Bradford Sue: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
Bradford Sue: Relationships (Statutory References) Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:624;Page:19069] 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 There are two key areas that I would like to cover in the debate on this part of the bill this afternoon but first of all I would like to reiterate our Green Party commitment to the fundamental human rights contained in this bill. We certainly welcome the removal of discriminatory references on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation that are currently contained in a wide range of New Zealand law. I contrast this with the in-work payment now enshrined in the Working for Families package where discrimination on the grounds of employment status is actually retained and entrenched. It is a real pity that the Government cannot see fit to extend its commitment to human rights seen so demonstrably in this bill to all its legislative programme. 
However on behalf of the Green Party I would like to say how pleased we are with the conclusion the Government came to particularly in relation to the part of this bill before us today which deals with certain proposed amendments to the Social Security Act. As a result of submissions from a number of organisations and individuals and of discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee amendments to the Social Security Act that had originally been put up relating to de facto couples in social welfare law have now been omitted from the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill. We had serious concerns all along about that aspect of the bill as introduced seeing the original clauses as a misguided attempt to define the term “de facto relationship” involving a checklist approach both in the general definition to be inserted in the Interpretation Act and in the specific definition that had been proposed to be inserted in the Social Security Act. We are delighted that the checklist approach has been removed. 
Courts have consistently stated—most notably in the Ruka Court of Appeal judgment—that what constitutes a de facto relationship or a relationship in the nature of marriage must be interpreted in the context of the purpose of the particular legislation that it relates to. That means for example that social security law has a different purpose from domestic violence legislation so these terms must be interpreted currently in accordance with the respective purposes of those Acts. A “tick the box” method of decision making which is what this bill originally proposed would have been certain to lead to the same sort of inequity and to a de facto overturning of the Ruka decision. 
The Green Party is also pleased to see that the select committee recommended the removal from the bill of attempts to codify court judgments on relationships in the nature of marriage in terms of the Social Security Act. They were subject to widespread criticism from beneficiary advocacy and social service agencies as not accurately reflecting social security case law. Although the Green Party would welcome a move towards greater individual entitlement and away from people’s benefit entitlement being so totally dependent on whom they may be in a relationship with and the very specific nature of that relationship we do not see this bill as being the appropriate vehicle for implementing that move. 
In terms of making current law consistent we welcome the committee’s recommendations which continue to allow existing case law to be applied. However I would just like to offer a small word of warning. Following the Ruka judgment it took several years for Work and Income and its previous incarnations to properly apply the judgment. The Ministry of Social Development will no doubt be subject to the same malicious allegations of a homophobic nature when same-sex relationships fall within the ambit of the Social Security Act in 2007. The rabid intolerance of some of the submitters opposed to this bill and its companion Civil Union Bill makes that outcome inevitable. 
The slowness of benefit control units to adapt to the Ruka judgment does not instil confidence that they will be well prepared to deal with that extra layer of misinformation which comes at them from all sorts of sources. There must be a commitment from the Government that the ministry will investigate allegations of same-sex relationships in a sensitive manner and with some effort to establish whether there is any substance to the allegation before interviewing the beneficiary. Otherwise there will be a perception of harassment not just because that person is a beneficiary but also because the person is homosexual. Because of that we would like to see eventually—but not in this bill I can assure the Minister—an amendment to the Social Security Act that would make it an offence to make a false allegation or report to the Ministry of Social Development so that no one will continue to be maliciously harassed in the way that happens at the moment. But that is a more general amendment that needs to be made to social security law and I will look for an appropriate place to do that. 
Turning now to the second matter I would like to deal with in relation to this part of the bill the Green Party has several amendments on the Table this afternoon in the name of Nandor Tanczos dealing with citizenship and adoption matters. While the first amendment that we have tabled to do with adoption may be seen to be rather radical by some of the socially conservative members of this Parliament I believe that all members voting for this bill today should be able to consider including and supporting the amendment we are proposing to the Citizenship Act. 
In relation to citizenship we are proposing two changes so that civil union partnerships are treated in a similar manner to married couples. The amendment we have tabled to section 3 of that Act relates to the presumption of parentage of children. Under current law in the absence of evidence to the contrary a person is presumed to be the father of someone if he is or was married to that person’s mother at the time of conception or birth. Our amendments extend that presumption to people in formal civil union relationships. That fits solidly I believe with the intent of the bill before us. 
Our amendment to section 8A(1) relates to the Minister’s authorisation to grant New Zealand citizenship to anybody who is or has been married to a New Zealand citizen and who meets set requirements. Our amendment merely extends the right of citizenship to civil union partners of New Zealand citizens. I cannot think of one valid reason why it should not be extended to civil union partners. Those entering a civil partnership will not do so lightly and are making a solemn commitment of partnership and mutual support. Civil union partners will be required to bear the same legal responsibilities as married couples do now in relation to eligibility for benefits—which is what I have just been talking about—and to income tax and the State should therefore confer on them similar rights and privileges. In determining who can be a citizen in his or her own right the law does not and should not discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. It is therefore inconsistent that we should discriminate against same-sex couples who take that extra step of entering a civil union. 
This is a very moderate amendment. We are not proposing an extension to all de facto couples but only to civil union couples at this stage. The Government has said that it was not included in the bill as drafted because the issue of citizenship is under review. I say we should meet the principle of equality first thus meeting our human rights obligations then allow the review to continue its process. Changes made in the end through the review will then apply both to married and to civil union partners. 
The second area in which we propose amendments is that of adoption. In the current Adoption Act only the terms “husband” and “wife” are used. We believe that the right to adoption should be extended to those in a civil union partnership. The debate on the Care of Children Bill showed the prejudice of many members who did not believe that same-sex couples could bring up children in a healthy loving way. Unfortunately the statistics show that child abuse is predominantly found in heterosexual relationships and many of those people are married. There is no correlation between homosexual couples and any form of child abuse child violence and all the rest of it. In a 2000 submission to the Law Commission the Human Rights Commission stated in paragraph 197: “We consider that same sex couples should be able to adopt subject to the same criteria as heterosexual couples.” Although I agree with the Human Rights Commission in recognition of the conservatism of Parliament our amendment is more moderate than that. We propose that only those couples who have made a formal commitment to each other either through marriage or through a civil union be given legal rights to adopt. As the Human Rights Commission says the determinative issue should be the quality of upbringing that a couple would be able to provide to an adopted child rather than their marital status. Again we understand that a review of adoption is taking place but given that this bill is in front of us and we have a chance to make the amendment now we do not see the need to wait. 
This bill is all about ending discrimination against same-sex couples. At the very least I ask the Minister to take a call and make a commitment today that the reviews will address that inequity.