This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Honourable members. I now call on members Order of the Day Number three Marriage Definition of Marriage Amendment bill. Second reading I call the Honourable Member Lewis. Mr. Speaker, I move that the Marriage Definition of Marriage Amendment Bill Be now read a second time, Mr Speaker, In this second reading debate, I want to focus on [00:00:30] value, the value, the regard, the importance or preciousness that every person should feel as a New Zealand citizen. During the debate on this bill, a number of views have been expressed about a person's value. I've been moved by the depth of feeling of those affected by the bill. Those who will be able to choose whether they access the social institution they are currently prohibited from accessing for no reason other than their sex, sexual orientation [00:01:00] or gender identity. The feeling of being excluded of being a second class citizen of being outside the normal parameters of society proliferate amongst our community. But we are normal and we are entitled to the same rights as every other citizen. The issue of coming out of being true to who you are is difficult enough for any person. The discussion around this bill has emphasised how real the discrimination is. [00:01:30] The agony and hardship that so many who have bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable. But what's totally unacceptable is the state perpetuating that agony and hardship by not issuing marriage licences to loving, consenting and eligible non heterosexual couples. This bill is about marriage equality. It's not about gay marriage, same sex marriage or straight marriage. It's about marriage between two people. [00:02:00] There's no distinction to be made. That is equality. Whether the form of that marriage is religious, secular or cultural is a matter for the couple to determine. Denying marriage to a person is to devalue that person's right to participate fully in all that life offers. It's essentially not recognising someone as a person. No state has the right to do that. To deny trans people intersex, lesbian and [00:02:30] gay people. The right to marry is to deny them recognition as a person. Opponents to this bill are essentially asserting that non heterosexuals are not equal people and therefore are not entitled to the same rights as other people, as Archbishop Desmond Tutu said when being sworn in as the Anglican archbishop of Cape Town in 1986. A person is a person because he recognises others as persons. [00:03:00] Almost 20 years later, in a sermon in London in 2004, Archbishop Tutu expressed his wish to reverse injustice by ending the persecution of people because of their sexual orientation, which he described as every bit as unjust as that crime against humanity. Apartheid, he stated. And I quote. For me, the struggle is a seamless robe. Opposing apartheid was a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination [00:03:30] against women is a matter of justice. Opposing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is a matter of justice. It is also a matter of love. Every human being is precious. We are all all of us, part of God's family. We all must be allowed to love each other with honour. Yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside [00:04:00] our communities. We make them doubt that they, too, are Children of God. This must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy to blame them for what they are. Archbishop Tutu, logic and reasoning is compelling. It's the same logic and reason that should guide us all in this house when we vote on this issue. To most people, marriage is an institution characterised by positivity. It's about love, commitment and family. [00:04:30] No sector of society has the right to claim ownership of marriage and determine that their perception and practise of marriage is the only acceptable way Marriage belongs to society as a whole, and that requires the involvement of the whole of society. The role of the state in marriage is to issue a licence to two people who love each other and want to commit to one another. Formally. That's what this bill does. To be valued for who we are is [00:05:00] the bare minimum we should expect from others. It's the bare minimum we should expect from the state. For me, it's what I would expect from a church. But that will be a longer journey and one that each denomination and church community will determine in their own time. The state's position is that all human beings are equal citizens, and the law protects various aspects of a person's identity, including their sex, sexual orientation, age, colour and race. [00:05:30] These are fundamental aspects of of of our identity with which we are born. The Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act extends the protections beyond these innate aspects to matters of status and belief. I've always been clear that in pursuing marriage equality, I will defend the rights of those in churches to practise their religion on terms that they consider reflect their beliefs. Freedom of religion is an individual right, and [00:06:00] I support the select committee's recommendation to strengthen section 29 of the act to make it clear that there is no compulsion for a minister to perform a marriage that he or she does not feel comfortable about. Section 29 protects all celebrants. Attempts by opponents in the last week to limit the protection only to those listed in the amendment is totally misleading. The Select Committee amendment is clear. The specific amendment that refers to [00:06:30] organisational celebrants begins with the words without limiting the generality of subsection one. The general protection in Section 29 remains in place and applies to all celebrants. To read it any other way is disingenuous. Exercising freedom of religion means religious groups view marriage as exclusive. That's the reality of freedom of religion, and it's my intention to recognise that freedom and therefore allow that discrimination [00:07:00] to continue for as long as religious leaders and specific denominations choose. But in return, I would ask that churches consider the rights of the LGBTI community with love, compassion and reason. My bill is one step and will allow members of the LGBTI community to participate in the civil and state institution of marriage. Some church leaders have embraced that step, and I'm hopeful that time will see a change [00:07:30] in the attitude and practises of other church members. I do have hope that churches will move towards an inclusive approach to marriage. Last October, the General Assembly of the New Zealand Presbyterian Church passed a motion opposing this bill, but an attempt to pass a motion that their ministers could only conduct a marriage between a man and a woman was lost. That's a positive step and will allow ministers like Reverend Doctor Margaret [00:08:00] Maman from Saint Andrews on the terrace, who submitted both personally and professionally to fulfil her desire to be able to offer same sex couples the same option as different sex couples that is to marry or have a civil union. I want to recognise and thank the members of the Government Administration Select Committee who have read and listened to the many submissions received. Their report is reasoned and compassionate in recognising the [00:08:30] decisions taken by those in favour and those against In focusing on value. I am drawn to the lyrics of American musician Ben Haggerty, better known as Macklemore in his song Same Love and I can't change even if I tried even if I wanted to, I can't change. And in voting on this bill, I hope the house will give a message to all young people. You don't have to change. [00:09:00] You can be who you are. And we, as a society will value who you are. Order! Order! Order! Order! Order! Order! Can I just remind members in the gallery that you're in parliament and the Parliament is here for the members of parliament not for members in the gallery, there will be no, uh, there will be no comments at all. [00:09:30] Um, I call the Honourable member Tim McIndoe. Mr. Speaker, I rise, having been a replacement member of the Government Administration Committee during the final stages of the committee's work. Although I regret that I did not hear the many submitters prior to the committee's deliberations. Nevertheless, I have read and considered as many submissions as I could, and I have had numerous meetings with constituents and interested parties, especially in my own electorate. In Hamilton, many [00:10:00] urged me to maintain my vote at first reading against the bill, quite a few urged me to change it. In recent days, both sides of the debate have flooded my inbox with emails, a common theme of many emails from the bill's supporters. Given that my Christian faith was and remains, the main reason for my position was that ours is a secular society and my faith should be left out of the debate. I understand that view, but in matters of conscience, one must fall back [00:10:30] on firm foundations to ignore what I perceive to be God's will in this debate would therefore be unthinkable, even though I acknowledge that not all Christians think as one in this matter. And I agree with Glenn Carpenter and the New Zealand Christian Network that Christians must approach this matter graciously and with respect. I hope those who have contacted me, whatever their views, believe that I have achieved that even so, even though I have to say I haven't always received the same in return. [00:11:00] New Zealand may indeed be a secular society, but marriage has historically been a religious institution for Christians and most of the many other religions now represented with followers in New Zealand. For that reason, this matter is causing huge distress to many, and it is quite wrong to say that changing the definition of the word won't affect anyone else. Christians, for example, believe that marriage was instituted of God himself, signifying the mystical [00:11:30] union between Christ and his church. It may be some may be convenient for some to argue, therefore, that the change of a definition has no greater impact on others. But it ignores and offends tens of thousands of New Zealanders who think otherwise. Last year, I indicated that a principle reason for my opposition was my concern that parliament is moving ahead of the churches on this issue. I remain very concerned about that, as I believe some of the division that this bill has caused [00:12:00] within society in recent months could have been avoided if the churches could reach an accommodation probably based on the French model whereby all couples undergo a civil wedding, after which those who wish to and who meet the criteria of the appropriate church may then also have a religious wedding ceremony. I think many more in our country could live with this while this wouldn't satisfy all who opposed the bill, and the idea wasn't considered, [00:12:30] apparently because it was beyond the scope of the bill. My personal view is that such a division between the functions of church and state might have achieved much wider public acceptance. And some of the hurt that many thousands of the bill's opponents are feeling might have been avoided or at least lessened. I am personally disappointed that we are not able to consider and debate that option without it. I think this bill is putting the cart before the horse and I remain unable to support it. [00:13:00] While some proponents of the bill argue that religion should have nothing to do with our approach to this issue, that, in my view is akin to arguing that parents should have no say over their Children's important and sometimes sensitive decisions during their formative years, or that unions and employers should have no say in our labour laws. I acknowledge the major challenges faced by members of the Select Committee and the respectful nature of the discussions for which I was present. I also acknowledge the architect of this [00:13:30] bill, Louisa Wall. A few months ago, I accepted an invitation from staff and pupils of Wellington High School to debate this topic with Lesa at one of the largest political meetings I've ever seen. Several of my colleagues thought I was mad and would probably be lynched. After my initial hesitation, However, I decided to do it because I felt it was important for young people to have both sides of the argument to consider. And while I was in a minority of one when I started and [00:14:00] probably still when I finished, I was very impressed by the pupils courtesy and the interest they showed in the issue. I enjoyed the experience, and I respected the approach that Louisa Wall took that afternoon. Thank you, Louisa, that aside, given the huge public interest in this topic and the significant ramifications of the change that is proposed, I am very disappointed that the committee was unable to hear many of those who took the trouble to prepare personal submissions and who asked to be given the opportunity [00:14:30] to appear before the committee. I know that many from my own electorate who have spoken to me and others from around the country who have written that there are hundreds of New Zealanders who feel aggrieved at being shut out of the process on a discussion of a matter of such importance to them and to their faith communities, their cultural and ethnic groups, and so on. This isn't just for Christians, far from it. But as I've said, my personal reservation remains PRI primarily grounded in my Christian faith and my difficulty in believing [00:15:00] that God wants this change to be made. This is not, in my view, evidence of a religion that is out of touch or of Christians being unable to love others equally and without passing judgement. But it is about honouring him and his word. It is not to say that I haven't been moved and challenged by many Christians, including four ministers in my own city who have debated the issue with me and argued that just as Christ always sided with the persecuted and the marginalised [00:15:30] in his own times, we should read into that that he would today side with gay couples who are currently denied the opportunity to marry. That is why I offered to work with in good faith with those who felt the civil Union Act needed to be strengthened, and I repeat that offer. Some have said that this bill grants a basic human right. I don't believe that marriage is a universal human right, because there will always, always be those who do not meet legal criteria to marry for various valid reasons. [00:16:00] I have some sympathy for those who fear that if this bill is passed, pressure could arise at some future date for other changes to be made to the marriage act to accommodate changes that today would seem unthinkable. It is less than a decade since almost every member of this house, many of whom are still here, argued that a change to the marriage act of this nature was out of the question. That is why many New Zealanders regard this bill as a breach of faith by [00:16:30] those they sent here to represent them. Most societies have believed, and most religions have taught for thousands of years, that marriage is a sacred institution between one man and one woman who are over a certain age and not committed to any other relationship. It is sacred and said to represent, as I mentioned, the union between Christ and his church. Maintaining this belief in 2013 has not suddenly become a bigoted [00:17:00] or homophobic view just because this bill happened to be drawn from the private members bill ballot last year. Yes, God loves us all equally, whether gay or straight. But he does not, in my view, approve all social change. While most who have written to me and presumably to other MP S from both sides of this debate and as I mentioned earlier, literally tens of thousands have done so. Most [00:17:30] have been sincere in their views and respectful in the way they have expressed them. A few have been aggressive, insulting, and though the irony appears to have escaped them far more bigoted than anything, I have heard arguing or anyone I've heard arguing for the status quo. It is clear that some of the most extreme writers on both sides of the debate refuse to consider that the alternative view to their own could have any merit whatsoever. I do not agree with them. I gave an undertaking [00:18:00] to consider as many submissions as fairly and as objectively as I could and I have done that. I have been moved by the experiences and deeply held convictions of many who have made submissions to the select committee or who have contacted me on both sides of the debate. In particular, I acknowledge the distress of gay friends and constituents and others who have insisted very persuasively that being gay is not a choice and that they continue to feel that society treats them [00:18:30] as inferior because of their orientation. I accept the former conclusion and I very much regret that the latter is still true for many. I hope we'll be able to move away from that. But to those who have dismissed my religious beliefs as worthless and some have or who have insisted that I could easily change those beliefs and who have insisted that my support for the long held definition of marriage means that I must be a bigot who is antagonistic to those who are campaigning [00:19:00] for the changes and that I must also be homophobic, I say that those are not my views. And I am not that person. As I've said, I would have welcomed debate on the merits of several compromises. I hope we may still be able to consider some If, as expected, this bill progresses tonight to its committee stages, I pray that God's will be done. I call the Honourable Ruth Dyson. Um, Mr [00:19:30] Speaker, can I thank you very much for that excellent choice and the fierce competition that there is? I'm taking a call in this bill. Um, I was very privileged to chair the government administration select committee that considered this bill, and therefore, I'm particularly pleased to be able to take a call. Normally, at this stage of the debate, I'd take a ten-minute call. But out of respect to the number of people to whom we can't refer, uh, I'd like the vote taken before 10 o'clock tonight. So I'm gonna take shorter time, um, than I would like to [00:20:00] and certainly say fewer things than I'd like to as well, because this is a really important issue for many people. I want to acknowledge all the committee members, uh, who sit on the bill. Uh, those who are for the bill. Those who were against, um I think that everyone tried really hard on what is for most people, an emotive issue to be respectful and tolerant of people who disagreed with their view. And I want to thank the committee members for doing that. We were nearly 100% successful, uh, in that [00:20:30] attempt, uh, likewise for the submitters. Likewise for the submitters, Uh, people who were very nervous, very anxious and very passionate. Um, but again, almost without exception, uh, presented their views in an unoffensive and respectful manner. Mr. Speaker, I want to pay particular tribute to all the but particularly the young gay and lesbian submitters for whom it must have been a very [00:21:00] big and courageous step to talk about their own lives in front of people who they didn't know. Uh, people as politicians who make an art form out of intimidating people. We tried not to be intimidating, but nevertheless, I'm sure it was a very big step, particularly for those young people. People who talked about how they realised their sexual orientation made them different from their family members from other people at school or people in their workplace. many of whom [00:21:30] then tried to deny their sexual orientation as a result, who lived their life as a lie. People who were subjected to being bullied, who felt isolated or rejected by their family, who never felt part of the community or society that we all value so much. Um, Mr Speaker, for those people, this is not going to change the world. This is not going to overnight change New Zealand into a completely tolerant [00:22:00] and inclusive society. But it will be a lawful recognition of the value of their loving relationships. And for that reason alone, I'd support the bill. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law, regardless of the sexual orientation of the people who love. I want to just briefly talk about, uh, a frustration. I have, Mr Speaker. They say a frustration shared is a frustration [00:22:30] that more people are frustrated about. So let me do that. Let me do that. Tonight. Uh, the changes that we've made to Section 29 that my colleague Louisa Wall has referred to are specifically designed to ensure that religious freedoms are not trampled on by the marriage act, including this amendment that I hope we progress tonight we accept that religious freedom should continue in New Zealand. We received advice. We debated [00:23:00] about it. We thought about it. We took the best advice possible. And I would be prepared to be a witness for a reformist minister in the court to say that he has the right to deny a same sex couple, uh, to solemnise their wedding. Should any same sex couple want to ask a reformist minister to solemnise their wedding? Uh, Mr Speaker, we also as part of the select committee process, repealed [00:23:30] section 56 and I'd recommend people read that, uh, we thought the language of the law was outdated. We don't, uh, propose, though, that this be an opportunity for people to denigrate other people's relationships. We just thought that this was an old fashioned bit of legislation. Uh, Mr Speaker, the other bit of misinformation that I deeply resent and regret being put about by some opponents, and I say some because I know that many opponents have debated this issue on facts, and [00:24:00] that is that we have We have taken out any reference to husband and wife or gender specific terms in the law. Mr. Mr Speaker, our specific direction to the officials was to not do that. I. I frankly think it won't impact on many people. Uh, I won't stop calling my husband my husband, actually, regardless of what the law says. But we specifically said we wanted the law to recognise what people practised and wanted to do [00:24:30] in our country. And the only references we have changed is when they were totally incomprehensible if we left the language as it was. So people who say we have gender neutered the language are misinforming people, and they should be told to read the report from the committee and read the amendment. Um, Mr Speaker, I am a very, very happily married heterosexual woman. I fail to see how enabling [00:25:00] any other person in our country the opportunity to share in the joy and responsibility of marriage. I fail to see how that could harm anyone, but I am very able to see how much that could benefit the strength of our families and our communities. I am delighted with this legislation. I'm very proud of the way the Select committee worked on it. I know there were many submitters who didn't have the opportunity [00:25:30] to be heard. We read their submissions. We value their input. Those who were here heard had a powerful impact on us. Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a very good process and one that I'm very pleased to support. Um, I call the Honourable Member Chris Oval. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In the first reading of this bill, I voted that it be sent to select committee to ensure a call for submissions and a platform for discussion. [00:26:00] And I am very glad that I did that. Serving on the committee as deputy chairman was instructive, illuminating and educative. And it was a pleasure working with the honourable Ruth Dyson as chair. I wish now to speak to the considerations of the committee. The one aspect that was universal common to all submitters was that marriage is special, precious and desirable. Everyone [00:26:30] said that no matter which part of the argument they were interested in, the issue is over. Who can or can't participate in it? Submitters were very definite in expressing their particular views. I found there were three main groupings. I'd like to talk about them now. One grouping has an eschatological view of the bill. In other words, to pass the bill will be the beginning of the end of society. As we note, [00:27:00] this was a very firmly held view. It's perceived as a slippery slope leading to our ultimate demise as a nation and as a civilization. I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of submitters who hold to this view. It was sincerity, though Mr Speaker, that seemed to be entirely based on apprehension and fear and circular reasoning rather than on a persuasive argument. While if the bill passes, [00:27:30] I cannot imagine that a particularly large percentage of the population will suddenly take the opportunity to engage in same gender marriages. I also cannot imagine that any number would make one iota of difference to the 41 years of marriage that my wife and I have enjoyed or to anybody else's heterosexual marriage. I can't see it. I've thought deeply about this and cannot believe the social impact of the bill would herald the demise and collapse of the wider societal values in New Zealand. I respect [00:28:00] the right of those who wish to hold to that view, Mr Speaker, but I cannot give it currency in coming to a defined position on this bill. Another grouping held a perception that this is counter to religious views and practises and represents a state interference in religious practise, beliefs and dogma. The committee listened very carefully and sincerely to the concerns expressed as someone who had five years as a lay minister for the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand and [00:28:30] was a member of the Council of Assembly for the Presbyterian Church. I had a particular interest in this aspect of the discussion. It became clear through listening that the overriding concern is that the clergy and those authorised by religious bodies to conduct marriages would be obliged, indeed forced to conduct ceremonies for same gender couples should the bill be passed. Mr. Speaker, we've already heard from Honourable Ruth Dyson about Section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has always stipulated that it authorises [00:29:00] but does not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise, a marriage to which the licence relates. The Select committee has recommended a new clause that makes it abundantly clear. Ministers of religion or celebrants from approved organisations are not obliged to solemnise a marriage if to do so would contravene the religious beliefs of the religious body or approved organisations. I thoroughly enjoy theological discussion and have a huge appetite for it. I've been most grateful for the opportunity to sit with [00:29:30] clergy from many different denominations and engage with them on this issue by providing and ensuring that this bill deals only with secular issues. I'll say it again. It deals only with secular issues. It nevertheless leaves a dilemma for established religious groups who wish to differentiate their church or holy matrimony from the new definition. If the bill passes, it is not for the state to have a view on [00:30:00] this. It's for the churches to resolve in their own way and time. And I look forward to engaging in that discussion in a personal capacity in my own time. The third consideration we've heard it spoken by my, uh, colleague and friend Tim. Uh, this evening is that marriage is an institution time honoured, never changing and having the essential components of one man one woman common to all countries and civilizations throughout the millennia until death Do them part, [00:30:30] Mr Speaker, it ain't necessarily so. Bye, I. I I'm privileged to have my wife in the gallery tonight. My wife and I married on the 11th of March 41 years ago last Monday and lived happily ever after. But the question that exercised the upper echelons of ecclesiastic minds in those days was whether or not the bride should take a vow of obedience [00:31:00] to her husband. You're marrying a redheaded West Coast girl from West Coast aristocratic family. Some hope during that same time, to have had Children born out of wedlock was a hamper to church marriage, as was a divorce or indeed wanting to marry someone of a different religion. Bands of marriage were called from pulpits, advising that people were intending marriage and others were invited to give reasons why that marriage should not proceed or to forever hold their peace. Marriage, [00:31:30] Mr Speaker, is not an unchanging institution, and while most of its institutional aspects have been laudable for men, they have often been less than favourable for women. Some stats to show this change to the institution are quite illuminating, Mr Speaker, 23% of marriages are conducted in a registry office. 32% of marriages are conducted in a church, 45% are conducted by independent marriage celebrants. Mr [00:32:00] Speaker, the figures shout out change, which we cannot close our ears to. I found it personally significant that from the wait for the figures, 9347 independent marriage celebrants are nearly 10,000 independent marriage celebrants and 535 civil union celebrants. That's 1500. Altogether. The committee received two two submissions. [00:32:30] Mr Speaker, the last two aspects I wish to touch on are the matter of conscience and the question of family coming first in terms of conscience, I've given much, much thought to this. I'm acquainted with guilt. Being a Presbyterian one goes through life thinking that one hasn't worked hard enough, hasn't done enough and hasn't reached the requirement that life's opportunities offer. And you always get other members who will tell you that, as one did this evening to Sage my conscience on this issue, I [00:33:00] delve back in my life to the age of understanding, which I think those of Catholic persuasion tells me that Jesuits determined it at seven years old. When I was a boy, I looked at cat cataclysmic values. When I learn in the catechisms by I wrote in Glasgow. Who made you God made me. Why did God make you? God made me to know him and love him. The third question What image did God make you in the answer God made me in his own image, [00:33:30] Mr Speaker, Every seven year old boy and girl said the same and believed it was true. They didn't have to add as long as I conformed to being heterosexual and not to loving anyone of the same gender as myself. My conscience is very clear on this issue. Every person has the same spiritual claim as one another to being made in the image of God. And it will be a braver person than I am to deny that I've addressed the question [00:34:00] of eschatology in my mind the question of ensuring religious freedom and the assumption of benign institutionalisation. My conscience is not clouded or indeed involved in this issue, Mr Speaker, As an older person, we do have a baggage to carry of remembering when homosexuality was illegal, in fact, it was criminal and it was, we were told, immoral. [00:34:30] There were two definite groups of people who came and made submissions before us, and it was what I would call a generational divide. And so, in dealing with the legacy of discriminatory, discriminatory prejudice, and I wouldn't want that to be a deciding feature, I prayerfully asked to be able to internalise and resolve this complicated situation in my head, in my heart and in my soul. What I learned what I learned from listening [00:35:00] to the submissions, Mr Speaker colleagues, is that in fact, each homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender person appearing before us was not just to be seen as an individual, not just identified by gender preference but in fact, as a mother's son or a daughter and a father's daughter or son, their siblings to their brothers and sisters, grandchildren to their grandparents, nephews and nieces to their uncles and aunts and uncles and aunts to their nephews and nieces, cousins to their cousins. Mr Speaker, they're [00:35:30] all family, along with their heterosexual friends and relations, and all are an integral part of the New Zealand family. All part in my mind, in my heart and in my conscience, all part of God's family. I now realise that this bill seeks to put first something that critics have accused of it of undermining. And that is the family. We as parliamentarians, should not simply look past the interests of the applicants for this bill. We should not simply look at their interests. [00:36:00] We should. And we must look after their interests. We should pass this bill. Right? You see, I call the Honourable Trevor Mallard. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. And I, um, [00:36:30] for the reasons outlined by my, uh, friend and colleague Ruth Dyson will speak for a relatively short time as well. Uh, I want to thank her for her able chairing of the select committee, uh, to, uh, thank the previous speaker for the work he also did on that select committee. And to contrast, um, the attitude of many of most of the submitters at that select committee with my experience [00:37:00] chairing a select committee on a similar subject 27 years ago. There is There is when I was 17, Says, uh uh, Mr Mr Speaker earlier as opposed to the mid point of my career. Uh, Mr Mr Mr Speaker, there is no doubt that the winds of change have blown. They have moved us a very, very long [00:37:30] way And that is reflected not only in society's attitude over the period of time, but the attitude of members of Parliament and the public as they have taken part in this debate. Uh, and Mr Speaker, it is enormously different. I There are a few of my colleagues who were there at the time, but the attitude from one side of Graham Lee, um, John [00:38:00] Banks and Norman Jones was appalling. It was absolutely shocking and revolting. Uh, Mr Speaker, some of the people who spoke for the legislation weren't that flash either. Uh, Trevor de Clean, I think of, uh, who's Who's the who, whose main FRS was. Just don't make it compulsory, I think was the line that Trevor de Clean, uh, took. But Mr Speaker, I was proud, um, at that time at the third reading, [00:38:30] to be the teller for the eyes and to come out and to put five fingers in the air because that was the margin that we got time to change, Mr Speaker I. I now am going to surprise some people by saying that I have a lot in common with the position that Tim McIndoe got to Mr Speaker. I think. Actually, the state has almost no role in marriage. My view is actually, [00:39:00] if everyone had a civil union or went to the state and got a bit of paper and said you are married and then went off to their church or if they wanted to dance around a fire on the beach and have whatever appropriate celebration of that new relationship that they wanted to, then that would be the best approach. But, Mr Speaker, I have canvassed colleagues, and what became [00:39:30] clear to me is that the winds of change have not quite blown that far yet. And colleagues in the house, uh, do feel that the state has a role in marriage. And if that is to be the case, then in my view, it has to be equal for all. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yeah, Uh, the right honourable Winston Peters. Mr. Speaker, [00:40:00] I move that the motion be amended by replacing all the words following that with the following words of referendum be held at the time of the next general election to decide whether the Marriage Act 1955 should be amended to recognise marriage between two people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. End of quote. Uh, [00:40:30] yeah, Well, um, the member should if he's gonna speak, continue to speak. And I would ask that I can have a written copy of the amendment, please. So just continue. Mr. Speaker, Uh, this is clearly about many issues and many beliefs, and you've heard them tonight and for many years and over the last few months in particular. But it also is about the right of the people of this country to be heard the right of New Zealanders to all have their say [00:41:00] and to evince their equality with anyone who sits in this parliament. New Zealand has a proud tradition of democracy. It's in our cultural DNA. We're one of only nine countries that can claim an unbroken line of democracy. That's elections on a regular term for the last 1.5 centuries. We are a seriously unique country in that context. And [00:41:30] the democratic traditions of New Zealand is part of who we are as a nation. And tonight, for reasons that members may best understand themselves, that tradition is again under threat. We stand on the verge of passing legislation which would radically change the institution of marriage. No one in tonight's debate would surely watching television or being here tonight dispute that [00:42:00] we stand on the verge of passing legislation which would radically change institution of marriage. And my party is not here to argue the merits of that. But we are going to go about it without any democratic mandate at all. Who here in the last campaign said we were going to do this? Who here in the last campaign? Yes. [00:42:30] Oh, we did. Is that true? Well, I don't recall the advertisements. I don't recall the hoardings. I don't recall the powered boasts when it was thought that votes would be forfeit so we can make that frivolous statement. But tonight I'm asking you this. Why do you think that your knowledge of this country is more preferable to the mass majority of adult New Zealanders? Answer that question. [00:43:00] Do you still feel that you have a superior entitlement to the ordinary people of this country who, after all, we are here to serve and not become the directors of We are doing it without any democratic mandate at all. Have no doubt about this. The New Zealand people have been denied the chance to vote on one of the most polarising of issues of our age. This is This is not to argue the merits of [00:43:30] each side. The proponents of Ms Will's bill point to the select committee process as being some sort of indication. Well, if that's true, is that a mandate? If that's true, is it good enough? If that's true, why don't you trust your fellow New Zealanders? What is it about the New Zealand people, who you for war to serve all your parliamentary days that you don't trust and think that you have [00:44:00] a superior knowledge of? If the select committee's submissions reveal anything is that the public opinion of this country is widely split, we all accept that. But where is the majority in our country? Where is the mandate? This may seem tiresome, but just yesterday we were talking about the need to ask the country about asset sales, and we all know that there's a massive majority of New [00:44:30] Zealanders. Despite our politics against the sale of assets. How can somebody be meritorious yesterday and 48 hours not be meritorious? Answer that question. Such a major legislative change must be based on the collective will of New Zealanders. Not 100 and 21 temporarily empowered MP S. Most of these people are gonna be gone tomorrow. We all know that. So why would you not [00:45:00] repose the trust in the voters of this country? Against the people who sit here? It's called democracy. For goodness sake. If New Zealand is going to have a proper debate or someone just said to me, go and get the signatures already Well, why not do what Washington and other great people in history have done? Why not ask the people What is so wrong with that? I mean, what can be what can be wrong if you [00:45:30] have the overwhelming majority of 4 million New Zealanders expressed by their adults in a referendum? Well, where's the sin here and actually reposing the trust in the people of this country? We are calling for a referendum on this issue to give all New Zealanders the same say as these people here tonight. Why not? What could possibly be wrong [00:46:00] or unprincipled or unfair? And then the people of New Zealand decide this issue for themselves and knowing then and knowing then whichever side of the argument we end up on, that the public have decided, and therefore because we believe in democracy, we must live with their choice. What could be so wrong with that in the past so often? And there are people in the [00:46:30] gallery tonight watching TV tonight and in this house who know that there's been an enormous fundamental disconnect between politicians and voters. We've seen and endured this on occasion after occasion after occasion, particularly over the last 30 years. No-one could dispute that tonight and on so many occasions we have seen politicians blatantly lie about their intentions, and there cannot [00:47:00] be anyone who's watching tonight's debate. Who doesn't understand that, you know, tonight we're actually seeing it. In this sense, there's a recurring theme here, and we wonder why a million people didn't vote at the last election who were entitled to 1 million New Zealanders in a country that used to be pride itself, that even though the vote was voluntary, we used to outperform Australia with the vote was compulsory. [00:47:30] That was a recent boast, but a million never turned out the last election, and I can see and I'm sure some of you see why that is. They think that their voice doesn't matter. And echoing out of this house tonight and reverberating the country all around New Zealand is an expression saying you don't matter. You don't count. You're just Joe bloggs out in suburbs somewhere else or in some black box place, when in [00:48:00] fact this should be an empowering, empowering expression from New Zealand. There is nothing New Zealanders hate more than politicians who think they know best. There is nothing more odious, more loathsome than politicians who think they know best. And this debate sadly and I'm not doubting the integrity of any side of [00:48:30] this debate. But it shows in a terrible indifference. In 2013, when all of our expressions are about transparency, openness and taking the people with us an absolute apathy and indifference to democracy. It betrays the feeling of moral intellectual superiority that some people in this chamber hold, and my challenge to you up there right now and around this country is Do you think these people are better able to judge this issue than you? [00:49:00] Oh, no, you don't. Oh, no, you don't because there's no one who believes in democracy that doesn't want to have the decision shared with their family, their friends, their community and indeed their nation with them themselves. I think the people of of this country tonight are being seriously let down because there's an enormous sense of haste here and argument here. But there's also the feeling that we again will take the people [00:49:30] for granted. My party proposed a referendum. My party says that we believe the people of this country are better able to decide this issue than anybody else. And if you don't trust the people, pray tell me who you gonna trust now, Mr Kevin Hague. Why, thank you, Mr Speaker. Oh, I just Yes, I, I heard I. I should say the question is that the amendment be agreed to acknowledging [00:50:00] the amendment. Now, Kevin Hay, Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by echoing, uh, the honourable Ruth Dyson and, um uh, and the honourable, uh, Trevor Mallard in, uh, expressing my appreciation of the officials who worked so hard servicing the needs of the Select committee. Also to all of those members who sat on the Select committee with me, both those who favour the Bill and [00:50:30] those who oppose it. I, I believe, all did their job sincerely and well, and to particularly praise the job that was done by the honourable Ruth Dyson and the chair, and indeed by Chris, who on occasion was also in the chair in creating a culture in the select committee hearings of, uh, respect and integrity. Some of the submissions that we heard, uh, from people speaking in favour of the bill were hard to listen to, sir. They [00:51:00] shared with the committee their own stories of the damage that prejudice and discrimination had brought them. Friends lost to suicide, their own self harm, depression and isolation. And they told us also about their love. Sir, it was wonderful to have lesbian, gay, transgendered and bisexual people come to the committee and speak about the people they love, their hopes for the future and [00:51:30] the powerful difference this bill will make in their lives. Some people came with their partner. On one occasion, a young woman gave her submission with her partner, her parents, her sisters and one of her sister's fiance. Heterosexual people and couples came and told us about how they felt about marriage, not being available to their gay friends. Parents came, Children came to. They spoke about love and about belonging. [00:52:00] How the institutions of a society like marriage form a kind of rope that binds society together across the generations and through history. Not all of us want to get married. But what we heard on the committee was a strong yearning for respect for belonging and to add our strands to that rope. It was striking that the submissions for the bill came from a huge range [00:52:30] of organisations and individuals offering an A an array of different perspectives. Personal, religious, health, legal, human rights were just some of those by way of contrast to submissions opposed to the bill, while also sincere and strongly held, represented typically quite a narrow range of views and one particular perspective. Almost all of the submissions opposed to the bill came [00:53:00] from a religious perspective. Most of them reflected the submission guide that had been circulated by a particular lobby group, often verbatim, including the errors. I want to make two broad generalisations about the debate overall. Firstly from the word go Louisa Wall and those of us who have been working for this bill have been absolutely clear that we have no wish to restrict the religious [00:53:30] freedom of others. We know that some churches still had some doubt about that. But the select committee, rather than getting bogged down and whether their doubts had any validity, has moved to put the matter beyond doubt. The existing relationship between church and state has been preserved, with no church required to do or to say anything differently. But while [00:54:00] the church voice that has been heard loudest has been one opposed to the bill, all the while there have been faiths, denominations and congregations within denominations who have wished to be able to conduct same sex marriages and whose freedom of religion has been constrained by the existing law. Passing this bill into law will extend religious freedoms and will not [00:54:30] restrict them in any way. The second general point I want to make is that as I read the submissions, I was more and more struck by the difference in world view. They represented those in favour of the bill, typically see New Zealand as a pluralistic society in which this parliament needs to create a framework that supports and provides for a multiplicity of cultures, beliefs [00:55:00] and value systems. By way of contrast, those opposed to the bill bill believe that this parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour that conforms to a single or very, very tightly restricted set of beliefs and values based on their own religious belief. They believe all must comply with this behaviour code, regardless of whether or not they share the beliefs on which it is [00:55:30] based. We heard a lot about traditions here. Those opposed said that the institution of marriage shouldn't be changed because of tradition. Those who support the bill showed that progress can only occur by changing historical practises. And this has been the case, as Chris has demonstrated, with marriage many times over. This was graphically illustrated by so many of the arguments against this bill being precisely those [00:56:00] that were used in the United States to try to justify continuing bans on interracial marriage tradition, slippery slope, God's will, all the same arguments the landmark Supreme Court case to finally end such bans in the United States was loving versus the state of Virginia kind of ironic in 1967 although the last of those laws was only removed in Alabama [00:56:30] in the year 2000. Mildred, a black woman, and Richard, a white man, fought a nine year battle to have their marriage recognised in their home state in 2007, then aged 68 A year before her death, Mildred Loving made a very rare statement about same sex marriage delivered on the 40th anniversary of the historic decision, Surrounded as I am now [00:57:00] by wonderful Children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the wrong kind of person for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government [00:57:30] has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people's civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richards and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people. Black or white, young or old, Gay or straight [00:58:00] Seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. Mr. Speaker, it's time 150 Point of order The Honourable. Um I've, uh, stood to take the call, uh, on a lot of occasions tonight, and I want to know from you. Um, [00:58:30] how are you, uh, determining who speaks? Um, I took the precaution of actually, uh, sending to whips beforehand. What may be a preferential way of doing this, which was principally the mover of the bill, uh, select committee members or leaders of the house. And then, uh, I would choose as speaker subsequently. After that, I've noted the member's, uh, intention to take a call. [00:59:00] Uh, point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a conscience vote a free vote, Uh, and therefore, uh, I. I think that, uh, that it is wrong for you to, uh, go down that path, I think Order. Order. I've made a ruling. Uh, the member may well disqualify himself if he persists. Car Bakshi. Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity for me to speak on the second [00:59:30] reading of Marriage Act Amendment bill Before I talk about the bill, I thank all the staff and officials who worked during the Select committee hearings and collection of submissions, significant number of submissions that were received both against and in favour of the bill. I will also like to thank all the submitters for their written and oral submissions. I also take this opportunity to thank the chair of the government, a select committee, Honourable Ruth [01:00:00] Dyson and other members for all the hard work they have put in in this process. Mr. Speaker, I begin by sharing one of the words from the Holy Quran, the living group of Sikhs, which is when translated. This would most likely read. The Lord first created his [01:00:30] own light and out of the light was created all human being. How can then be one human being good and this other cannot be Mr Speaker. My religious belief and faith is a schism. The purpose of me sharing this verse with my parliamentary colleagues and you is to clarify that it is not in my religion, culture or heritage to discriminate anyone on any basis. [01:01:00] I do not believe that anyone of us residing in New Zealand is a second class citizen. I note that some of my opposition colleagues redefining what constitutes marriage may not be much of a big deal. However, from what my community has shared with me is most of us. It is. I based my position not only on any historical [01:01:30] belief, but rather what I saw and heard when I went went with the open mind to the select committee hearings across New Zealand. However, at each of the Select committee hearings, none of the arguments presented by the summits provided any significant rational for redefining the word marriage. Furthermore, the rights that are being sought are already provided for under the civil union in [01:02:00] case there are any changes required in civil union. Law can be tweaked to accommodate these changes, however, to change the definition of marriage from what it has historically been to something that offends the majority of people inappropriate, especially when those argue for the change have little way in way of reasoning to support their argument. The basis of the bill in that marriage is a social institution [01:02:30] is fundamental human right for all people, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, and that all should therefore have equal opportunity to it without discrimination or limiting the human rights to one group in the society only which would now allow for equality. In my counterargument, Can I just say that right to marry is not never [01:03:00] can be an absolute human right. The law of this country does not permit close family members to marry each other or Children or people who are already married. In each case, Mr Speaker, there is good reason for such restriction. None of them can be classified as discrimination. And can I also ask a counter question? Does anyone who opposed to the view put forward does not enjoy the [01:03:30] same human rights as people who seek this amendment? Do we have the right to express what we feel about the issue which stands to change our society, Mr Speaker? Neither in the claim that the same sex marriage is basic human right? Correct. If this was the case, the rights would have been enriched in major international human rights agreements [01:04:00] signed by New Zealand in particular in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Those who argue that by proposing this bill they seek to defend the human rights do sound rigorous. But people who advocate for the change have, in my opinion, failed to consider the grave implication that the change they seek will have on our society. Moreover, Mr Speaker, those [01:04:30] who feel the retro about this about redefining marriage should ask if including the polymer relationship should be consented for our society. They should ask the question to themselves. What will be the impact of agreeing to the polymer relationship in our society, Mr Speaker? Apart from the rational argument and the question I have put forward and asked earlier, can I ask [01:05:00] simplistic question to those who argue that the same sex couple will allow to marry? Can I ask the word marriage will add any sugar or flavour to their relationship. During one of the public hearing, I was pleased to see a family who had come to support their daughter's submission. By the way, the submission was in support of the bill. The family bond is one special thing we are fortunate to enjoy [01:05:30] in New Zealand. During the hearing, I asked the family if being a civil civil union or marriage will affect her or her family bond in any manner. They said No. Some have cast my comment as discriminatory again. I refer to my opening statement and assure all my brothers and sisters that I believe in humanity and human rights and as much as they do, all the human beings are equal, [01:06:00] regardless of where they come from. I honestly do not believe that standing my position on marriage, I am discriminating against anyone. Marriage for me is something that has unique sanctity inherent in its divine origin, given to the humanity and the pattern and the plan for the perpetuation of society. This attempt to refine marriage is causing considerable [01:06:30] amount of anxiety in religious organisations and their staff. The prevailing view of churches from Catholic to Pen coast is that the marriage is spirit scared to many sacred to many people in our society. The New Zealand Christian community as a whole rejects the notion that there is no biblical view of marriage. The standard biblical view view of marriage, [01:07:00] first revealed in Genesis and then endorsed, endorsed by Jesus, is the faithful union of one man and woman. Any other form of marriage is never endorsed by Old testaments. The idea of same sex marriage. Same sex marriage is biblically unthinkable. Therefore, the church also consider that the Civil Union Act 2004 already provide for the clear societal recognition and legal protection [01:07:30] of same sex relationship. The select committee listened very closely to the submissions made by the church and thereby recommended that in case the bill is passed, no church minister or pastor can be forced to undertake a same sex wedding. This, I think, is an excellent example of how democratic our nation is. Mr Speaker. As a citizen of this country, I acknowledge, accept [01:08:00] and respect the aspiration of the homosexual people as citizens of to have their partnership recognised by the society and fully protect by the law. However, the social and legal argument presented by those forwarding this argument does not make a compelling case. My concern is to protect the uniqueness of the marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Once again, [01:08:30] Mr Speaker, I fully endorse the principle of equality as human being. However, I assert that while the people are equal, not all relationships are the same. Mr Speaker, rather than listening to the catch cries which are based on individualistic argument and we parliamentarians must consider the large public good and expectations when we vote on this bill. The larger public good and expectation [01:09:00] is that most of New Zealanders do not accept this society believes it has the right to do anything. However, it takes little or no responsibility for the consequences of its action. Australians, our neighbours have recently defeated the equivalent Legislation of Marriage Act Amendment Bill with the resulting vote 42 in favour and 98 against the member's time [01:09:30] has expired. The honourable Leanne del Zeal. Um, I have participated in more than one debate in this Parliament Parliament in my time here the first time that I participated in a debate, uh, on a subject that really has been a platform for where we are now, Uh, with the 1993 amendments to the Human Rights Act, which took effect on the first of February 1994. And, uh, I haven't been here as long [01:10:00] as, uh, the as Trevor Ballard has, um, but I remember this debate very, very well, and the second one was the civil Union legislation, and I do want to speak briefly to both of those because they are relevant to why we're here tonight. Uh, I remember, uh, participating in the human rights debate as if it were yesterday, and in fact, the number of submissions that came into that select committee which I had the honour of serving on the number of submissions that came in, didn't most of them didn't actually deal [01:10:30] at all. With all of the amendments to the human rights legislation, they focused on the supplementary order paper very bravely. Um, progressed by, uh, Catherine O'Regan, who was, uh, an associate minister in the government at the time. Uh, and she made sure that sexual orientation and also, uh, diseases capable of causing in no infection. Oh, I can't remember what it was, but it was the HIV status clause. Um, and, uh, enable people to have a say about whether that should become [01:11:00] part of our human rights architecture. And fortunately, that was passed by this house. And at the same time, that legislation changed our Bill of Rights Act, and that was substantial, um, a substantial advance in this country. And I was very proud to be part of that debate. And actually, I remember standing in this house and I was sitting up the front and standing up the front, uh, speaking in the third reading of the debate. And it was about nine o'clock in the morning because we were speaking under [01:11:30] urgency. And I remember, um, standing here, and I was so tired because we'd been up till midnight the night before. And I just said I just today I just feel so proud to be a member of Parliament, and I really, really felt that way. And, uh, if you remember the early 19 nineties, uh, there wasn't a lot of things that I felt particularly proud of, um, back then. So, um, it really was, um and I major achievement. But what I remember about that night after the debate was over, [01:12:00] I was invited to appear on television to stand up for what I had voted for. And I appeared debating the issue on the other side with a gentleman called Graham Caple from one of the religious, uh, political parties. And I just want everyone in this house to think for one minute where he is today. So, um, and as I said I, I felt very proud of that moment, Um, supporting that legislation [01:12:30] and it was a major major change. I should have been the minister that introduced the civil union legislation. I really am very sad that I was not. Tragically, I decided to take time out for bad behaviour at the time. And as a result, my colleague, um, the honourable David Benson Pope had the honour of taking that legislation through the House. That disadvantage of not being able to steer that legislation through the House was [01:13:00] immediately overtaken by the by the great pleasure that I had in hearing the submissions. And I pay tribute to Ruth Dyson and all members of the committee for having uh taken up that challenge with this particular piece of legislation and doing so in such a respectful way. The feedback that I've had from people on both sides of the debate that they felt honoured and respected on both sides of the debate, um, by the committee. So I do thank them for that. And [01:13:30] thank Ruth Dyson for her great leadership in that regard. Uh, at the time, as I said, um, that there were lots of the arguments that have been heard today were heard then. But I have to say that the noise was much louder then I have to say, say that the noise has dampened down and I don't feel that there is the strength of the objections that existed back then. And I think there's a very simple reason for that. A lot of the dire predictions that were made at that time simply didn't come to [01:14:00] pass as they had in 1993 as they didn't in the year. Um uh, What was it BC or whatever? Um, when um Trevor Mallard was, um, debating the previous one. But the point and and And the point is, is that I went back and I looked at my first reading speech for the Civil Union legislation, and I actually found a speech that I could have given tonight because I said that the marriage act was discriminatory. Back then, every [01:14:30] single thing I said in my speech was actually not in support of civil Union. It was support in an amendment to the marriage act, and I wish that we had been able to go there then, but we couldn't. And I'm really proud of my friend Louisa Wall for bringing it to the house. Um, tonight I quoted Baroness Hale, who had recently made a decision in the UK. She said the guarantee of equal treatment is essential to democracy. And it is. This isn't the [01:15:00] slippery slope. And I actually went online before to find out what is the alternative. What's the opposite of a slippery slope? And I found that it was a leap of faith. And that's what we're doing here tonight. Um, as we have all the way along this journey and it's not a slippery slope, it's about understanding where our Democra democracy must stand and it must stand for human rights. Um I, I said in my third reading speech that I had a lot of luck on my side when I chose [01:15:30] the circumstances of my birth. Um, I. I was, uh, born to the majority status in every single respect. I was white, I was female and I was heterosexual, and I was born into what was called then the one true faith. I was born into the Catholic Church. Um, and I said that what concerned me at the time was that some representatives of that church had essentially asked me to set aside one of the principles that stands for and one of [01:16:00] the values it taught me. And that was the one that affirms committed, faithful, loving relationships between two people who wish to share their lives together. Mr. Speaker, I stand by those values, and that's why I stood by the civil Union legislation. That's why I stand by this marriage amendment tonight. And that's why I believe that the people who want to, um, who have opposed this bill actually speak to those values in exactly the same way. [01:16:30] Um that we did, uh, back then. And I hope that this house can see its way clear to seeing the passage of this legislation and for today and the rest of the passage of this bill to go down in history as a day that we stood proudly for human rights. The honourable to he. Mr Speaker, Thank you, uh, for recognising me, uh, the eighth time. [01:17:00] Um, you know, there's nothing quite like an idea whose time has come, Mr. Speaker, There's nothing quite like an MP, uh, with an idea whose time has come. And I want to say all power to my colleague uh, Louisa Wall. Mr. Speaker, I won't take too much, uh, of the house's time. And I know there's a few people across [01:17:30] the way, and even in my own party, that will be, um, silently clapping. But what I what I despise most of all about the process that we are going through tonight or what I'm going through is the blatant gerrymandering of of of the of a process. And I want to say to my party, uh, that I am appalled by that behaviour. I am appalled [01:18:00] at, uh, some of the behaviour that I've seen tonight in the out right outright. Um, not telling the truth, Mr Speaker, When? When Somebody, uh when something like this comes before the house, Um, a person has to ask themselves How does it impact on them? How does the decision that the house makes, uh, impact on myself, my wife and my family? [01:18:30] And the funny thing is, sir, is that most legislation impacts on you somehow. This, on the other hand, doesn't impact me one little bit. It doesn't affect me. It doesn't hurt me. It doesn't help me. It it has nothing to do with me. It has nothing to do with my sanity. With my lack of sanity with my happiness, with [01:19:00] my lack of happiness, it has everything to do with other people's sanity, everything to do with other people's happiness, everything to do with how they choose to run their lives. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Um, II I I'm I'm remiss, and And I was a bit angry at the beginning, just a wee bit. But this is this, [01:19:30] um this this speech, uh, this speech, Uh, I dedicate this speech not only to, uh, my my very dear colleague, uh, Louisa Wall, but to my cousin, uh who three or four weeks ago, passed away to Catherine. He my first cousin. Um and so I was remiss in in in not saying her name. The other question that that I like to ask myself when legislation [01:20:00] is brought to the house is the sky going to fall in, and, um, got to say that it ain't going to fall in. And tomorrow the sun actually said it might not be a good um, uh uh, thing to say, because there's a drought. But the sun's gonna come up again tomorrow. Um, and rain is on the way, but not because of this. Right. Uh, I, [01:20:30] I do wanna have a a free shot at I. I wanna I want to um uh, make mention of the referendum issue, Uh, that my, uh, former, um leader, Colleague, Uh, party mate. Bench mate. Um, brother and arm. Um, why don't you say this to New Zealand [01:21:00] first? That they are the only party in this in this house that steadfastly, uh uh believes in the issue of referendum. And I take my hat off to New Zealand first for having that position through throughout the years. If it was one thing that they have been consistent on, it is the issue of a referendum. But now I turn my, uh, little wee guns [01:21:30] on those who have conveniently, uh, found the issue, uh, of a referendum, those that have suddenly become revolutionary in the issue of a referendum. And if the resolute in their determination to push the idea of a referendum if that if I was to believe them, then why aren't we having a referendum [01:22:00] on asset sales? Why aren't we having a referendum on all sorts and all manner of things? So to my colleagues who I think and and who I, uh, hold dear to my heart, including Mr Bennett, who has tried who has tried vigorously all day to get me to support a referendum. I say to Mr Bennett, it's a bit late, brother, [01:22:30] to be thinking about a referendum. It's a bit late. And quite frankly, it is wrong to think that you can govern a country through the referendum through the referendum. Uh, issue, Mr Speaker, it won't work. It has never worked. And Mr Speaker and Mr Speaker, I don't support it. Uh, one of the final things I want to say, Mr Speaker, if the institution Oh, well, the So-called institution of marriage [01:23:00] was so sacrosanct, Mr Speaker. Then why are there so many people opting out of marriages? Why are there so many divorces, Mr Speaker? Now, I'm not a I'm not a an expert on marriage. I've only been married for just over 365 days, Mr Speaker. But what I do know, what I do know is that why can't we offer the same opportunities [01:23:30] to everybody rather than only a few people in our nation? Mr. Speaker, Uh, I I've got to say that. And I suppose I should quote, um, Doctor Paul Hutchison. Uh, when he said in the first reading of the speech of the bill, uh, that he can't find any good reason to vote against it. And I, too, am like that, Mr Speaker, [01:24:00] and I think that everybody should be like Doctor Paul Hutchison and think very seriously and have a look at it and say they can't They can't find any good reason to vote against this piece of legislation. Uh, Mr Speaker, I commend, uh, this bill to the house, and, um, I commend my colleague Louisa Wall. [01:24:30] Jan Logie. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm proud to stand here today, um, as a green voice in support of, um, my impressive colleague Louisa Wall's bill for marriage equality. Um, the Green Party is voting on block in support of this bill because for us, it's a human rights issue and there's no matter of conscience when it comes [01:25:00] to rights and equality under the law and for us, Even if the majority of New Zealand was opposed to this bill, we would still support it because we understand that human rights exist to protect the minority from the majority. And that is what this bill does. I'd like to acknowledge my colleague Kevin Hague, [01:25:30] Um, who has worked so hard for us on behalf of the greens and this and to everyone else who sat on the select committee. I know that hearing the stories of pain and injury caused by discrimination can be really hard. So I honour you for that work. Um and I'd like to then acknowledge everyone and many of you I know are here tonight who shared your personal stories with the committee in this house and this process [01:26:00] to help us make the right decision tonight. I really hope that your stories guide our votes. And I hope that for the really beautiful young queer people, some of whom I also know are here tonight that I met, um, a few months ago, who told me that they would cry if Parliament ever had a queer straight alliance? I hope they are gonna cry tonight because I hope this is gonna be an example of a queer [01:26:30] straight alliance standing up for all of our rights. And so far I've been so encouraged by how much progress we've made in this debate and to see that seven years on from the debate around civil unions that eight out of nine political party leaders are supporting this bill. I do believe as a country we are making progress. One of the reasons I support this bill is for my mom and [01:27:00] dad that when I came out, my parents really struggled. They didn't and they don't live in the lovely liberal bubble that I do in Wellington. They don't have my beautiful community to tell them that my identity and by association, they and their identity is OK and they've worried. They've worried for me and they've at times, [01:27:30] I believe, worried how people would judge them. So I want my parents to know that society has moved on and that there's less chance now that I or they will be judged for my sexuality. But most importantly, I think for me I want those people who have been bullying our queer young, our young, queer and trans people to know that as a society we've [01:28:00] ended legal discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and we've taken one more step towards ending discrimination on the basis of gender identity. We have moved on and they are now well and truly out of step. While I've got no desire to marry. Even if someone was asking, I do want the possibility for my friends and others who want to. [01:28:30] I want to see that equality in our law civil unions are not equality. People who aren't told they can't do it can't tell us they are a. That's a quality. They are a compromise. They tell us and the rest of society that there's something intrinsically different about our emotions and our relationships. And while I absolutely celebrate difference [01:29:00] even after reading all the submissions and all the emails that tell me otherwise, I still do not believe that our love is essentially different. The day before the first reading, a friend celebrated five years together with her partner shares a part a house with her partner. They parent a child. Together, they share their lives together. That day they marched for marriage equality together because their [01:29:30] relationship is just as valid as any heterosexual couples. And while I definitely believe that that's true, without this law, I want them to know that this parliament also thinks that's true. I want them to be assured that we see their relationship as intrinsically the same as that between a loving man and woman. I want them and their little one [01:30:00] to know that this society does not discriminate on the basis of sexuality in one day entirely not on gender identity. And I want someone who is married and then transitions and their gender to the some and stays and is then married to somebody of the same gender, not to have to divorce their partner as they do now. And I want heterosexual [01:30:30] friends like my colleague Holly Walker, to be able to marry in good conscience, knowing her gay friends can, too, if that's what she wants to do. Marriage has changed over time, mostly for the better. And now it just needs this change to reflect our current social norm. I'm pleased the Greens and so many of us in this parliament recognise this issue for what it is. [01:31:00] An issue of rights and an opportunity to legislate for the possibility of a society without discrimination. The honourable cheers borrows. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to stand in the house and speak in this debate, and I want to congratulate members from right across the house for the way in which they have conducted this debate from the moment the bill was [01:31:30] introduced or even discussed right through the select committee process. And unfortunately, I wasn't part of that select committee process. But, um, all reports are that those people on that, uh, committee conducted themselves very well. I think it's a real shame that people in on different sides of this debate outside the chamber don't think those of us who think differently from others within the house hate enough. The fact is that all [01:32:00] of us can respect the views of those who are in here and making speeches tonight. And I find myself in the situation where I agree with so many speakers who are speaking both in the same way for the way I intend to vote. And those speaking against I do agree, for instance, with the last speaker, Jan, that all relationships should be treated in exactly the same way, whether they be a heterosexual marriage or whether they be a civil union [01:32:30] between heterosexual couples or gay couples or long term de facto relationships between heterosexual couples or gay couples. I believe that the fundamental issue here is the equality of of long term relationships and the status they have before the law. And I believe that that is the issue that we should have the courage to debate tonight. And I don't believe that by changing the definition of marriage to one to include gay couples [01:33:00] is the way to do it. I believe that that is, um, a way a a um uh A different way of trying to achieve the main objective, which is to achieve that legal status. Um, I find it abhorrent the way that various groups have acted throughout the course of this debate. Um, as a, uh, a Christian, a conservative Christian, I find it abhorrent the way that Christians have entered into this debate, the threatening [01:33:30] nature with which they have emailed colleagues. And I know colleagues who have, um, set out thinking they vote against this bill and change their mind because of the way they have been treated by Christians supposedly worshipping in their daily lives and witness a loving god. And if they profess to worship that God It's a different God that I worship and that I believe in because they have shown nothing of that love that all [01:34:00] encompassing love, um, in the way that they have conducted themselves within this debate. And it is unfortunate that in every debate where fundamentalist Christians get involved in lobbying one side or another, um, they always bring out the worst and seek to have those people who don't hold to our faith to shove us into a pigeon hole that would brand us all in the same way. And I think that is despicable for people of faith to, um, to [01:34:30] behave. My fundamental, um, concern with this bill is, as I stated earlier, it seeks to redefine marriage as something other than a heterosexual institution, which it has always been, albeit the odd. The odd exception, Uh, when some Greek wanted to marry, um, his man servant and no doubt, somewhere back in history, someone wanted to marry um, some other creature from other species. It doesn't mean, for instance, um, that [01:35:00] that, uh, detracts from that fundamental definition of what marriage is. Uh, marriage does not belong to Christianity. It doesn't belong to any, uh, religion. or ethnicity. Uh, it has been there since time and memorial, and it has always been, uh, rela relative to a heterosexual couple. I don't believe that changing that definition addresses the fundamental issues. Um, which are about [01:35:30] the equality of long term relationships before the law. And if, for instance, it is directed at, um the, uh, the prejudice within the adoption act, which is brought about by that definition of marriage, Then I need to state right here that I would vote for, um for that change, uh, in the adoption law, because I believe the overriding principle is what is in the best interests of Children. And so I think this house needs to have the courage to [01:36:00] define clearly what the issue is and to have that debate, no matter how unpopular that may be. Or no matter how much trouble we may well get into, I also want to just, um, acknowledge, too. Uh, a number of comments that members around the house has made, and that is how far we have come. And I know within my own experience how far I have come in relation to, uh, these issues and, um, my and And that is [01:36:30] about that circle of friends I acknowledge again Jan Loy, who talked about the liberal bubble that she lives in. The wider you, our experience within, uh or the wider the circle of friends. Then no doubt that brings in contact as it has to me, a number of gay friends and gay relatives that I, um, have love and treasure the friendship of and consider it a privilege to be part of their lives. And I have also experienced the prejudice that those people have experienced within the communities. Um, and, [01:37:00] uh, one particular cousin of mine, um, an exclusive brethren person who, having come out, has had to leave the faith. Um, and his family and his, um, his acknowledgement of his, um, status has meant that he has lost absolutely everything. And thankfully, he has been welcomed by a loving and caring gay community and an understanding heterosexual community. And, um, and I believe that is a good thing. Um, I want [01:37:30] to just, uh, finish off with, um, another point. And and that is this. That I think that, um, or the the comment that, um, made the honourable made in respect of decisions that we make, not affecting us. Um, the fact is that we are here making decisions that will affect the lives of others, and maybe they will affect us as well. Uh, I don't accept, uh, any suggestion, for instance, that, um, a gay couple being allowed to be married [01:38:00] is going to affect my, uh, 34 year marriage to Ella in the same way as my good friend Chris Oval doesn't see that it would affect his. That isn't the point. The point is that what we have is a group of people who will be affected by their fundamental beliefs in the fact that they see marriage as a heterosexual institution. By changing that, they will be affected in that way. And by enhancing the the the, uh, view of those who see it differently, [01:38:30] you automatically suppress those views. And I would have thought that people who had, um, lived under oppressive the oppressive, wrongly, oppressive, um, regime for so long would have understood that, and we could have found another way about it. I want to finish now because I recognise that time is short by once again restating that I think that this Parliament has conducted itself, um, with exceptional and integrity. And the population of New Zealand, no matter how they would vote on this issue, should recognise that the the fact that we can debate [01:39:00] strongly different points of view here, but acknowledge that they are different points of view. They are not lesser. Uh uh. They are not greater. They are just different. And the more that the public of New Zealand looking at this chamber recognise that the better we will all be. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Uh, the debate has now concluded the debate has now concluded, Uh, I, I wish to acquaint members with the process from here on because [01:39:30] we are, to some extent breaking new ground, we are now going to enter into the voting. But before I do that, I want to just read, uh, standing order 294. At the conclusion of the debate on the second reading of the bill, the speaker puts a question in the amendments recommended by the committee by majority. Um, therefore, I'm going to put whatever votes that we now have ahead of us, which may take us past 10 o'clock. It's standing order 294. So the first vote will be on the amendments [01:40:00] that the committee recommended. Uh, we will then go to the amendment in the name of Winston Peters and subsequently follow a process after that, Um, if, uh, I'll call the votes on the voices first when we get to the amendment, if a personal vote is required If there is a division, um, members should indicate, Uh, can I just say to the gallery you have been well behaved. I just asked for some decorum Why we do this voting. Thank you very much. The question is [01:40:30] that the amendments recorded by the government administration committee by majority be agreed to those of that opinion will say a contrary. No, the eyes have it. Party vote. It's a personal vote for the amendments. So members are calling a personal vote a personal vote. Yes, yes. No. I clearly heard personal vote call for I offered [01:41:00] a party vote and a personal vote was called for. So, uh, a personal vote will be held. Ring the bells, the eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. Tell us for the eyes will be Trevor Mallard. Eyes, uh, tell her for the nose will be a Tell her for the nose. Colonel [01:41:30] Bucky. Abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. And proxy votes must be marked as such. Yeah, time Their abstinence is right. The results. The eyes are 66. The nos are 21 and the abstentions [01:42:00] are two. Therefore, the motion from the Select Committee amendments is agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. The next question is the amendment in the name of the right honourable Winston Peters, which is in order. So the question is that a referendum be held at the time of the next general election to decide whether the marriage Act 1955 should be amended to recognise marriage [01:42:30] between two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. Those of that opinion will say I con no personal vote. A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells, the eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. The teller for the eyes will be [01:43:00] Louise Upson. Tell her for the nose will be Trevor Ma the honourable Trevor Mallard He wins. Is it no done? [01:43:30] And the eyes are 33. The nos are 83. The amendment is not agreed to unlock the doors, Unlock the doors. Pull up. We come now to the vote on the second reading. The question is that the motion be agreed to Those of that opinion will say I no, no, it's a personal vote. [01:44:00] A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells, eyes will go to the right nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. Tell her for the eyes will be honourable Trevor Mallard. Tell us for the nose, Louise. Ups abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. Proxy votes must be marked as such [01:44:30] nearly there. Yeah, there are a couple of procedural things that have to be done After I declare the votes. I just ask members to contain their salutations, et cetera or grief stricken calls. Whatever. So the eyes are 77. The nos are 44. The motion [01:45:00] is agreed to unlock the door. Unlock the doors. Unlock order. Has the clerk announced? I didn't hear you. Could you do it again? Please? Marriage [01:45:30] definition of Marriage Amendment Bill Second, reading This, uh, this bill has sit down for committee Sage next sitting day. It only remains for me to say that the house will stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening, everybody.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags