. First of all civil unions do not guarantee certainty regarding a person’s next of kin. Second civil unions are not inclusive. All people deserve certainty regarding their next of kin. Civil unions discriminate against non-sexual relationships. The third and final point I would make is that civil unions imitate marriage because in both the marriage context and the civil union context there are ceremonial requirements. In the marriage context there are religious celebrants. In the civil union context we similarly have celebrants. There is dissolution of a civil union and dissolution of a marriage. Finally there is the point I made relating to the registration of both sets of relationships—civil union and marriage—under statutory legislation. I express the hope that this bill will not pass. There are better ways than this of achieving the outcomes that some of the submitters who came before the select committee sought.