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.
I call on members Order of the day Number two, Marriage Definition of Marriage Amendment Bill Third reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the marriage definition of marriage Amendment Bill be now read a third time, Mr Speaker, My observation and my time in the house has been that there are a few occasions when the public gallery is full [00:00:30] to overflowing. This bill has seen a full gallery at the 1st and 2nd readings and again tonight. My only other experience of that has been treaty settlement legislation recording the agreement reached between Maori and the Crown. In both instances, the parties affected are a minority group who've been marginalised. They've been dealt with unjustly under the law and steps are being taken to right the wrongs they've suffered. And it shows me that this process [00:01:00] matters. Having parliament recognise and address injustices and unfairness matters to those affected by it. It's the start of the healing process. This third reading is our road towards healing and including all citizens in our state institution of marriage, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. While our focus has been on a it's important to remember we are one country. That's part of a global community [00:01:30] discussing marriage equality. 12 countries have already been through this process. The US president has declared his support unequivocally. The queen has recently signed a Commonwealth charter that explicitly opposes all forms of discrimination, which she describes as emphasising inclusiveness. The UK, led by their prime minister, has introduced legislation. But marriage equality is only one issue. There's still a lot of work to be done [00:02:00] to address discrimination against our LGBTI communities. Closer to home, many of our Pacific neighbours still criminalise homosexuality. So too, in countries of our new migrant communities, we need to understand these heritage identities and how they contribute to this debate. As the indigenous people of a we can acknowledge that have always been part of our history and culture. And that is the case for [00:02:30] many indigenous people around the world. And man are words that go back in time to identify LGBTI. They are part of our Pacific heritage and need to be acknowledged, and we need to learn from history. Marriage laws have continually been used as a tool of oppression. The Nuremberg laws in 1935 prohibited marriage between German nationals and Jews. [00:03:00] The South African Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act prohibited marriage and sexual contact between races until it was repealed in 1985. 40 US states prohibited interracial marriage. Women lost all property rights and their identity on marriage. Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. There's no justification for the prohibition of the past based on religion, race or gender. [00:03:30] Today we're embarrassed and appalled by these examples, and in every instance it was action by the state. This is not about church teachings or philosophy. It never has been. It's about the state, excluding people from the institution of marriage, because of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. And that's no different from the actions taken in these historical examples. Principles of justice and equality aren't served if [00:04:00] the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only in the landmark Ontario decision, Justice La wrote, and I quote any alternative status that nonetheless provides for the same financial benefits as marriage in and of itself amounts to segregation. This case is about access to a deeply meaningful social institution. It is about equal participation in the activity, expression, security and integrity [00:04:30] of marriage. Any alternative to marriage, in my opinion, simply offers the insult to a formal equivalency without the promise of substantive equality. Ever since Brown versus Board of Education in 1954 the separate but equal doctrine has been seen as segregation. And contrary to achieving equality, I want to emphasise again what this bill does not do. It doesn't criminalise criminal. It doesn't legalise criminal offences. [00:05:00] In fact, it's clear the definition proposed in this amendment is a union of two people only. It doesn't force any minister or celebrant to marry a couple against their wishes. Section 29 remains in force and has been strengthened by the Select Committee amendment, and it doesn't change adoption laws. Gay couples have adopted Children for many years, but the law hasn't recognised that parenting reality. Children of same sex relationships [00:05:30] haven't been allowed to have both parents names on their birth certificate. The injustice and pain of this was made clear by an email I received, and I'm able to share it with the house, it reads. My partner and I had been together for seven years when we decided to start a family. When our daughter was born, my partner's name was on her birth certificate as her birth mother. When our daughter was 13, my partner was diagnosed with terminal cancer. We talked [00:06:00] to our solicitor and found out that the only way I could adopt our daughter was if the relationship with her mom was legally terminated. How could we possibly do that to a child who was faced with her mom dying? Instead, I applied for and was granted guardianship. When my daughter turned 18, the guardianship expired. It was only when my own parents died that it struck home with me that my daughter and I had no legal relationship despite despite me, having [00:06:30] been her parent all her life, we talked it over, and I applied to adopt her. Fortunately, all this happened before she turned 20 because I believe it might have been too late. It was the right thing to do, but still hard on her. She gets a new birth certificate and her mom legally no longer exists. This is just so ridiculous and so wrong. If your bill had been law when my partner was still alive, then we could have married and our daughter would [00:07:00] have both her parents recorded as such. Under this bill, both women could have been spouses and recorded on their daughter's birth certificate. Without this bill, that's a privilege limited to heterosexual married couples. Only in our society the meaning of marriage is universal. It's a declaration of love and commitment to a special person law that allows all people to enjoy that state is the right thing to do. Law that prohibits people from enjoying [00:07:30] that state is just wrong. Those who celebrate religious or cultural marriage are absolutely unaffected by this bill that has never been part of the state's marriage law, and it never should be. There's another similarity between this bill and treaty settlement legislation, the quality and tone of the debate within this house. I believe that's the result of our effective cross-party working group With and Kevin Hague. Conrad Rayner, [00:08:00] national spokesperson for the Campaign for Marriage Equality, was also involved, and with Cameron, Jackie, Tony, Natalie, Curt and Andrew have kept the issue alive and relevant. I'm also grateful to Megan Campbell, Sean Wallace and David Far for their support and work with MP and for helping coordinate this activity I would also like to acknowledge the leadership across the house from the prime minister who expressed his support early on, as did the leader of the Labour Party, David [00:08:30] Shearer, and we have seen leadership by John Banks, Peter Dunn, Peter and I also acknowledge the Greens, who from the outset have taken a supportive position as a party for them. It was not a conscience vote, but a manifesto commitment. There are many individuals and groups within our communities and churches who have continually addressed the facts and made it real. I particularly thank the youth wings of all political parties and student unions around the country. The messages [00:09:00] have remained positive. I'm very proud to be a member of a community that has stood up to be counted with such dignity and reason, a personal thanks to everyone who has contacted me by email through Facebook, particularly Craig Young and those in the community offering support and often just saying thanks And finally and to my darling crew, thank you for your work and sharing this journey with me. Nothing can counteract [00:09:30] the very real negative consequences of not passing this bill, but nothing could make me more proud to be a New Zealander than passing this bill. It's an honour to represent your country and the people of New Zealand. I'm proud to be a member of this 50th parliament that will continue New Zealand's proud human rights tradition. I thank my colleagues for simply doing what is fair just and right. [00:10:00] Yeah, Order, Order! The question is the motion be agreed to before I call the next speaker? I am aware that a number [00:10:30] of speakers have arranged to have split calls. I just ask that that be revealed to the speaker as the call is taken. Initially, the honourable Morris Williamson speaker, I, too, will be taking a split call with my colleague Jamie Lee Ross as sort of the young and the vibrant versus the old and the boring. And, Sir, And you? Yeah, and and members of the house will be forced to choose which one is which. Sir, Sir, I want to first of all, congratulate Lesa Wall for this bill. And I wanna say, sir, that the good news about [00:11:00] the years in this Parliament is you learn to deflect all of the dreadful er sort of fire and brimstone accusations that are going to happen. Sir, I've had a reverend in my local electorate Court. The gay onslaught will start the day after this bill is passed. And so we are really struggling to know what the gay onslaught will look like. We don't know if it'll come down the Paara highway as a series of troops or whether it will be a gas that flows in over the electorate and locks us all in [00:11:30] I. I also sir, had a Catholic priest tell me that I was supporting an unnatural act. I found that quite interesting coming from someone who's taken an oath of celibacy for his whole life. I always have celibacy, OK, we'll go with celibacy. OK, I, I haven't done it, so I don't know what it's about. I also had a letter telling me I would burn in the fires of hell for eternity. And that was a bad mistake because I've got a degree in physics. I use the thermodynamic laws of, [00:12:00] uh, of physics. I put in my body weight and my, uh, humidity and so on. I assumed the furnace to be at 5000 degrees and I will last for just on 2.1 seconds. It's hardly eternity. What do you think? And some more disgusting claims about what adoption would be. Well, sir, I've got three fantastic adopted kids. I know how good adoption is, and I found some of it just disgraceful. I found some of the bullying tactics really evil. And, sir, I gave up being scared of bullies when I was at primary school. However, a huge amount of the opposition [00:12:30] was from moderates from people who were concerned who were seriously worried what this might do to the fabric of our society. I respect their concern. I respect their worry. They were worried about what it might do to their families and so on. Let me repeat to them. Now, sir, all we are doing with this bill is allowing two people who love each other to have that love recognised by way of marriage. That is all we are doing. We are not declaring [00:13:00] nuclear war on a foreign state. We are not bringing a virus in that could wipe out our agriculture sector forever. We are allowing two people who love each other to have that recognised. And I can't see what's wrong with that for love nor money, sir, I just cannot. I cannot understand why someone would be opposed. I understand why people don't like what it is that others do. That's fine. We're all in that category. But I give a promise to those people who are opposed to this bill. Right now, I give you a watertight guaranteed [00:13:30] promise. The sun will still rise tomorrow. Your teenage daughter will still argue back with you as if she knows everything. Your mortgage will not grow. You will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in your bed, sir, The world will just carry on. So don't make this into a big deal. This is fantastic for the people it affects. But for the rest of us, life will go on. And finally, can I say, sir? One of the messages I had was that this bill [00:14:00] was the cause of our drought. This bill was the cause of our drought. Well, if any of you follow my Twitter account, you will see that in the Packera electorate. This morning it was pouring with rain. We have the most enormous big gay rainbow across my electorate. It has to be a sign, sir. It has to be a sign. If you're a believer, it's certainly a sign. And can I finish for all those who are concerned about this with a quote from the [00:14:30] Bible? It's Deuteronomy. I thought Deuteronomy was a cat out of cats. But never mind. It's Deuteronomy. Chapter one, Verse 29 BY not afraid. Jamie Lee Ross. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague Maurice Williamson for allowing me to share his time. Uh, with me, Mr Speaker. Tonight I'm voting for love, [00:15:00] for equality, opportunity and most of all, I'm voting for freedom. I'm voting tonight to give all New Zealanders the same opportunity that I had when I married my wife. The freedom to marry the person I love. A very simple concept, but one that's been denied to so many people for so long. We're all fortunate that we sit in this House of Representatives and a democracy that values individual freedoms and individual rights. A democracy [00:15:30] that values New Zealanders, having the ability to determine for themselves what they do with their own life. Many arguments can be made both for and against same sex marriage. But when I was considering how I should vote on this issue. The question was never Why should same sex couples be allowed to marry? The question was always. Why on earth shouldn't they be allowed to marry? And it I can't explain, Mr Speaker, I can't explain why two [00:16:00] people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry because it just seems to me that we could deny two people the right to marry simply because they love someone that's of the same gender. I've yet to hear anyone put a forward a rational and a principle reason why it's necessary to deny someone the right to marry two people simply because of their sexual orientation. It's [00:16:30] wrong, Mr Speaker, recently on a local botany Facebook website, a constituent made the wise observation. Marriage is about love. Love between two men or two women is equal to the love of a man and a woman, and therefore they should have equal rights. And that's what it all boils down to. No one needs to be dismayed or disappointed because two loving people might soon be able to get married. No one needs [00:17:00] to feel threatened or saddened because something that's different and they're not used to might take place around them. The reality is that unless you're in a same sex relationship and considering getting married, you're not affected by this bill in any way at all. Nobody gets hurt when gay couples say they're married. But gay couples that do want to get married are harmed when they're arbitrarily stopped from doing so by the state [00:17:30] from expressing their love in the way that they want to. Mr Speaker, this also isn't an issue that should be a referendum issue. I don't fear a referendum in any way. I simply don't believe it's right to determine an issue that only affects minorities by way of referendum. If that was the case, I doubt New Zealand would have given women the vote the right to vote when this country did. Nor would this country have legalised abortion when it did. Nor would this [00:18:00] country have decriminalised sex between two consenting males. When it did. Minority rights issues are not referendum issues. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly talk also about the question of Children because it's a common theme that some opponents have been raising. The prevailing wisdom seems to be that every child must have a mother and a father. I know it's a touchy subject, Uh, but there's one someone who actually grew [00:18:30] up without a mother and without a father. I think I'm somewhat qualified to speak on the issue. A child does need both male and female influences in their life, but those influences don't necessarily have to come from their biological parents. What's most important is that a child is raised in a loving and caring environment. What's most important is that the people that are raising that child give them a home [00:19:00] that's safe. That's warm, educating and nurturing. If that environment just so happens to be a same sex marriage, then that child is just as fortunate as every other loved for and cared for. Child. Mr. Speaker, the time for this legislation has come. The author of the Bill Lewis Wall, the Select Committee, I believe, have arrived at a sensible point, a sensible point where marriage equality will soon be extended to all New Zealanders [00:19:30] in a way that in no way impacts on the rights and freedoms of anyone else. Tonight, Parliament is doing absolutely the right thing, and I wholeheartedly commend this bill to the house. I call on Grant Robertson. Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 1977 Harvey Milk was elected as the first openly [00:20:00] gay city councillor in the United States. It was a landmark moment in the representation of minorities in politics. Tragically, Harvey Milk was assassinated by a fellow councillor. Just 11 months later, he was a strong advocate for the rights of gay people, but also for all minorities. And before his death, he spoke of the importance of him being elected because it gave hope to young gay people that there was a better tomorrow for them compared to the discrimination [00:20:30] and bullying that they were getting in their home towns. He noted that this hope wasn't just important. If you were gay, it was important if you were poor or black or disabled or old, as he put it. Quote, I know that you cannot live on hope alone, But without it, life is not worth living, and you and you and you you got to give them hope. And he told the story of the young gay man from Altoona, [00:21:00] Pennsylvania, who rang him after he was elected simply to say thanks for what he was doing. Well, Mr Speaker, in New Zealand in 1986 there was a 14 year old young man sitting in Dunedin who read the newspaper about the law to decriminalise homosexuality. And he cut out of the newspaper the names of those who voted for and those who voted against the homosexual law reform bill. And that gave him me hope that maybe his [00:21:30] life would be all right. There were 49 people in favour of the law that day to Annette King, Phil Goff, Trevor Mallard and Peter Dunn, who are still here today. Thank you for giving me that hope. Interestingly, there were 44 votes against that day as well. The good news is that today there are a lot more MP S in Parliament than they were back then. And I want to thank MP S from all the parties who are voting in support of this legislation [00:22:00] today. This is a true M MP conscience vote. It has made for some unlikely political bedfellows. Note the word political in there. I want to pay. I want to pay tribute to To and Jamie Lee Ross in particular. It's quite likely That is the only time I would ever say that sentence. So I'll say it again. I want to particularly pay tribute to To Hire and Jamie Lee Ross in particular, and all members of the cross party working group. All members from around this house who [00:22:30] are supporting this bill are doing the right thing. I also want to pay tribute to the campaign for marriage, equality, legalised love and the thousands of others who have got us to this point today, as it was then, in 1986 with homosexual law reform and again with in 2003 with civil unions. It is a labour MP that is moving this important social change. And today I can graduate Lesa. There is no doubt that we can all see how it is that Lesa made it to the top on the sporting field. Straight up the guts [00:23:00] determination. One of the many, many emails that MP S got in the early stages of this bill was from a person bemoaning what would happen if the bill passed. After several paragraphs, he reached his triumphant point and who will teach the Children about rugby and netball? I think we might have that one covered Lou, eh, Mr Speaker, I am proud that this bill has been promoted by a labour MP and supported by the vast majority of our caucus because fundamentally, it's about [00:23:30] labour values, fairness, justice and community. At its heart. This bill is about family and strengthening families. There are few parents who don't think about their Children's weddings. They are social occasions that mark a change in the relationship of parents and their Children. They can make a dent in the bank balance, but they are pivotal moments. The importance of this bill to strengthening families was beautifully articulated in the submission made by Angus Hodgson to the select committee, and I'll quote him briefly. [00:24:00] This bill means that my parents can support all four of their sons if we marry the person we love and who loves us not three out of four, my parents have four sons. They love us equally. Likewise, this house should demonstrate an equal love for its public, too. Angus went on. My mother once told me that she doesn't have any criteria for the people her sons might fall in love with. She would welcome any person into her home if they love her son, too. That [00:24:30] was an incredibly powerful message for me to receive. So, Mr Speaker, when this bill passes, it will be a victory for families. Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly mention those people who brought us civil unions. They were an important step towards fairness and equality. They gave recognition to relationships, an alternative to the institution of marriage and equal rights under almost every law. I'm proud to have been part of that campaign and I salute the hard work that went into it. I want to particularly recognise lean D David Benson, [00:25:00] Pope Tim Barnett and Catherine Rich and others for their their work in that bill. Today we take further steps towards equality and that value of equality is a fundamental value for me and for the Labour Party. We believe that we are all born equal and that is our job to ensure that equality exists in this world. It is the same value of equality that underlies this bill that also motivates me and labour to fight every day for the 270,000 New Zealand Children who live [00:25:30] in poverty. It's the same value that says that allowing someone to be paid $13.75 an hour to look after our grandparents is morally wrong. It is the same value that says that every person, no matter who they are or where they were born, has a right to an education that will allow them to achieve their potential equality. A fair go for everyone is at the heart of labour values and the heart of this bill. This bill is also about inclusion. Quite simply, Mr Speaker, [00:26:00] we will not succeed as a country or society. If we continually find reasons to exclude people, the only place that takes us is division and hatred. Why on earth would we want to stop a couple who love each other who want to make a commitment to one another from doing that? Why would we want to exclude some people from a cherished social institution? As David said in his moving and eloquent submission to the select committee, This is an issue for people [00:26:30] of all ethnic backgrounds. This is what he said, speaking as an Asian New Zealander. It might be easy to think that in this debate, Europeans are the only ones who want marriage equality and Asians and Pacific Islanders don't. I just can't accept that. I know it's not true and it goes against our history and the values we are proud of as New Zealanders, David went on. There are many Asian New Zealanders right now who feel trapped because of issues with their culture, religion, upbringing or family circumstances [00:27:00] along with their sexual orientation. It can be an incredibly difficult situation to be in, but this parliament can help change that. Tonight we take further steps steps towards the inclusive society that New Zealand can and should be. Mr Speaker, this legislation makes us a better country. Many supporters of the bill have stressed that in the end this is Bill is about love and that's not a topic that politicians get to talk about very often. Former Labour Prime Minister Norman used [00:27:30] to say that New Zealanders wanted a job, a place to live, someone to love and something to hope for. Well, we can't guarantee you someone to love, but I think we're putting the right incentives in place. Mr Speaker, as we have seen with previous advances in the recognition of the rights of New Zealanders. There have been shrieks and howls about how society will end when women got the vote when homosexuality was decriminalised. And in the end, as Morris Williamson has eloquently told us, the sky has [00:28:00] not fallen in. I respect the right of people to hold different views on this legislation. People with religious beliefs have continued to have the freedom to exercise those that should continue and it will. Nothing about this legislative decision would affect anyone else's marriage. Husbands will still call their wives their wife and vice versa. And I'll let you all in on a secret. We've all been calling our partners husbands for years. Normally, it's when I'm being told off. Mr Speaker, [00:28:30] I want to pay tribute to the thousands of New Zealanders who have worked to get support for this bill. It has energised and politicised many people. At an event in Auckland last weekend, a straight pakeha woman in her thirties said she made her first ever submission to parliament in favour of this bill. Tonight is a victory for those people, their friends and their families. But for all the victories that there are to celebrate when this bill passes the victory for families, for Fairness, for equality, for inclusion, for commitment and for love. [00:29:00] There is, to my mind, a greater win if there is a 14 year old young man in Dunedin who's watching this like I did 27 years ago, and he's wondering how he'll cope with being a bit different from his mates. And he's gonna struggle a bit over the next few years. Today goes some way to fulfilling Harvey Milk's plea. This bill is not going to solve all problems. It's not gonna prevent him from being discriminated against. It's not going to prevent him from getting hurt. But it will do something of huge value [00:29:30] because what we will do in this house tonight is that we will give him some hope. Because Mr Speaker, Tonight, hope has one. No, it's not order. Right? Honourable Winston Peters. Uh, Mr Speaker, New Zealand first [00:30:00] believes in the use of a public referendum, and we have for a long time in 9 97 some would recall that we put a referendum to New Zealand voters on a savings regime similar to Australia or Singapore. Sadly, it was voted down 16 years later, we are broke and in the clutches of foreign banks and foreign money. We could have just rammed a bill through Parliament, but we went and took it to the people. [00:30:30] And those are our bona fides on the issue of a referendum. We spent the better year debating this wall's bill, and, sadly, the public are not. Not much the wiser for it. In fact, there's hardly been a debate. What we've heard is a small yet vocal minority telling the rest of New Zealanders that there is a law change that everyone wants, and anyone who disagrees has got to be a bigot. Then, on the other side [00:31:00] of the so-called debate, we've got those who would like to see the state police and the state police themselves police morality in the bedroom. The truth is that most New Zealanders sit somewhere in the middle. That might be tawdry and uncomfortable, but it's the way our society works. Some support, the change. Others do not. But their reasons for supporting or opposing it are never as sensationalist or extreme [00:31:30] as some on either side would have us believe. No one really knows what side the majority of the public opinion sits on some claim, as M and her supporters have, that there is a huge groundswell for change. Well, is that true? And if so, how do we know? As far as we're aware, the issue never came up at any of the meetings that we held in the three years out from the last election. Nobody lobbied us. [00:32:00] No journalist called to us where we sat on the issue. There was no word spoken on the campaign trail about same sex marriage whatsoever. Now that's not the issue, and Miss Wall has every right to present and draught a bill and present it to this house. But a lot of the bile in this issue would not be present. Had the process been different, it came upon us the spill out of the blue, the manner [00:32:30] of this bill's emergence, the process to which it got and by which it got before Parliament needs to be publicised. It is why many fair minded Kiwis feel confused that confused because MM Wall and his supporters have not told them how it happened. Why didn't they upfront go to the last election on the campaign? Say we will introduce [00:33:00] same sex marriage. Instead of using some woolly language like and I quote, we will review relationship and property law unquote who up in the gallery thinks that that's what they wanted. The only explanation has to be that they were afraid. They were afraid that their party supporters might not like it and we can make all the pretentious, glorious statements tonight. But in the end, it's what the people think. [00:33:30] In fact, Ms Wall, sad to say, wasn't even upfront with her own party. The normal process in the Labour Party is for members. I'm coming on with the facts. Here is for members' bills to be taken to the Labour's whip's office for the Labour whip to lodge after it is approved by the Labour Caucus. The bill, that's the process every party follows and it has to be followed. It has to be followed because the system will not operate [00:34:00] without it. But Miss Wall didn't it is a fact make all the statements they like now. But the first Labour leader's office knew was seeing it on the list of bills lodged and that's a fact. So tell us, why wasn't the Labour whip off the caucus told first before the bill was lodged. I am getting it from the best of authority that that's what happened from [00:34:30] Yeah, after the event. That's true. After the event, Mr Speaker. Order. Order. Yes. So? So you were in the whip's office? No, you weren't. That's the fact. No, but my my evidence is that of somebody who was and suggests that the Labour Party was hijacked on this issue. Miss Wall, what do the people [00:35:00] of Mana think? What are the people out there in South Auckland at? I think well out of silence now. But this is about democracy and representation. Oh, and that is why so many Labour supporters are telling us they support our referendum stance because they feel they've never been asked that somehow they've been left out even more think that [00:35:30] somehow they have been cheated. This is supposed to be a democracy. This is supposed to be a place where the people's voice matters. This is supposed to be a parliament where one will be proud to face up to their caucus and say, I think this bill should come before Parliament. I know. No, no, I'm sorry. That is what they're saying now because they couldn't say anything else in the same ways that many national members over there who are going to vote for this bill know full [00:36:00] well that the so-called protection for religious dissidents where they are Celis or other or else wise is not in this legislation that if a church so deems someone's objection to be wrong, then that person could be punished. That's all they ask for. Is that too much for that to happen? That's why we call this house the House of Representatives, representing not ourselves but the people. And here we are as [00:36:30] a parliament about to circumvent any expression of public opinion yet again. Why do they think that if the public is asked, they might lose? I don't know. But I am prepared to trust the public. I don't wish to hear from polls. I want to know what the public exactly think on Campbell live tonight. I think the poll that they had as strange as it was, and I don't think it is remotely scientific it had 78% No, 22% [00:37:00] Yes, what say they're wrong by 20%? The question is what do the public think? And why are there so many people in this parliament prepared when it suits them to circumvent the public's will when all the violent venom of this issue could not have been in Parliament? Had we asked New Zealanders Well, what do you think? Shortly we go to ANZAC Day. It's about democracy, and it's about an inclusive [00:37:30] democracy that they were fighting, not just one vote every three years. And that's my point. We're prepared to respect as a party in New Zealand first, that we have many divergent party views within the party. We respect that. That is why we are prepared to all compromise and say, as one group, well, let's ask New Zealanders for after all, they should be the final arbiter. This is a rule not for us. It is a law for them. [00:38:00] We object to the people being taken for granted. We object to the view that we are here and we have temporary hold of the reins. And what Joe public what Joe public thinks is of no import whatsoever for those who wish to ignore this message. Then let me give this clear warning. There is a day of reckoning coming electorally The men of this vote tonight laugh now and cry later. The man of this vote tonight is a game shifter and [00:38:30] it'll be reflected in the next election results. There are some issues that dissipate, and there are some issues that stay around a long time all around New Zealand Tonight, in the next few days, people will be saying, Well, if that's the way they think that our view does not matter, then I will never, ever vote for them again. And if one looks at the huge social and economic issues this country presently faces and the desperate need for better solutions to them than some in the South would have seriously sacrificed their colleagues [00:39:00] and their party for a narrow, undemocratic, worthy or unworthy I don't know expression. And when the political wilderness years come, don't say you weren't warned. Order. But, uh, [00:39:30] I call the honourable speaker. Thank you. Uh, I will be splitting my call with, uh, the honourable Nicky Kay. Um, I did have a speech prepared, Um, but that, uh, speech shot it to bits. Here's the bona fides. Mr. Speaker, on the New Zealand first Referendum of 19 nineties. The National Party said no to a bill. That's why we went to [00:40:00] a referendum. And when we went to a referendum, 82% of the country said No Winston, we don't believe, uh in you anymore. That's what that's what it said. It never went through caucus. It never went through caucus. And that speech that I heard tonight, Mr Speaker, was the biggest shyer speech I've ever heard. Size the beat, Mr Speaker. [00:40:30] Yeah, I have a point of order from the right. Honourable Winston Peters. Mr. Speaker, you heard what the member said. He must have been looking in a mirror, but he must apologise. That's not a point of order. The Honourable is parliamentary. Sorry. Are you saying that the expression he used is parliamentary? Certainly not ruling it out as un parliamentary. The honourable speaker. Thank you. [00:41:00] Thank you, Mr Speaker. So it's OK for New Zealand first to have bills in the ballot. That's the democracy. But when Louisa Wall puts one in the door in the ballot Oh, that it's that's got to go to a referendum. How the hell is any country in the world supposed to operate on a system like that. Who decides whether it should be a referendum or not? Him? I hope not, Mr Speaker. I hope not, Mr Speaker. Because we'd [00:41:30] still be in the 18 eighties, Mr. Speaker, I feel sad that I was I feel sad that I was a member. And even as deputy leader of that man, Mr Speaker, I used to look up to him. But I tell you what, he that speech tonight is nothing more than pandering to the 10% on either side of this argument, Mr Speaker. Nothing more pandering to those racist redneck people that just love [00:42:00] to get on the email, Mr Speaker. And I wanna say I wanna say that I have been appalled with some of the behaviour of those for the bill and against the bill because I, for one, do not think that those that are against the bill are homophobic just because they're voting against it, it's their right to vote against it. And I will back my colleagues who vote against it all the way, Mr [00:42:30] Speaker, and I just I just don't agree with them and, um and they're gonna lose tonight. But however, um to quickly run through what I was gonna say. It's it's time the sky didn't and won't fall in. How does it affect me or anyone else in this house in this country? It doesn't. It just doesn't think about it for a minute. If if the If the institution of marriage was so [00:43:00] sacrosanct, then why the hell are so many people getting a divorce? And I don't say that in a facetious manner, Mr Speaker. If the if it if it does belong to the church as I've been told by so many people on the email, then why do we have legislation outlining who can and who can't? If there was no legislation, I would back the church 100%. But it's not theirs. It actually belongs to the government. It [00:43:30] actually belongs to this parliament. It is a creature now of Parliament. It's not a creature anymore of the either the Bible or the church. Mr. Mr Speaker. Lastly, I wanna say it's actually about the the equality of opportunity. All we are doing, we're not We're not forcing anybody to do anything. No way, shape or form. But what we are doing, Mr Speaker is offering people the opportunity [00:44:00] of equality. Now, they either take it or they don't. That's up to them. It's not up to me. Not up to any one of us. Uh, in this house, sir, I want to thank uh, my cousin, uh, Kath, uh, who unfortunately died some months ago. Uh, she would have been here, uh, yelling from the rooftops. And I seriously mean, she would have been yelling from the rooftops because that's what she was like. Um I, I hope she is finally proud of her cousin. [00:44:30] Um and I'm sure she was in other ways. Finally, Mr Speaker, A message to all LGBTI and I finally got that out. Um, my message to you all is welcome to the mainstream. Do well. Kilda, hold the honourable Nicky Kay. Mr. Speaker, [00:45:00] tonight I hope that we pass this bill so that same sex couples can finally marry in New Zealand. It is time that we pass this bill. It has been nearly 30 years since we passed the Homosexual Law Reform Act. Three decades later, 20,000 submissions 100 and 21 MP S tonight have the power to finally vote to give all [00:45:30] New Zealanders the freedom to marry the person they love. This change will be hugely positive for our country. There are so many stories that we have heard over the last six months of people desperate to marry of young people taking their lives because they have never been accepted of people in relationships for 30 years, desperate to have that properly recognised in law. This bill [00:46:00] is not just about equality and freedom for people to choose who they who they want to spend the rest of their life with. It's also fundamentally about human dignity, real acceptance and good old fashioned love for people who are currently married. We have already heard nothing will change. Weddings will still happen. They will still be expensive. There will still be honeymoons, cakes and stag dos dresses and rings and the odd [00:46:30] drunk uncle. But marriage is more than that. It is a huge commitment, and it's something so many young people want. Passing this bill actually means that young gay and lesbian New Zealanders can have the same dream that other young New Zealanders have. I'm proud to be the MP for Auckland Central. I represent Grey Rock, Rocky Bay a huge gay and lesbian community. But you know what you may think that's why I'm [00:47:00] voting for this bill. But actually I support this bill because it's the right thing to do. I support this bill because it's absolutely the right thing for our country. I support those MP, S and conservative electorates who have stood up and are voting for this bill because they also think it is the right thing for our country. I want to acknowledge Chris Ville and Paul Hutchison. They have shown us in this debate the true power of conscience. [00:47:30] When Paul said I cannot construct a strong enough intellectual, moral health or spiritual argument against it, he struck a chord with so many New Zealanders because he showed us openness and he showed us compassion for people. Our Parliament can be very proud that this vote is actually less about political divides, but more about religious and generational divides. [00:48:00] We have a lot to be proud of in our country. We must acknowledge the freedoms that we have are not the same freedoms that other countries have. As Melissa has said, there are 55 countries in the Commonwealth that still criminalise homosexuality that must change the world will be watching New Zealand tonight. Let us vote to show them that our country values freedom for all of our people. [00:48:30] Lusa Thank you for your commitment to the cause. You have worked across party lines. You have personally helped ensure that this debate has been more constructive and more positive in the past. Thank you to you, Kevin as well, for your contribution thank you to To and Jamie Lee Ross as well. I want to acknowledge the other liberal nets who have walked before me for their contribution. Catherine, Rich and Marilyn. We thank you as [00:49:00] well. It's lovely to see you here tonight. Megan Campbell, Sean Wallace. Your tireless efforts will not be forgotten. Georgina and Tim, I acknowledge you as well here tonight. This bill is about strengthening families. The difference to people's lives will be real and positive. This is about the daughter who asked her mother yesterday, Can I finally be the flower girl at Auntie Emma's wedding? The [00:49:30] answer is yes. This is about the young man who had not yet come out to his friends having the courage to do so. This is about the couple who have been together for 30 years finally getting the chance to say I do. This is about a large group of New Zealanders holding their head a little higher down the street colleagues. It is time that we pass this bill. It is the right thing to do. [00:50:00] Please vote for freedom. Please vote for this bill. Order! Order! Kevin Hague! Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is time. In one of the many messages that I've received on this bill, one [00:50:30] man said, My partner and I have been together for 30 years. It would be great to celebrate our anniversary with a wedding. I mentioned in the first reading that I've been together with my partner, Ian, who said tonight with my son Thomas, for 28 years now nearly 29. And I couldn't help but reflect on our journey. During that time when we got together, our relationship was against the law. The message sent by the law [00:51:00] could not have been clearer. We were outsiders. We did not belong. The debate over Fran Wild's bill was extremely toxic. A lot of people said a lot of very unpleasant things about us and of course, predicted that the bill would spell the end of New Zealand society. I will be eternally grateful to Fran and her colleagues to George Gere for standing up for what was right. I remember travelling to Auckland's North [00:51:30] Shore to protest against one of our opponents, Pastor Richard Flynn, who called publicly for homosexuals like me to be put to death. Over the years, I've campaigned hard for the right of our communities, not to be outsiders anymore, to assume a full place in New Zealand society with every new reform. The same group uses the same strategy, raising fears [00:52:00] of terrible consequences which always fail to materialise. There would be few New Zealanders today who would support decriminalising sex between men. The cost of being outsiders is enormous. The stigma associated with our inferior status is associated with substantially higher rates of suicide, depression, HIV, risk violence and other risks [00:52:30] to our health and well-being, one submitter Vinny wrote. If there was greater acceptance when I grew up, I would not have tried to kill myself. I potentially would not have missed out on years of a quality relationship with my family. I would not have lost 95% of my friends when I told them I was gay. Another person, Robert said, I have. I have lived my life partly in private until the last decade or so [00:53:00] when acceptance of gay people in our beautiful New Zealand has increased. I have no doubt that the bill will be passed, and I'm pleased for it to be happening in my lifetime. While I am not, in my younger years it will still allow me and my partner to marry and have equal rights. I have longed for this for a very, very long time. My only sadness is that both of my parents have now passed, and it would have been such a huge joy [00:53:30] to have them at my wedding. Opponents of this bill have been talking about two conflicting ideas of what marriage is about. The idea they have is the conjugal model in which the point of marriage is to enable procreation. They say that we supporters have a partnership model in which marriage is about celebrating and reinforcing the love two people have for each other. They are right. [00:54:00] That is what we believe. Sure, Children are important for some marriages, but more than anything else. Marriage is about affirming, reinforcing and celebrating the love that two people have for each other. It's also about joining two families together and recognising the value of that commitment to our whole society, Mr Speaker. That's why this bill is about so much more [00:54:30] than achieving equality under the law, a basic human right that has been denied us until this day. It is about saying these lives matter. Our society is big enough for us all. With this bill, our parliament stretches out its arms to my communities and says, Our society is big enough for you, too. You belong unequivocally [00:55:00] and without having to compromise who you are. When the debate started, I thought all of the people like Richard Flynn, had thankfully gone. The early comments from opponents were refreshingly free of fire and brimstone. There is no doubt that New Zealand has grown up over the past 27 years as we have become a more modern, vibrant and pluralistic society. But as the debate has worn on, we have seen [00:55:30] reemergence of a hard core whose opposition to this bill has lost its veneer of reasonableness. Their problem with this bill is that they believe that we gay and lesbian people are morally inferior. They don't want to include us as full participants in New Zealand society. They recognise correctly what full legal equality, what this signal means and they don't like it. That's why [00:56:00] we have seen people with placards declaring that gay people are mentally ill and less than human. That's why we have seen Family first's campaign, firstly of fear and misinformation and latterly of stand over tactics and blackmail. That's why we have seen Catholic action just like Richard Flynn writing to all MP S and telling us that homosexuals are worthy [00:56:30] of death and then describing in great detail the eternal agony we should expect to experience in hell. They have tried to attract more people to their cause by scaring people with imaginary consequences. People will marry their pets. Ministers will be thrown in prison. People won't be allowed to call each other husband and wife anymore, just like every time before, these fears will not be realised. [00:57:00] The consequences of this bill will be that same sex couples will marry transsexual people will no longer have to divorce, prejudice and violence will be undermined the world will be a better place for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender New Zealanders. And absolutely no one at all will be any worse off. As Brian Donnelly said, a great New Zealand first member, your own [00:57:30] candle will burn no dimmer if you help to light ours. That's what has happened in every country, now 12, that has legalised same sex marriage before us. Here are some words from Alicia, another young New Zealander. Imagine you are me for a second or any other queer teenager in New Zealand, and maybe you're a bit younger, 15 or so just starting to come to grips with who you are. All around you, your family and religious community. Perhaps even [00:58:00] your friends are buzzing with talk about a bill which affects you more than you dare to let on. What they say makes it clear that if they knew who you were, what you really are, they would not accept you. There is a reason so many of us have considered suicide an acceptable way out at some point, and this is it, she she then says. What your support of this bill has meant is immeasurable. I watched the first reading live, [00:58:30] and I was in tears by the end of it. For me, your support was overwhelming confirmation that I am no less of a person in the eyes of those who lead our country because of my sexuality, Regardless of what my parents or my church want to say about it, your support told me and many teenagers like me that no matter what those around us say, we will be equal under the law, [00:59:00] Mr. Speaker, history is a funny thing. When all those imaginary risks failed to materialise, they will be forgotten entirely. And when that fog recedes, history will also forget all of the quibbles, like saying there's a better way to achieve the same thing that allows some MP S to vote against this bill while still saying they support fair and equal treatment. There is no longer any room for nuance or middle ground. [00:59:30] Instead, what history will record is whether you voted for inclusiveness, equality under the law and pluralism or against them. What it will record is whether you chose to stand with Vinnie, Robert and Alicia, or instead chose to stand with Catholic action with extremism, threats and blackmail Please be brave tonight so that you can be proud of your vote later tonight. Please [01:00:00] stand with me. Stand with us. Stand with justice, fairness and love. Hold on at, uh I call the Honourable Mary Ann Street. Thank you. Uh, Mr [01:00:30] Speaker, I love my job, but every now and then it really rocks. And this is one of those moments every now and then that we have in this house when I know in my very being, that I'm doing something good. Something right? Something life changing. Tonight is one of those moments. I, too, would like to acknowledge the former MP S who are in the house tonight. Marilyn Waring, Catherine Rich, Georgina Baer [01:01:00] and Tim Barnett, each of whom, in their time in this house, has supported the values that this bill represents. It is good to have you here, all of you, on this occasion. And I pay a tribute to you in my inaugural speech to Parliament in 2005. Mr. Speaker, I railed against our tendency as a nation to drive some people to the margins of our society and then despise them for being there. [01:01:30] I talked to the lazy notion of political correctness and how that label was used dripping with sarcasm to denigrate and destroy anything that was inclusive, compassionate, tolerant or forward looking. Tonight I am here to help include the marginalised, equalise the law for the outlaws and put one more nail in the coffin of legal discrimination [01:02:00] in New Zealand. I want to thank my colleague Louisa Wall for the opportunity to do this. I pay tribute to her for her courage, her strength and her leadership. Throughout this issue, she has been supported by a large team of enthusiastic supporters and helpers, both inside and outside of this house, and I thank them all as well. From the bottom of my heart, I come at this issue from a simple starting point. There are no [01:02:30] grounds in this country on which discrimination under the law should occur on the basis of one's sexual orientation or gender identity. We all sit somewhere on the sexuality continuum, some closer to one end than the other, some in the middle, still others at one point at one time in their lives and at quite another point. At other times in their lives. I have seen examples of all of these up close and personal. [01:03:00] The injustice of discriminating before the law against someone because of who they are, not because of what they do, but of who they are intrinsically is wrong and we are past it in 2013. Those famous words of Shylock in the Merchant of Venice come to mind hath not a Jew. Eyes hath not a Jew. Hands, organs, dimensions, senses, [01:03:30] affections, passions fed with the same food hurt with the same weapons subject to the same diseases healed by the same means warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a Christian is if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? [01:04:00] And I would add. And if we are not equal before the law, are we not lesser beings? So I come at the issue of marriage equality simply on the basis of equality before the law. I'm gay, but I don't wish to get married. I've never wanted to get married. It doesn't mean that I don't cherish the relationship I have with as much as any married person. But I don't want [01:04:30] not to be able to marry because the law discriminates against me. That is the point for me. This position has been driven home for me by working closely for years with a group of young people in Nelson called Q Youth. This is an alliance of straight, gay and transgender young people and adults who began at college many years ago to build a safe and supportive environment for young people who were questioning or wrestling with [01:05:00] their sexuality. It includes adults who are parents, teachers, counsellors, professional people and me who all want the same thing for these young people to grow up in safety, free from discrimination, free from bullying, free from violence and unsafe practises, so that they can be who they truly are. I want to acknowledge, in particular Stewart, who was a mentor to many [01:05:30] of these people and tabby bes and Joseph had, who are in the gallery tonight who are who have offered much in the way of leadership, along with numerous other wonderful, clever and brave Nelson young people. Through that work, I met many questioning young Nelson people who had all suffered to a greater or lesser degree because of being made to feel like an outcast and outlaw. Some had cut themselves. [01:06:00] Some had punished themselves with drug and alcohol abuse. Some had become mentally unwell. Some had attempted suicide. Some were hugely supported by their parents. They were the lucky ones. Some were rejected by their parents. They were not so lucky. Equality before the law is the start. If there is a benign [01:06:30] legislative regime, there will be over time, different behaviour and greater acceptance. Laws only alter behaviour, not attitudes. But attitudes come eventually when people see that the sky hasn't fallen and their own rights are not diminished by extending them to others. But when one is growing up, like these young people in Nelson, from whom I've learned so much, one can sense discrimination [01:07:00] and a lack of acceptance. At 500 paces, it sits on your shoulder like a vulture waiting for you to fall and to be picked to death little by little stroke by stroke, young people are diminished and reduced unless they can find a safe place to be. So this law isn't really about me as a lesbian woman at all. It is about creating a just and tolerant society, which [01:07:30] is safe for our young people to grow up in. For those who have a different world view from mine, can I simply say that I would stick up for your rights to equality before the law as well? Finally, I return to my inaugural speech in this house. At the end of it, I referred to my daughter and said that I hoped that whenever the time came for me to leave this place, that I would leave our society improved [01:08:00] in some measure. For her sake, she was born to two mothers and two fathers she has never lacked for love, support, guidance and care. In fact, it's possible she's had twice as much of it than most Children in a two parent family. She has been and remains a great joy to all of us. She deserves a world where her family is as accepted as anyone [01:08:30] else's. She said. To me, of course, that she was proofing my speech tonight, that her world would have been very different growing up if there had been social acceptance around our family. She doesn't regret it for herself, but she does wish it for other people. She's a good girl. Our actions here must always be about the future. We leave this world to others, [01:09:00] especially our young people. Let's make it a better, fairer, kinder place than we found it. Let's pass this bill. Fair enough. Uh, the Honourable John [01:09:30] Banks. Mr. Speaker, I will split this call with tile of the Maori Party. Mr. Speaker, the privilege we have to be in this house is counterbalanced by the need to stand up and be counted. And I'm one of a handful of members that was here in the very early days of these debates. After [01:10:00] three decades and 10 parliaments, I've had time to reflect to reflect on what I said and to reflect on what I did. If I knew then what I have since learned, I would have acted differently. I see this as a debate more about human rights predicated on the basis that we are all entitled to live our lives to the fullest extent of [01:10:30] human happiness while respecting the rights and beliefs of others. I believe all New Zealanders should be free to pursue their own happiness. Principles of freedom and choice go to the heart of this particular issue. Freedom gives each individual the right to determine for themselves their happiness for their own lives. I want my political career [01:11:00] and public service to recognise the value and potential of every New Zealander. My gay friends know that my vote is not needed to pass this bill, but they tell me that my support is important to them. I received a text from a friend who had heard that this bill had my support. The text said, Thanks, Banksy. This bill won't have any impact on your marriage, [01:11:30] but it will mean a great deal to me and my relationship. I think that sums up the argument very well. I know many people are opponents with strong views on this issue. I respect that. I hope my comments tonight give an insight for my friends who don't support this bill and can't understand why I have charter this course. I respect [01:12:00] their right to hold their views and uphold their right to practise their faith. In turn, I expect those people to let me hold my views and practise my own faith. When making this decision, I had to ask myself, Will New Zealanders have more freedoms as a result of this bill? Yes. Will freedom of religion be preserved? Yes. [01:12:30] Will anyone's freedoms be taken away by this bill? No. Would the god that I believe in? Think any less of me for voting for this bill? No. That's why I support this legislation. You, Mr Speaker, [01:13:00] and I thank my treaty partner banks for allowing me to have this spot in the final five minutes. Mr. Speaker, in case there's any doubt we're talking about the marriage definition of marriage amendment bill. And this is not the first time that Maori have encountered controversy around the concept of marriage, Mr Speaker. In 18 88 the Supreme Court of New Zealand made a decision that has been described as doubtful legally and deplorable. Socially. That doubtful and deplorable decision was to reject the [01:13:30] customary marriages that had existed and to assume that the Marriage law of England took precedent. In fact, the colonial law from another land was considered of such importance, Mr Speaker, that the Children of Maori customary marriages were now described as illegitimate. It's so significant was the status of customary marriages amongst our people that they continued to be recognised for the purposes of succession to Maori land until 1951. [01:14:00] So, Mr Speaker, when opponents of this bill criticise a change to the definition of marriage as Contrave contravening our sacred traditions, I'd have to say whose traditions are we talking about? And I want to bring a specific contribution to this house as a proud of in 19 and 18 49. Mr Speaker, we where he shared his knowledge of our in in a publication called And it's one of those stories [01:14:30] I want to bring to the house with me today. You, sir, may well have heard the story about a story of love glorified by Victorian settlers with all the markings of romance. According to tribal law swam to in the middle of to be with her true loved one. Everybody say, 00, But, sir, I'm gonna add an extra part of the story and tell you instead about and [01:15:00] before he married Mr Speaker to had a close male content companion Tiki in a manuscript by says to his father, translated Mr Speaker to love and I am stricken with love for my friend [01:15:30] later refers to as and so Mr Speaker from the wisdom of a new word was coined, defined in the Dictionary of the Maori language, compiled by the missionary William Williams, 18 44 as an intimate companion of the same sex Mr Speaker, Tata is now used universally to describe people who might otherwise be, uh, describe themselves as gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual intersexual. [01:16:00] This history is set out by a Maori academic, uh, not of, but nevertheless Dr Clive Espen in his analysis of Maori sexualities. The research tracked fast forward to the early two thousands, uh, with the Maori Sexuality Project undertaken at Auckland University. Many of the respondents, Mr Speaker in that research, were able to recall examples of their and talking about people they knew who had same sex attraction. [01:16:30] These people held traditions of importance and status within their and according to Dr Aspen, they were not rejected or marginalised and were considered to be valuable members of their communities. Mr. Speaker, talking about our history, our shared history in a is really important. We all all know another painful history of discrimination or prejudice of homophobia expressed by other members in this house tonight, young people in such agony about the way [01:17:00] that they live their lives. That suicide becomes the only option of people living in fear and shame. Scared of the harassment that they've all too often experienced and some of the same. Some of the lobbying every MP has endured over this last nine months has shown us the ugliness of stigma that has been at. And so I urge all of us to think deeply about the universal values of commitment, of trust, faith and hope. [01:17:30] Mr. Speaker, as this third reading comes to an end I think about and who now know that they don't have to hide the fact that there are two moms in their household that parents who want to know that their son can marriage can marry the man of his dreams. And they can be all out and proud on their special day. And for all of our who celebrate tonight as the day in which history is made. Mr. Speaker Sergeant, the honourable member. His time has expired. [01:18:00] Um order, Order! I call the honourable Che brows. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity of speaking in this call. And I will be splitting my call with, uh Jonathan Young, uh, MP for New Plymouth. And I want to say that, um, today I was pleased to get a text from my, [01:18:30] uh, my good friend Gerard Langford, who, uh, texted me and said, uh, mate, uh, I know this is a big day, and I know we see these things, uh, differently, but, uh, all the best for today. And I said thanks, Gerard. Uh, you are the gay friend I cite most often, Uh, the fact is that, uh uh, my good friendship with Gerard and his partner, Rangi, has led me along a line which has got me to change my view. In respect of gay things, [01:19:00] I believe I believe that people who love one another should be with one another and should commit to one another publicly because I believe that relationships with the two with within, uh between two people who love one another should be strong, should be publicly committed and will en enable our community to be stronger. I also believe [01:19:30] that the the true discussion here is about the equality, the legal equality of relationships, whether they be heterosexual or whether they be homosexual, whether they be marriage or whether they be civil union or whether they be de facto, and I believe that they should be equal. And I think it is a shame that amongst many people that are within our community, they are not. And I think that that is really to our detriment. [01:20:00] And I would like to think that people would be able to look across relationships within our community and see that that is right, that people who love one another should be able to commit with one another. And I am, Um I'm also of the opinion that those people who have come out and argued from a strident faith perspective, uh, that this is a wrong vote are wrong in themselves. I [01:20:30] also believe, though, that that we should be having a debate tonight about what is marriage and what is not marriage. And I will believe I will be voting against this bill because I think we should be having the larger the debate. And that debate is about what is marriage and what is not marriage. I believe very strongly, for instance, that um, two people who are married who are [01:21:00] in a heterosexual relationship should be allowed to be able to do that. I do not believe for one moment that two people who are the same gender who commit to one another in any way at all detract from the 34 year old, uh, marriage that my wife and I enjoy. But I believe that this debate should be about what it is about. And if that is about the equality of legal status of relationships within our society, then we should be having [01:21:30] the courage or the balls or whatever it is to have exactly that debate. I'm concerned, too. And I've had discussions this week, um, within members across the house and Lusa, uh, in particular, uh, about, for instance, the status of those civil celebrants and those celebrants of organisations such as the Anglican, the Methodist Church, who have not taken a stand or a position in respect of this particular bill, uh, [01:22:00] or gay marriage in effect that, um, they should be able to rest in the confidence that the, um, the human Rights Commissioner has given them that they will be able to refuse the opportunity to wed gay couples who present themselves for marriage on the basis of of their own opinion and their own belief. And it's important to state that now, although it may be very dry and un emotive to be able to do that, because [01:22:30] in in terms of statutory interpretation and times to come, that will become important that this Parliament is resting on the advice that has had. Having said that, I would like to just acknowledge this. And that is that I came to this house as a fairly ignorant person out of the provinces in order to represent the, um, the uh, constituency of Wu who elected me to Parliament. I am pleased to note that I have established a number of relationships, and [01:23:00] I have changed my mind in respect of those relationships. I am grateful, uh, for the privilege of having friendships and associations. I have the love and the friendship of a number of people who are in a range of relations relationships, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual, it means nothing. I believe that this debate, the Honourable member has time has expired. [01:23:30] I, um, call Jonathan Young. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to stand and speak in this debate. It's isn't often that debates in this house and around this country, uh, engage the hearts and minds in a way that this debate has. I believe it is because it touches issues deep within the core of people's being. It's to do with our most important relationship. It's to do with family. It's to do with Children. It's to do with all the important things [01:24:00] we do everything else for. And here we are in this, uh, powerful expression of the democratic process, with different views on an issue with so many emotions. And I believe that in this debate it's not as clear as many people think. I think that there are views and issues that many people New Zealanders and our communities are struggling with are wondering about and are [01:24:30] looking to this house tonight. I believe our society is probably more divided than this house is on this issue, and everyone has a right to their view and a right to express it and a right to agree or disagree. And I hope in a civil society to be respected because of or despite their view, and it's appropriate that diverse opinions be expressed in this house tonight. In this House disagreement is the air we breathe, but it's how we disagree that it's [01:25:00] important. And by and large, this debate has been calmer than many other debates in this house tonight. I expect that this bill will pass despite my vote, which some will know hasn't supported its transition through the house thus far. For a long time now, I have been very supportive of civil unions. For all the reasons that people are now perhaps applying to the marriage debate, I can empathise how perhaps a couple [01:25:30] may want to have the legal recognition some or some institutional formality or support their relationship and give them that sense of, um, perhaps even permanence, that it may bring or support. And on the occasion of that celebration that a wedding can bring, because I believe that everybody wants to celebrate their relationships. Your relationship is your business, and I've been happy to support that. [01:26:00] And I think I was happy when the civil Union bill came through, because in a sense, it was a new legal recognition that was a mirror of marriage. But it also maintained perhaps the age old institution of marriage, and I do think in societies that traditions are important and have a place. A tradition is a convention of belief or behaviour that stands the test of time. [01:26:30] A tradition is the institutional memory of a society. It is not to be cast off or cast away quickly or easily because it's the touch Touchstone of a value which perhaps younger minds may not fully understand yet enter into because it's there. Traditions are what we use to guide people, I believe, into the things of life that have been proven to work. Those might be the very sentiments. While [01:27:00] we are debating this bill, but what we are debating, I believe it is not necessarily about love because love is not legislated. I love that, uh, campaign. I thought it was pretty good Grant. It's a great idea about legalising love, but I don't know whether you can do that. I know the angle you're taking. I know what you're talking about, but I think the human heart is too rampant and too romantic to be contained and boxed and denied. I believe that people [01:27:30] will pursue that which brings their meaning and fulfilment in life essentially the value of marriage, which this society holds is that you become my one and only, and we commit to the best of our ability to make this an exclusive and a permanent relationship. That's the reason why I supported civil unions, because I believe that you could in that essence, in that sense. And I know that perhaps many [01:28:00] people say we need to move on. But in that sense, there's a sense of recognition, exclusivity and permanence that come to relationships. My view, Mr Speaker, is that history and tradition have invested significant meaning into the term of marriage, and I believe that we need to retain its present definition. Thank you, sir. Um, I call up are called [01:28:30] Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's my intention to split this call with, uh, mojo mat from the Green Party. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to take a call on this final stage of a historical moment not just for this parliament, lesbian, gay, bi and transsexual community, but also for our country. I wanted to take this opportunity because there's more than one Pacific perspective in this house and and and in our country to my fellow Pacific members of Parliament. I respect your choice [01:29:00] to those in the Pacific community who oppose this bill. I respect your beliefs and I hope that you respect and understand my choice and my strongly held beliefs. The belief driving my choice, in my opinion, is more prevalent but not restricted to younger Pacific Islanders. But it is in no way meant to be disrespectful or a challenge to our elders. In fact, in my mind, my strongly held views derive from the strong Pacific values that have been passed on to me by my parents and family. [01:29:30] I am proud to support this bill. To me, it speaks to the heart of the values of what being Pacific in New Zealand is. Those are values of family, love, inclusion, equality, respect and for having pride in who you are. Our parents, grandparents and great grandparents came to New Zealand to give their families a better life. Vital in that was that they came to these shores and got a fair go, were treated equally, were not discriminated against [01:30:00] and that they were given the respect that every New Zealander deserved. As we know, that was not always the case. There were battles, battles are won and the Pacific community is now proud and vibrant. Our gay community is also proud and vibrant. They, too, have battled. And like all other kiwis, they deserve the full enjoyment of the values of family, love, inclusion, equality and respect. I know there are [01:30:30] strong religious veins in the Pacific community, and I respect that and the views that they have that many young gay Pacific Islanders have found this debate difficult. Many have grown up and maintained strong religious beliefs. They have told me one of the hardest things in the public debate has been hearing. The God that they worship seems to see seems to see them differently. My God does not. I hope that our community can embrace that. There are many in our families who, on a daily basis, struggle to be openly who they [01:31:00] are. For cultures whose very survival relies on pride of identity, cultures and language, and being proud of who we are, We need to let our youngsters know that in every respect they should be proud of who they are, and we are proud of who they are locally. Can I thank all those who respectfully gave their opinions both for and against in particular. Can I thank Pastor Ken Roach from the church? We both discussed, dissected and disagreed, but it was always [01:31:30] respectful. The Government Administration Select Committee, led by the Honourable Ruth, strengthen this bill to address many, many issues that church leaders like Ken held. It made it clear no minister or religious celebrant is obliged to marry a couple if doing so would contravene the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of a religious body or organisation. I'd like to thank Louisa Wall who worked from the outset to ensure respect for religious [01:32:00] beliefs despite the fundamental differences of opinion. Before I conclude, I'd like to acknowledge Mayor Jenny Rowan and her partner, Jules, who I understand are somewhere in the precincts of Parliament. They have been at the forefront of this long running issue because the courts denied them their right to marry. Well, Jules, when this bill was pulled out of the ballot, I remember seeing you at mall and you said I'll believe it when I see it well tonight, seeing is believing I'm going to end like Marion Street [01:32:30] the way I I ended my maiden speech with a quote from William Penn that I hold dear. It reads I expect to pass through life. But once if therefore there be any kindness I can show or any good thing I can do to any fellow being Let me do it now and not defer or neglect it as I shall not pass this way again, Mr Speaker, Tonight, this house will do that. [01:33:00] I call Mojo Methos. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to start by expressing my heartfelt thanks to every member of the house to vote for this bill tonight. Your vote will mean a great deal to me, To my family and [01:33:30] to thousands of other New Zealanders, my family had been fortunate to have a beautiful rainbow bed that had woven itself in and out of multiple generations on both side and created artists and teachers, dreamers and doctors to name just a few. And this wonderful way both word has [01:34:00] been continued. And the dump this generation. And it's reflected in my beautiful, loving daughter. Last year she went to her first formal with her girlfriend. They look absolutely stunning in black and gold with gold makeup. Mr. Speaker, it was with immense pride that I want them walking into that formal hand [01:34:30] in hand, openly declaring their love and affection for each other. They had a wonderful evening, and we have many lovely photos to remember it by Mr Speaker. For me, one of the highlights of being a mother is when my daughter snuggles up to me on the sofa and shares with me her hope, her dream, her aspirations for her future. [01:35:00] And like countless other young women, she hopes for love mother Turton, a good job and a house with a white picket fence. All of these adoptions are available to her older sister and when this bill passes tonight, But I hope it does about the most of my daughters [01:35:30] this equal opportunity to marry the person they love. No mother could be more proud of her daughters than I am, and to see them have equal rights before the law is very important to me. And I know from the wonderful image that I have seen that there are many other parents around the country who want their Children to have the same right [01:36:00] to marry the person they love. I also have loved ones from the community for whom this will my career. It will make a difference for them, whether or not they choose to marry, because it will affirm that they have equal right before the law, regardless of their sexual orientation. When I was growing up, I witnessed bullying and taunting [01:36:30] of young people suspected of being gay. It was a terrible experience and profoundly distressing. And since that time I have seen significant cultural change in attitude towards gay people. And I have seen fear being replaced with love, bullying the place with acceptance, rejecting the place with tolerance. And I find [01:37:00] it incredibly sad that opponents of marriage, equality speak of their culture change as if it's something to be afraid of. For me, it is something to be embraced with open arms. So I'll be voting for this bill as an affirmation of the right of you and the hope that one day every young person in New Zealand will feel safe and confident about their sexuality, [01:37:30] faith and fear and bullying. Mr. Speaker, every member in the House who vote for this bill tonight will be voting for love, tolerance and acceptance on behalf of my family and thousands of other new Zealanders. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. [01:38:00] I called Doctor Paul Hutchison. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I planned to split my call with Chris. It is a great privilege to have the responsibility to exercise a conscience vote on this landmark marriage amendment. Bill. I want to once again acknowledge all those who have submitted and written [01:38:30] on this bill from both sides of the debate and thank them for their passion, energy efforts and sincerity. Thank you for your fortitude and those that I have heard from young and old, from all walks of life, all religions in and around New Zealand. Thank you to so many parliamentary colleagues at one of my electorate meetings. [01:39:00] A highly intelligent, crusty salt of the Earth farmer urged me to vote against the bill. But he later joked how over the last few generations, the sequence of events has gone like this. In the first instance, parents such as himself used to tell their daughters not to come home with someone from a different religion, then not to come home with someone from a different race. Definitely not to [01:39:30] come home single and pregnant, and today not to come home with someone from the same sex, let alone marry them. He encapsulates the fact he encapsulates the fact that society has evolved enormously within a few generations, just as marriage has been evolving as a civil and religious institution throughout human [01:40:00] history. In New Zealand, we do not have such a clear separation between church and state, as some jurisdictions and I. I agree with the argument that the best way to protect religious freedom is to ensure separation of church and state when it comes to equality under the law. With this legislation, significant safeguards are in place to ensure that marriage celebrants, clergy [01:40:30] in particular remain free to choose, according to their convictions. As a former specialist, obstetrician and gynaecologist, extremely poignant experiences for me were the rare occurrences where, at the birth of a baby, when the parents instinctively ask, Is it a boy or a girl that I have been literally unable to tell them? This has been because [01:41:00] of ambiguous genitalia or a unique physical abnormality. It may take some weeks to fully assess a child, have genetic testing, carried out and assign a sex even that may be later changed. This illustrates the dramatic new knowledge available in the modern world to better understand the spectrum of physical, genetic and social expression of gender and sexuality that was simply [01:41:30] not possible in the past, I ask anyone on either side of the debate. Would they not hope that their newborn can be brought up in a society that is both tolerant and caring of their child's status and aspirations as any other child, a society that is inclusive, fair and committed to respecting one another? [01:42:00] It is a sign of huge change that today 65% of marriage ceremonies in New Zealand are solemnised independently of the church when it comes to marriage. As Reverend Margaret Mayham puts it, the overriding message of Christian faith is that we are all called to practise justice and compassion and to welcome those who are marginalised and oppressed. [01:42:30] The biblical call to love our neighbour as ourselves provides the mandate for marriage equality. The ethical criterion of a marriage relationship is to do with the quality, not the orientation of the partners. In the first reading of this bill, I said that despite trying hard, I could not construct a strong enough intellectual, moral health or even spiritual reason to vote against it. I'm now quite convinced [01:43:00] that at the end of the day, the strength of any human union is about love, tolerance, giving, forgiving, sharing, inclusiveness, commitment and fairness irrespective of gender. These are universal. The Honourable Member. As time has expired, [01:43:30] I call Chris Oval. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr. Speaker, In the second reading of this bill, I, along with my fellow members of the Government Administration Select Committee, discuss the submissions we received and how we approached the points raised. This is a process I believe in, Mr Speaker, A process of listening and considering and reaching a conclusion based on persuasive argument rather than personal reactive [01:44:00] response. This process is over now. It is time for we as a parliament to cast our final votes on this bill and allow our part in this debate to come to an end. As politicians, we are here to legislate, but it's only society which can determine how decisions made by this Parliament affect and are absorbed [01:44:30] into our social mores. As a former Republican governor and current United States Ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman wrote in an article outlining the conservative support for same sex marriage. That quote marriage is not an issue that people rationalise through the abstract lens of the law. This debate that we've been engaged in has highlighted a divide in opinion amongst [01:45:00] this nation between young and old, secular and spiritual, even between members of the same faith and the same family. This type of divide is not new, and nor should it be something that we avoid or dismiss. We faced many issues of conscience in our NA, a nation's relatively short history, and I think we have grown stronger by [01:45:30] facing them together not always as adversaries, but as fellow members of a small and empathetic nation, which often gives fine examples to the rest of the world. It's because of the shared history, Mr Speaker, that I have the faith that we can seize this opportunity to have discussions around the issues raised by this bill in our homes, our churches and everywhere. Honest, thoughtful [01:46:00] debate is respected. This bill is not a panacea, but it is an opportunity. If it is to pass Mr Speaker, we should pass this bill. That is just the beginning of a change process, and I think everyone will acknowledge that it is just a beginning. As an older person, I would ask that the younger generation [01:46:30] epitomised, of course, and my colleague Nikki, show some patience and consideration for those of my generation who will need time to adjust to a change which will be very, very new to us. By the same token, we cannot move forward as a nation if we older ones ignore or reject the heartfelt pleas for respect by [01:47:00] the LGBT community and the younger brigade. We need their acceptance as they are entitled to our acceptance. These impassioned pleas come through loud and clear when you examine the submission process stories of Children too scared to talk to their parents about their sexuality, for fear of punishment [01:47:30] or worth for fear of total rejection. We may not always agree with our Children's decision, and as any parent will tell you, it's our job to worry. But to create an environment where your child can not even talk to you about the issues affecting their lives is unconscious. Mr Speaker. There are those on both sides of the bills who concentrated on their own point of view to the neglect of any consideration of other points [01:48:00] of view. It's necessary if this bill passes and we should pass this bill for groups to reconsider individual standpoints. I feel particularly in respect of the churches, Mr Speaker, that there's a need to pick up the banner somewhat tattered and torn, the banner of Christian love somewhat tarnished. But if it's picked up with hands of every generation of whatever ethnicity or gender identity, their human body is individually glory in, and then their spirits can restitch [01:48:30] restore and make the banner resplendent. And to God be the glory. Thank you. I call the Honourable Ruth Dyson to split my call with, um Moana Maki. I'm proud and privileged to speak in the third reading of this bill. I want to see [01:49:00] this bill passed into law tonight. Want to acknowledge the thousands of people who submitted on the bill? We heard at the Select Committee some very powerful stories. We heard stories from young gay and lesbian New Zealanders who felt so strongly that passing this bill would be a recognition and acceptance of them. For that reason alone, I support this bill. I want to live in a society which is respectful and tolerant where [01:49:30] diversity is recognised and cherished, and we love and commitment is supported. This bill helps to achieve that aim. The bill does three primary things that allows same sex couples to marry. It ensures that we, where a person has transitioned from one gender to another and remain married throughout that significant change that they can have their marriage recognised in the law. And it extends the current provision of [01:50:00] allowing a single person to adopt a child to allow this of same sex married couples. The bill ensures that our religious freedoms for celebrants are maintained. We and the Select committee applied a belt and braces approach to ensure that the law is beyond doubt in backing the rights of marriage celebrants to decline to marry a couple should such a marriage not be in accordance with their beliefs. The Marriage Act has since [01:50:30] 1955 said that celebrants can do that, uh, presumably to protect celebrants from being forced to marry heterosexual couples of different religions or, heaven forbid, marry somebody who was divorced. We have maintained that protection for celebrants under the law. This bill removes section 56 of the Marriage Act. Some people may not be as familiar with that section as I am. So let me [01:51:00] share it with you. The section of the act says that it is an offence to deny or impugn a validity of a lawful marriage. Um, we've taken that section out of our law. We are not proposing that more people denigrate other people's marriages, but we just don't think that that section sits sensibly within a human rights framework. The issue of religious freedoms of celebrants being able to decline to marry a couple [01:51:30] and the view of someone in relation to another's marriage have all been the subject of gross mis representations from opponents about the bill, and I resent those misrepresentations. They've been made by just a small group of opponents, but they have spread these lies about the bill widely, and they've upset people and had people anxious about things that are just not true. I think that lying in a debate [01:52:00] about something as important as this is immoral. I want to pay tribute to the opponents of the bill who told the truth about their reasons for opposition. But sadly, that wasn't the case for all opponents. So, uh, Mr speaker just to clarify. No celebrant will be obliged under the law to marry any couple heterosexual or same sex. The bill does not rewrite the marriage vows. Vows of marriage will be written by the couple getting married in the celebrant, [01:52:30] as they currently are. It will not be illegal to call your husband your husband, and it will not be illegal to call your wife your wife, and you'll still be able to have bride and groom on the marriage certificate, if that's what you want to have on it. Mr. Speaker, I spoke earlier about the gay and lesbian submitters on this bill for many, presenting a submission not just on any bill but a bill about their right to marry [01:53:00] about their life took huge courage, and I want to pay a massive tribute to all those who came along. Some of those submitters, particularly the older ones, told us of feeling rejected in Different told of the fear of coming out to their family and friends of denial of their own sexual orientation of living. Their life is a lie. They told of being bullied and feeling suicidal, of not being part of their own community. This law isn't going to change our world [01:53:30] overnight. We will not wake up tomorrow and find ourselves in a totally tolerant and inclusive society. But this will be a lawful recognition of the value of their loving relationships. It is a step forward in recognising the value of love in our law. [01:54:00] I call my Mackie. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is an honour and a privilege to be able to speak at the third reading of this bill tonight. And I want to congratulate my friend Lewis Wall for her role in bringing this important bill to the House. I've had a lot of calls from media at home today asking why I support this bill and the answer is simple. I'm voting in favour because I cannot find any compelling reason why law abiding, tax paying Kiwis and committed loving relationships should not be able to access the legal and social benefits of marriage purely based on something they cannot change their sexual orientation. [01:54:30] I am voting for this bill because I believe it will do a lot of good. Just as importantly, I am voting for this bill because I am utterly and completely convinced it will do no harm to marriage, to society or to anyone else, regardless of how they may feel about the issue. I want to thank all those who took the time to submit, to write to us, to Facebook us and to email us. I certainly respect the deep feelings held on both sides of the debate and want to thank members of this House as well as members of the public for the largely respectful way in which the debate has been conducted. Although the person [01:55:00] who sent me an email today describing me as an evil, god hating reprobate may want to re evaluate the effectiveness of their engagement strategy, I sat on the Select Committee for the consideration of this bill, and I was also a member of the committee that considered the civil union legislation back in 2003. I am encouraged by how dramatically the tenor of the debate has shifted. The vitriol that was evident back then has not occurred this time around. I also welcome the belated support for that legislation from those who now argue that civil [01:55:30] unions are an appropriate recognition of same sex relationships that they provide adequate legal protection and are not a second rate option. But as one Submitter told the committee, civil unions aren't a second rate choice if they're your first choice. And whilst I respect the beliefs of those who oppose the bill on religious grounds, I strongly believe that while it is the role of the state to protect freedom of religious expression and this bill reaffirms it, it is not the role of the state to uphold one group's religious beliefs over another. The bill is also in the best [01:56:00] interest of the many Children currently being raised by same sex couples. I could not in good conscience vote against the bill that would ensure all Children in this country are able to benefit from the stability that marriage provides simply because some may disagree with the relationship their parents are in, especially when concerns are being raised in the same sex family Might impact negatively on Children are not borne out by independent, peer reviewed research. This debate is not about special rights. For some, it is in fact, the very opposite. It's about acknowledging that something that used to be seen as so scary and moral and different that my [01:56:30] mother felt compelled to be an active member of a group called Hug Heterosexuals, Unafraid of gays is, in fact, completely normal. This isn't about gay marriage. It's about marriage and bringing marriage into the 21st century. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people won't be any better or worse at marriage than us straight. They'll face the same challenges. The highs and lows, the successes and the failures. My late grandmother always had a wonderfully uncomplicated approach to life. At one point, she became quite taken with Brendan, [01:57:00] the partner of one of my best friends from high school, Peter. She told me that she would not be at all disappointed if Brendan were to become her grandson in law. I said to her, But Grandma, he's gay. To which she responded. Well, your grandfather wasn't the easiest person to live with, but you make marriage work and she was bang on. If it's the right thing to do, then regardless of the difficulties or downsides, you make it work. [01:57:30] Unfortunately for her, I decided marrying Brendan wasn't the right thing to do. But her point remains yes. Marriage is a responsibility as well as a right? Yes. It may not always go to plan. Yes, There may be bumps along the way, but you make it work. And I know that thousands of Kiwis right across the country tonight are hoping that Parliament passes this legislation tonight so that they can be given that opportunity. I will be proud to cast my vote tonight for marriage equality. I am now gonna sit down so that we can take the vote and pass this bill into law [01:58:00] members. This debate has concluded The question is that the motion be agreed to those of that opinion will say I to the contrary know [01:58:30] the eyes have it A P or a personal vote has been called for. Uh we will conduct a personal vote. Ring the bells members. The eyes will go to the right. The nose to the left abstentions will come to the table. The teller for the eyes will be [01:59:00] the honourable Trevor Mallard. The teller for the nose will be Louise Upton. Abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. Proxy votes must be marked as such members Order! Order! Please Order! Please. The question is that the third reading of the marriage definition of marriage amendment bill [01:59:30] will be agreed to, uh, members and, uh, the gallery. Can I just ask if you refrain from any comment? There will be a A after the clerk has announced the third reading. Um, but I just asked so that we can get the procedures of the house completed. Members, the eyes are 77. The nose are 44. [02:00:00] Unlock the doors. Um, [02:00:30] marriage definition of marriage amendment Bill, Third reading. Yeah. How are you? I understand. Uh, OK, [02:01:00] [02:01:30] yeah. [02:02:00] Yeah. [02:02:30] [02:03:00] [02:03:30] All the place or or replace the house is sus is suspended. I shall resume the chair at nine [02:04:00] o'clock tomorrow for the extended sitting. I well.
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