Barnett Tim: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
Barnett Tim: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill; AND BILLS THEREFROM — Third Readings 
[Volume:624;Page:19185] 
TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 There are only a few votes to go and we will finally be there. Only 28 years after this Parliament agreed that there should be no discrimination on the grounds of marital status or the status of being in a de facto relationship and only 11 years after this Parliament agreed to add sexual orientation to the grounds of the Human Rights Act we are finally following the rules we set those generations ago. In passing the Civil Union Act and now this legislation we are playing catch-up with the rest of society. How ironic it is that from its birth the Maxim Institute as a voluntary organisation has had to avoid discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status yet only now has the Government set the same rules for itself—not I hasten to add that any self-respecting homosexual would seek to go to the Maxim Institute as a job choice. How ironic it is that Dail Jones and Nick Smith have for many years been obliged in their behaviour as private citizens to avoid discriminating against people and yet they want the Government to carry on doing the opposite of that. 
It is certainly true that civil unions form part of the initiative that is being completed today. The civil union legislation exists because the Marriage Act as it was—the only basis to formalise the legal status of relationships—was vulnerable to human rights complaints. Out of the debate on that we have achieved a unique double. Firstly marriage has been untouched. Indeed its clarity has been increased by the amendments made in this legislation to laws previously passed by this Parliament that refer to de facto partners as “spouses”. Secondly a new institution of civil unions compatible with human rights has been launched.This relationships bill gives context and practical meaning to civil unions now that Parliament has agreed to them. 
Of course Parliament plays catch-up in any number of areas. Scientific progress the latest youth craze and the latest attempt to evade tax are all examples of circumstances where the public and society have moved ahead of our ability to make laws. And so it is here. Many different-sex couples have lived and do live open lives without marrying and face minimal or no discrimination. Many same-sex couples will live together without civil unionising and face minimal or no discrimination. However the risk is there. At the moment before this legislation goes through mortuary administrators have to administer regulations on access to bodies that treat the spouse of a deceased person differently from a de facto partner. Members of company boards can avoid registering the interests of their same-sex or heterosexual de facto partner thereby increasing the possibility of corruption. Compared with the rights of married spouses the unmarried partners of people who have severe drug or alcohol dependence face immense problems in getting their partners committed for treatment. It is those and innumerable other unfairnesses that this relationships legislation addresses. 
The combination of the Civil Union Act and this legislation increases the options of and reduces the risk for de facto couples who have actively or passively decided not to formalise their relationships. But they still have the remaining risks. Their relationships have to be proved—they could be in multiple relationships or one party in a couple could consider himself or herself to be in a de facto relationship while the other party does not. So the law quite rightly has a continuing bias in favour of marriages and civil unions. 
The 9-month parliamentary process for these bills has been a memorable one. I am tempted to thank the Destiny Church for clarifying the issues for many people but I would not want to give it such false credit. How good it is that many New Zealanders understood the history of black shirts even if the Destiny Church did not. Only three generations ago men in black shirts gassed homosexuals people from racial minorities people from religious minorities and priests. How ironic! One of the extraordinary sideshows of this debate has been the position taken by the Maori Party. Tariana Turia has voted against equal guardianship rights for same-sex couples against civil unions and against equal relationship rights and she apparently opposes equal rights for the transgender community. She supports a referendum on civil unions—a majority vote on minority rights. And some of us thought that the human rights agenda was universal! So in the midst of such eccentricities I thank the Campaign for Civil Unions—particularly Cameron Law and Margaret Mayman and poster boys Des Smith and John Jolliff—for coming up with calm and reasonable reasons for law-change. I thank Stuart Beresford and his Ministry of Justice team for providing outstanding advice to the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Parliamentary Counsel Office for its complex work on this massive legislation. 
Some people saw immense doom accompanying the passing of these laws: volcanoes erupting pestilence hitting the land homosexuals dying in their early 40s the institution of marriage collapsing and the rise of an irresistible lobby for the formalisation of relationships between people and their horses. I most confidently predict that none of that will happen and equally confidently I predict that more loving couples will seek to protect their relationship and make a public statement of their unique commitment to each other. What is wrong with that?