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.
Members. We now move to consideration of the marriage definition of marriage amendment. Bill, The question is that Clauses 1 to 7 and schedules one and two stand part there. A couple of others just like this. I call Kevin Hague. Thank you, Mr Chair. It's, um it's a pleasure to take the first call on this committee stage on marriage amendment. Bill. Uh, [00:00:30] Mr Chair, this is, in fact, a bill with, uh, a narrow scope. Uh, and it's a bill, uh, with, um with a a pretty straightforward purpose. It's one of the shorter bills, in fact, that this house considers. But it has been so a bill that has engendered some, uh, impassioned, uh, submissions both for and against, uh, and passionate debate [00:01:00] in this house that, uh, has, uh, has stood the house in good stead with the public public public have appreciated the tone with which, uh, members on all sides have debated the bill. But, sir, while, um, those, uh, submissions that have that have been heard, Um, A Against the bill and the speeches that have been made in this house against the bill have I am sure been sincere. They [00:01:30] have largely been motivated by fear by fear, sir, of concerns that are largely imaginary, uh, and fear that has been whipped up by a campaign in the community, Uh, lead particularly by a couple of individuals, uh, on a totally false basis. And so I know that in this debate this evening, we are going to be considering a number of supplementary order papers, [00:02:00] uh, to address, uh, imaginary concerns. And I don't in any way impugn the genuine nature of, um, of the members who are bringing those bills. They believe so that they are They are bringing those bills to do something. Uh, that is important. Um, but but the concerns that they are that they are raising are either ones that have already been dealt with in the bill, or they [00:02:30] are ones that are false concerns. Where there is, there is no problem whatsoever. Uh, and Mr Chair, uh, I will be taking I expect some further calls during the evening to address those SOPS. I want to particularly note, sir, that none of the supplementary order papers that has so far been tabled to amend the bill has come from a member of the government administration select committee. And I want to say, Mr Chair, that I believe that [00:03:00] that is because all of those members, uh who, uh, who set through set through the the bulk of the submissions. And I acknowledge so that Tim Min did did, in fact, uh, participate for for, um, for a meeting right towards the end. Um, but all of those who sat through the submissions and, um sorry, it's a It was 22 meetings at the at the end. All of those who sat through the analysis of the submissions, Um, [00:03:30] appreciate the complexity of the issues. Um, and understand why the select committee has made the very precise amendments to this bill that we did and all of the matters. Literally, sir, all of the matters that have been raised in the supplementary order papers so far tabled are ones that were very seriously considered by the sub committee and were rejected. [00:04:00] I want to I want to come to, um to the the SOPS about referendums. Um, because there are two that we're considering tonight. Uh, an idea. So that was rejected in the second reading. Um, of of this bill, uh, and one along with all of the other supplementary order papers. Uh, that that have been tabled to date, uh, will be will be, uh, opposed by our party. [00:04:30] Um and I'm sure, by by most members tonight the thing about referendums is that they're good for some situations. They're great for constitutional matters, for example, but they are a terrible, terrible way of addressing matters of human rights. Human rights are, by their very nature, inalienable. They are not an appropriate topic for referendums. They are also soon not an appropriate topic for the issue of minority rights, [00:05:00] because minority minority rights will, of course be rejected by a majority. And Mr Chair, I take the particular case of votes for women in Switzerland because of the nature of referendums, the use of referendums in that country. Those were only achieved in 1971. I might call the Honourable Ruth Dyson. Um, Mr Chairman, can I first of all, acknowledge [00:05:30] the member who's just resumed his seat? And I hope that at some point, um, during the rest of the committee stage of the debate, he's He's able to elaborate on that because I think the voting, the the voting ability for citizens. And the proud record that New Zealand has in comparison to those countries with that right to vote was determined by referendum is very worthy of comparison. I know there may be some who think the downfall of our society started when women won the right to vote. But I'm not one of those who shares that view. And I know, uh, David [00:06:00] Bennett doesn't agree with it, either. He supports the right of women to vote. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the work of the select committee, um, up to this process and particularly in relation to the supplementary order papers that the committee will be considering. But actually the work of the select committee generally, this is not an easy issue for us to have considered as a select committee. And I want to pay tribute to all the members of the select committee, those who sit on every single day [00:06:30] of it and those who just joined us at some time. Some of the stories, uh, we heard were really hard to listen to some of the stories that are told of how people from when they're very, very young, feel about being excluded from their families and being excluded from their communities, always feeling different. And how that how frustrating, how demoralising. And actually the worst part was how suicidal that [00:07:00] made people feel, particularly young people. We heard factual evidence of the much higher rate of suicide amongst young people whose sexual orientation was different than they had expected it to be, and different than their families and their communities expected to be. They were gay and lesbian and and weren't that out of their own choice with it? Because that's how they were born. Mr. Chairman, More than anything in this Parliament, we should strive [00:07:30] to make sure that our laws and our leadership and our attitude ensures that people who do others no harm, are made to feel part of our community, are made to feel as valued as they are valuable. And in my view, every gay and lesbian law abiding citizen in our country deserves the this support of our parliament to ensure that they never feel [00:08:00] second rate, that they never feel less worthy than anyone else, and that our law backs them in their love, which is the proposal that we are progressing tonight, Mr Chairman I also want to acknowledge the officials of our select committee. We didn't give them an easy time, frankly, and that again is directly in relation to some of the issues which we'll be debating tonight. Uh, it it we we had some interesting tensions. The tension between religious freedom and protecting [00:08:30] human rights was one that we found quite difficult to resolve. And I think we have got it absolutely right. And that's why I would be urging every member of the house to oppose the supplementary order papers which extend discrimination provisions to all marriage celebrants. I don't agree with that. I think when we say in this house, what should we tolerate is discrimination. What should we accept as being actions which clearly [00:09:00] breach our human rights provision? You know, they've been in place for nearly how long, A long time, two decades. That they are old provisions that are sacred provisions. When we say what actions should breach our human rights provision, I think we should do it with care. And we did that at the Select Committee. We said that religious freedoms should be exempt from those human rights provisions and therefore that [00:09:30] marriage celebrants who are associated with religious organisations should lawfully be backed to decline the obligation of Solomon a same sex marriage. Uh, our view was that it was already covered in the law, but we did a belt embraces approach to make sure that that religious freedom is maintained. We've specified it in our amendments to the legislation. Any further amendment? [00:10:00] Whether it's the SOP in the name of Sir William Seo or the SOP in the name of Doctor Paul Hutchison goes beyond what I think is fair and reasonable for this parliament to justify the SOP in the name of Sir William CO. A actually extends it and narrows it at the same time in a way that I think will give a confused message from this Parliament. And that's not one I want to give. I'm going to call Sir William. [00:10:30] Thank you. Uh, Miss Chairman, I want to introduced to the house for consideration. The supplementary order paper number 202 in my name. I wanna make some preliminary remarks about the supplementary order paper, uh, and the bill and then introduce the clauses that I have When President Obama indicated he would support same sex marriage. Most New Zealanders who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage [00:11:00] between a man and a woman, did not expect that such change would occur so quickly in New Zealand, especially given New Zealand already had civil union laws which gave legal rights to same sex couples, and in particular when promises were made in this house that marriage would not be interfered with. I took a stance then in favour of the minority view of this house to not support the bill. I did so in accordance with the rights of freedom of conscience afforded to me on this issue and for the need to represent [00:11:30] the views held by many throughout my constituency by my family and friends, as well as the views expressed to me by religious groups. Many in the religious and faith communities, whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths have expressed and continued to express a view that marriage is a union of a man and woman. These beliefs are real and genuine. They are not made up, they are not fairy tales, they are [00:12:00] true and heartfelt, and many trace the source of this belief back through history to their deity. In addition, views expressed by my colleagues, friends and family members are also genuine and strongly held in favour of their right to be married, irrespective of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. I called on everyone then on both sides of the argument, to keep the debate respectful and dignified as this issue impacted [00:12:30] on colleagues, friends and family members. And I acknowledge that the House has conducted itself in that manner. The basis for my introducing my amendment at this late hour is because many of the churches prefer that this bill not pass at all. However, as reflected in the vote so far in this bill, it appears that if we are honest with ourselves, this bill may pass, thus launching New Zealand into new territory where we elevate same sex unions from civil unions [00:13:00] and provide new legal marriage freedoms for two people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. If this be the will of the house that this bill passes at its third reading, then my amendments become critical in creating a balance between the religious freedoms currently enjoyed by religious and faith groups and the new same sex marriage freedoms provided for by this bill. My amendments aim to ensure that the newly created rights for same sex couples do [00:13:30] not infringe on the existing long held rights of church groups to continue to conduct their affairs with the freedom to hold on to their belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. My amendments make an appropriate distinction between the affairs of the state to protect the equality of rights for all citizens and the affairs of the church and how it conducts its affairs with its members whom have a traditional view of marriage. My amendment is in accordance with the desire of the Select Committee statement and [00:14:00] its report. It is our intention. I quote that the passage of this bill should not impact negatively upon people's religious freedoms. I acknowledge that the Select Committee has worked hard to address the issues of religious freedoms of belief and expression with the greatest respect. However, the select committee's recommendations do not protect persons and organisations from freedom of expression outside the context of a clergy who is authorised by the organisation to refuse to perform a specific marriage. [00:14:30] The select committee's recommendations do not protect church organisations from refusing to allow its premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes to be used for or in connection with same sex marriage ceremonies. The principles of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 do not have supremacy in our laws and can be overridden by other legislation and because of the provisions in the main bill, specific provision is also now needed to protect the rights of those who believe [00:15:00] that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. My amendment provides protections that are clear in their intent and designed to avoid unintentional conflicts. My supplementary order paper produces introduces one amendment with three clauses in the first clause in two a. My amendment provides protection to religiously affiliated its celebrants or church minister if their personal beliefs are that marriage must be between a man and a woman, even if their religion Mrs [00:15:30] Chairman William, even if their religion is not absolutely against same sex marriages. The select committee's efforts refers to, and I quote the religious beliefs of the religious body that is the denomination as a whole. This means that all of the ministers of religion within the church are bound or otherwise by the religious belief of the church in relation to same sex marriage. There are currently two churches today that I am aware of who have not yet confirmed a formal position as a whole. Whether to accept [00:16:00] marriage of same sex couples or not. There is no protection for individual church ministers to conduct his or her religious role in accordance with their own conscience. In the absence of a formal position by the body of their church, I have tweaked the Select Committee, meant to include protection of freedom of belief and expression for individual church ministers whose religious organisations have not yet formalised a view on whether to accept same sex marriage or not, or whether the Church organisation has [00:16:30] refused to adopt an official position on the issue. My amendment provides this individual right to a church minister, pastor or rabbi in a situation where there is absence of a view by the whole body of their church. My amendment does not broaden out this individual right to civil celebrants and registries. Civil celebrants and registrars would not have this protection because they are performing a paid public service and this is in accordance with the position of Canada and the United Kingdom. [00:17:00] In the second clause, my amendment provides them to be that a person of religious or religious organisation will continue to have the freedom to express their views and provide counselling that marriage should be the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. The select committee is to be commended for repealing Section 56 of the Marriage Act, which was not compatible with the rights and freedoms set out in the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. My amendment, however, explicitly removes [00:17:30] all doubt and provides greater certainty of these freedoms of religious belief and expression. And in the final clause, my amendment and two C provides for a religious organisation to refuse to allow its consecrated premises premises that are occupied and used for religious purposes, to be used for or in connection with, a marriage that is not a marriage between a man and woman. My amendment aligns with the Crown law of recommendations in their report and I quote, therefore, if parliament [00:18:00] intends that religious congregations not be required to permit their place of worship to be used for the solemnization of same sex marriages. Contrary to the religious belief, we recommend that this be made explicit in the legislation to put the issue beyond doubt. My recommend my amendment provides clarity and certainty of this right. I am not asking that we extend the rights to commercial for profit or investment property solely for [00:18:30] properties that are consecrated and occupied and used for religious purposes. I believe that without these this amendment and the necessary safeguard it provides for religious freedom. The recognition of same sex marriages will lead to socially divisive and entirely unnecessary conflicts. My supplementary order paper is in alignment with the intent and statement by the Select Committee. It reaffirms with certainty the freedoms of religious belief, conscience and manifestation as [00:19:00] provided in Section 13 and 15 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights. Despite the wonderful efforts of the Select Committee, which I acknowledge and thank them for the intention of parliament is not clear with this legislation as it now stands. Hence my amendments to clarify and provide greater certainty of religious freedoms in light of the new marriage freedoms for same sex couples. It is important that Parliament's intentions are crystal clear. Otherwise, what may occur is that [00:19:30] Parliament's intention may be challenged in a court of law in the future I have attached for the sake of members of this house in my supplementary order, paper references The Canadian law in Canada for people's information has some experience in maintaining this balance, given they have had same sex marriage since 2001, I seek consideration by this house, and I ask that you find in favour of my supplementary order paper the right honourable Winston [00:20:00] Peters. Uh, Mr Chair, we have heard that none of the proponents of SOPS uh, on this matter were members of the Government administration Committee. And, uh, as a consequence, they did not hear the arguments. They were not part of understanding the analysis. And they did. They did not appreciate the intensity of submissions. [00:20:30] And then we were also told that a referendum was rejected by MP S because it's good for some situations, but that it is a bad way of addressing human rights issues. I wonder what Abraham Lincoln would have thought in the 18 sixties to hear that an issue that went in the end because of its expansion, not the cause, but the expansion of slavery and the cessation of it led [00:21:00] to the civil war in the United States. I wonder what to Abraham. What not to have. I wonder what Abraham Lincoln, this magnificent leader when it comes to human rights, would have thought of such an argument. See, at the beginning of this debate last year, the proponents of the bill talked a lot about public opinion. One was reported as saying Quote twice as many New Zealanders support marriage equality as opposed to it. So we can now make it law. End of quotes. Or that we campaigned on this, Really, [00:21:30] I've got the manifesto here of a the party that said that and it said on this issue quotes, review and update relationship and relationship property law, that's it. Now, with the greatest respect, please make claims in this house that can be sustained by how it was pre warned to the electorate as to what was intended to be done. But some of us have been around long around long enough to know one thing that the public on this matter is seriously concerned, [00:22:00] and they are all over the place and divided on this issue. Opponents say one thing, and the proponents say something else. And what we want to know is, where does the majority lie in New Zealand, and it should not be reposed in 100 and 21 temporarily empowered members of parliament. That's the fundamental issue here. And then to come to the house and then start disputing the efficacy of an expanded democracy. Where you share [00:22:30] views with the with the public of this country in this computerised age is an extremely astonishing and alarming development. I know that there are people who want to ignore the public and pass laws, and we've seen it on asset sales and all other sorts of other things. But a lot of the people who were lining up for a public referendum on asset sales and mighty river power now say, Oh, but you can't have it on this issue so we can trust the public on mighty river power [00:23:00] and assets. But we can't trust them on moral issues, and I'll ask you again, where did some of the members of this Parliament ever attain that intellectual and moral and ethical superiority where they could shame facedly in front of the whole public and recorded by Hansard. Tell New Zealanders what they think of their views. How did it happen to our democracy in 2013 that people could be so bold? No pre election [00:23:30] warning, Just a postelection onslaught? No, the committee, the select committee process, has showed that the public is split. The public meetings show that the public is split. Letters to the editor say the public is split. Talk back radio, social media. All indicators suggest that this is a polarising and divisive issue in the community. And everyone here knows what my view of polls are, [00:24:00] what my view of polls is because they are so erroneous in New Zealand and they're so unprofessional that these things should be banned internationally. You get a 3% spread between five major pollsters. They meet to try and sort out what is wrong with our methodology. Here we have a 14% spread, and they carry on regardless. But when a poll is within 10% either way, then no one can tell me in this house or outside that they know what their neighbour, who [00:24:30] is the voter of this country and who we are meant to be the servant of really think so. What's wrong with asking them? The workplace is split. Churches are splits inside the church, churches are split, families are split. Where lies the majority is the issue that should be the most compelling for a member of Parliament who campaigned at the last election on the principle of democracy, the [00:25:00] speaker chairman, There's no consensus. There's no majority. There is no mandate. And you know you can ridicule it by saying, Well, uh, New Zealand first leader wants a man hyphened date and try and make out that that that a democratic dream is a issue of hilarity and humour or comedy. Let me tell that person who wrote that sort of thing that they would be the first victims, if that was what resided in this country, a contempt [00:25:30] for democracy itself. And yet we are here as Parliament, about to totally disregard public opinion, and all our referendum asked, is not that you don't get to have a vote, that you don't get to have a say or even have a majority in the South. All we ask you is to await a public referendum to endorse your claims of having a majority. Is that so bad? Can that be so wrong or, you know, again, I ask those members [00:26:00] if they were on other issues of importance, would they still say my conscience, right or wrong, regardless of the constituency? Now, as you know, Mr Speaker, Chairman, our position is well known. We've been consistent all along on this for years. We have never got up on the stage and said, We're gonna debunk that person's view or despise that person's view What we've said on day after day and night after night and [00:26:30] in more public meetings than most people here have ever had, and with bigger audiences, I might say, Why don't we trust the people, have a fully fledged public debate, even finance the quality of the debate? So it reaches above the blind and the bigoted to some rational, sane argument, and then ask the public what they think. We stand by that policy and tonight we are repeating our call. We want to find out where the truth lies. I've asked people I know and friends [00:27:00] of mine and acquaintances are not ashamed to know me who are both homosexual and lesbian, what they think. And I've been astonished by the answer by those who said, Well, I never asked for the Civil Union law, nor am I asking for this. I'm happy with what I've got or to be ambushed in the in the middle of the parliamentary night to find out. Well, I now that you're living in a long-term relationship, you're subject to a claim of 50% of your assets. These people [00:27:30] never asked, and they are homosexual. Perhaps they should have had a survey or a poll amongst them, but I haven't seen that yet. All I'm hearing is people claiming to represent a certain view. And if that view was correct, then why were there so few actions of the Civil Union bill? Why so few sought that path if they have a massive majority, even amongst a certain section in our society who they claim to be in support of this bill. [00:28:00] So to those who say it was in our election manifesto, we have to say, Well, show me because it can't be what I'm reading. And, uh, I would be fine, hard pressed to find any reference to this pre 2011. I have the manifesto. Nowhere in the document. Is there any statement of the Labour's intent, for example, to change the definition of marriage? It's not there. And we get, as I say on page 3 74 that commitment to review and update relationship [00:28:30] and relationship, property law, whatever that means. Apparently the media didn't know what it meant either. There was not one news story regarding Labour's stance on marriage in 2011. Not one. Uh, we have a report which says Labour supports gay adoption. We have reports saying Labour wants to prevent homophobia in schools, but no mention of marriage equality. Now, I'm not here to criticise people other than they put this in contention when they said it. So if you're gonna contend it, then prepared [00:29:00] for the examination of whether it's true or not, no billboards, no mail outs, no TV ads, no speeches, just a deafening silence. In fact, No, no, no. Mr Goff said in July 2011 that he saw no need to redefine marriage. He was the leader of the Labour Party, right up to the last election when whatever mandate or not, we all got came into effect. Now let's not forget [00:29:30] what we're talking about when we talk about this, because frankly, around New Zealand are a whole lot of voters and this is not a threat, but are gonna make up their mind on this issue. And I say to some of my colleagues in this Parliament that they have put in jeopardy serious jeopardy of the next election result that goes for national as well. It's a funny thing, isn't it? In the National Party, it's the list members that are going for [00:30:00] this bill and the ones that got a constituency seat in the main are going against it. Many of those are going for the referendum, and I say one more time. If you want us to say you want to survive electoral holocaust so I can go for the referendum, The time has come for me to leave the chair for the dinner break. This debate is interrupted. I shall resume the chair at 7. 30. The committee is resumed. [00:30:30] Well, thank you, Mrs Collins. Um, Honourable members. When we were debating this prior to the dinner break the right. Honourable Winston Peters had the call, and he had just completed his call. I remember him doing so. So I'm going to invite some other member to seek the call. Uh, I call the Honourable Member Jacinda Ardern. Thank you, Mr [00:31:00] Chair. Mr. Chair, this is my first and only speech that I will make on this spill. While I sat through all the stages, I have never felt like it was my place to take a speaking slot. There are just too many other people in this house who have played a far greater role or, uh who are more personally affected by it than I. But doesn't that say something in and of itself, the fact that whether this bill passes or not, my rights and my privileges as a heterosexual [00:31:30] woman will continue, I can choose to marry or not. I can choose to enter a civil union or not. I'm not the one who has experienced limitations on my rights or freedoms. And yet here I am privileged enough to have a vote to determine whether that right should be extended to others. And when it comes to whether or not that right should be granted. For me, there is no question the answer has always been Yes, [00:32:00] I say always for a reason. Debates of conscience such as these do tend to lead to questions over an individual members of Parliament set of values. I understand the natural curiosity that comes around our religious upbringings. They help people understand how we have come to a position or they simply cause to confuse. My story probably lends itself more to the letter. I was reminded of it recently while [00:32:30] cleaning out some old university papers and stumbled across an essay I had written for a comparative policy class in roughly the year 2000, arguing the case for civil unions a fairly unremarkable thing. I was, after all, a staunch member of the Labour Party. But I was also, at that time, a member of the Mormon Church. Mr. Chair, it's fair to say that I know what cognitive dissonance feels like. And when I started [00:33:00] campaigning for civil unions some time later, I decided that I couldn't sustain such competing value sets any longer, and I left the church. I understand the internal battle that some members in this house have shared during the course of this debate. But I can honestly say that my battle was never over choosing equality or not, but rather how to deal with the fact that the value of equality and fairness was in fact the only thing [00:33:30] I never ever doubted. While I am no longer a member of the Mormon Church, I greatly respect it and I respect its members. I also respect their right to choose how marriage is expressed within their religion and therefore who they perform marriages on behalf of. I would not support any part of a bill that removed that freedom from them. This parliament is giving the assurance to such [00:34:00] religious institutions today that this protection exists while Section 29 of the Marriage Act 1955 already states that quote a marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage to which it relates. The Select committee went even further with drafting and assures that no celebrant who is a minister of religion recognised by a religious body and no celebrant who is a person nominated to perform [00:34:30] a marriage by an improved organisation, is obliged to solemnise If solemnising that marriage would contravene their religious beliefs. Not only does it law contain this protection, the hands start the record of this Parliament will record it. Also put simply, Mr Chair, the request laid out to us by institutions like the Mormon Church have been heard and have been met within the bill. No amendment [00:35:00] is required. Mr. Chair, I couldn't end my small contribution to this debate without acknowledging the roles of those who have paved the way for the marriage amendment. Bill Fran Wilde with homosexual law reform, Tim Barnett with civil unions and, of course, Lassa Wall for marriage equality but are behind each of these set community members who have fought hard with pride and in spite of personal anguish and attacks to get us where we are today [00:35:30] and they deserve our thanks, Mr. Chair. In 1948 my great uncle was imprisoned for no other reason than his sexuality. He was in a state prison for three years for what was then considered to be a crime, although in the eyes of the law we no longer criminalise the expression of someone's sexuality. I don't believe we will have a full, fully inclusive society until we remove all forms of discrim here until [00:36:00] until we reform, remove all forms of discrimination, be they physical bars or the stigma imposed by legal differentiation. That's why today, Mr Chair, I cast my vote on behalf of queer and questioning youth on behalf of my friends. And I cast it on behalf of my uncle members calling. I call the Honourable Member Tim Horan. [00:36:30] Brendan. I'm sorry, I'll. I'll put my glasses on. Apology accepted, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair, I take the call tonight to urge every member of this house to vote for a public referendum by postal vote to bring this bill into effect. That is provided for in supplementary order. Paper. 187 in my name. Mr. Chair, the opportunity to have a decision [00:37:00] made by the public of New Zealand should be welcomed by those both in support of and those opposed to the bill. There is nothing to be afraid of and everything to embrace. And, sir, the two speakers previous to me, uh, two speakers who, uh, two members that I respect very much. And the honourable Kevin Haig and and the honourable Ruth Dyson, um said, uh [00:37:30] uh words that actually disturb me and so far as suggesting that a referendum is contrary to the minority view and therefore the connotation that somehow if this went to referendum that the will of New Zealanders would be against this bill. And so to hear fellow MP S suggest that leaves me in a conundrum, because I was under the impression that we were here by the will of the people of [00:38:00] New Zealand and therefore should be exercising that will. So all of us in this chamber have been inundated with mail and email about this reform of marriage. It has generated strong passions on both sides of the debate. Same sex marriage is an issue that many New Zealanders have a very firm view on, and no one can argue that it has long term social ramifications for our society. Consultation by referendum [00:38:30] with New Zealanders is something that Parliament should do, rather than asserting a right to a conscience vote on a dramatic social change such as this. And importantly, I would defend the right of every voter to be able to choose either yes or no, there will be a clear choice made. New Zealanders will make that in a referendum and the fairest. It's the fairest and most sensible way forward. Mr Chair, If the 120 [00:39:00] men 121 men and women in this house purport to make the final decision on this major social change, then I fear that it will not be readily accepted by the broader New Zealand. And there is a potential sir to be creating a new group and to use uh, Louisa Wall's words, second class citizens whose feelings of injustice and resentment will last for years. Sir, I am concerned that bitterness, [00:39:30] acrimony and bigotry could linger. However, if we have a referendum and we go to the people of New Zealand, there is a far greater likelihood of broad acceptance of the outcome and consequently harmony in New Zealand. I would like to address some of the things that have been said and if we take the words from Chris Oval two weeks ago, where the honourable member said, a referendum [00:40:00] is something you call for when you cannot make up your mind. Well, on the contrary, I say, a referendum recognises that there are times when this house needs to recognise that there are prudent limits to the changes that it can initiate limits when it is necessary to obtain the endorsement of the public of New Zealand, who, after all, gave us the mandate to be here. So the Honourable member Kevin Hague, in the second reading identified [00:40:30] the key divide those New Zealanders on the one hand who see us as a pluralistic society in which parliament creates a supportive framework and those on the other who see that parliament should legislate for a strict code of behaviour. The referendum, I propose, is not to appease the chronologically advanced. It would not be able to be hijacked to become an election bandwagon. Rather, this [00:41:00] referendum is for all New Zealanders. It is for young New Zealanders, including those too young to understand and also those not yet born. It is also for those New Zealanders who feel a sense of helplessness who have not been able to exercise their voice. This is about the new World, Mr Chair. I would like the people in New Zealand in 10 years time to be able to look back and when they ask, was [00:41:30] this change this dramatic decision? The view of the nation. Or was it the decision of the state? Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, Remember, Brendan. So this referendum will give that decision to the nation and divorce it from simply being the view of the state to give the decision to the nation for harmony, for oneness that our country's future [00:42:00] depends upon. I ask members to vote for the supplementary order paper. And, sir, I would reiterate that there is no need to be afraid. We are not in a totalitarian state. There is no need to fear giving power to the people of New Zealand. For after all, we are one country. We are one nation, and together we're all New Zealanders. Mr. Chair, I call the Honourable Member. Uh, thank [00:42:30] you, Mr Chair. And I'm happy to be filling in for my colleague, uh, Louisa Wall, who can't be here tonight. Um, and I was also happy to be a member who sat in on the Government administration select committee for the passage of this piece of legislation. Can I first of all, thank members for their interest in this debate and the tenor in which the debate has been carried out? Um, for the SOPS that people have drafted. I appreciate that they're done full sincerity of trying to get the best possible law that we can. Um and I'm hoping that my contribution may actually be able to provide some clarification. Uh, because I think we're [00:43:00] actually a lot closer than members might believe, uh, in terms of being an agreement on a lot of these issues. And the Government Administration Select Committee worked very, very hard on the issues that have been raised both in speeches and in SOPS, because we knew that we're dealing with the area of the Bill of Rights, the Human Rights Act. We had to be very careful about the wording. We had to be very careful about unintended consequences that might come from drafting that that hasn't had that kind of consideration given to it. And that's how we came up with the wording that we did. So if I can [00:43:30] move first to the to the main issue that people have been raising, which is the protection of religious freedom and the concerns that churches and religious organisations might be forced to marry gay couples against their own beliefs? Well, members may or may not know that Section 29 of the Marriage Act, which has been in place since 1955 actually states that a marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage to wish it relates. Now that's been in place since 1955. There hasn't been an issue with that at all. [00:44:00] Not even since civil unions were passed in 2004 has just ended up going into some kind of legal stoush. But concerns were raised that the refusal to so on the grounds of sexual orientation, uh, might breach the Human Rights Act. Now the Human Rights Commission, which is the body that would investigate uh any such claim, have said they would not hold uphold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to so a marriage. So that's in place there as well. So there is that protection of section 29. But to put it beyond doubt because [00:44:30] we recognise the genuine concerns that are being raised by submitters, the Select committee actually proposed an amendment to make it clear, because we appreciate that the marriage act predates the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights Act to make it clear that in this day and age, we do not believe that religious freedom of religious expression should be overruled by this piece of legislation and that any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a church can refuse to marry any couple if to do so would contravene their religious beliefs. Now we deliberately included celebrants [00:45:00] and that. So this applies not just to religious ministers but to celebrants who are associated with those, uh, religious organisations as well. So the issue has now come down to what we call independent who are not acting on the authority of any church, and I want to remind members of the very important distinction between the role of church and the role of state. Here. Religious celebrants are acting on behalf of the religious organisation to whom they belong, and the state independent celebrants are acting solely on behalf of the [00:45:30] state. Uh, and I want to, uh, direct members to Section five of the Bill of Rights Act. This is the official information that we got from officials, which says that indeed it does allow rights affirmed under the Bill of Rights Act to be justifiably limited. Accordingly, an exemption could be justified where it would be contrary to the recognised purpose of religious bodies and approved organisations to require their celebrants to solemnise certain marriages. In contrast, independent marriage celebrants and registrars are appointed by the registered general [00:46:00] to perform a public function not to promote their own religious or personal beliefs. Now that separation between church and state is very important. Because if we now say that these public servants effectively carry out a public function, uh, are not subject to the Human Rights Act And what does that say for civil servants who work in the Department of Internal Affairs, for example, issuing the marriage certificates and what the select committee did was we left the door open to those celebrants who do have firm religious beliefs to go to their church and have their church appoint them, uh, as [00:46:30] acting under their authority. That way, they are given the full protection of this new clause which the Select committee has put in. Um, so I believe we have covered off that issue very, very carefully. Um, and I would be concerned if we were to vote up amendments which might muddy that because it was a very deliberate decision to make a separation between church and state. But but to provide an avenue for those celebrants who are currently independent who want to be able to exercise their own religious beliefs, Uh, and their own religious freedoms. So, [00:47:00] um and and can I just point out, uh, an issue of reality, which is this is actually unlikely to be a problem on one of the most important days of your life. I don't think that any couple is going to want to have someone presiding over this ceremony who doesn't want to be there and who is only there under threat of legal action. That's why this has never been an issue since 1955. It hasn't been an issue since the Civil Union Act came in in 2004. I don't believe it's going to be an issue going on into the future. Accept the principle of the matter. But in reality, I do not believe that anyone is going to be Mr Chair [00:47:30] and a genuine threat of prosecution. So we come to the issue of the use of church buildings and the ability to refuse supply of facilities or services. Can we be clear that churches will not across the board, be required to provide their facilities for same sex marriages? If this bill passes and I want to, uh, read to members from the Human Rights Commission opinion on this, it says in part, this reflects the fact that religious ceremonies and services are not an area of public life covered by the Human Rights Act. Similarly, ceremonial [00:48:00] or consecrated spaces or any other religious premises that are not made available for the public to hire are not covered by the Human Rights Act. However, when a religious organisation provides goods or services or accommodation to the public, they are held to the same non-discrimination standards as others. And this was actually backed up on the illegal opinion of of family First, um, so the idea that this is going to be carte blanche everyone has to provide their facilities is not true. Can I say to members that this has been the law for 20 years, that if you provide a commercial [00:48:30] service, you must do so in an anti discriminatory way, you may not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation And if members want to do that, then they should put up a bill to amend the Human Rights Act, which is actually where this It's not the marriage act, um, because it is a major winding back of our human rights legislation. If we now say that the law that's been in place for 20 years, where we haven't had any issues, uh, is now going to try to be wound back by an amendment, um, to the marriage act, so can I. Then come to the issue of freedom of [00:49:00] speech and concerns that, um, that the passage of the act may mean that some people cannot express their views on gay marriage. And one thing that came up was the section 56 of the Marriage Act, which none of us I believe knew existed. Which makes it an offence to deny the validity of someone's marriage. And there were fears that this could be used against those now who refuse to recognise the validity of same sex marriages. What's never been used? Uh, this penalty has never been exercised. It's a £100 fine. Um, and the select committee [00:49:30] basically said, Let's get rid of it. It's no longer appropriate. So that fear, uh, members do not need to worry that Section 56 may be used against people who speak out against same sex marriages. If I can move on to the issue of the referendum, um, and the SOPS uh, that are in place. And and the honourable Winston Peters said, So we're saying you can have a referendum on asset sales, but not on this issue. And I want to say absolutely that is not the case. Yes, you can have a referendum on this issue, but there is a process that we go through in this country to initiate referenda, [00:50:00] and that is absolutely open, uh, to members who oppose this bill, just as it was to members who oppose asset sales. What the SOPS are actually asking we do is to bypass that process is to override that process that is currently in place. And from my own personal view, I do strongly believe there are some issues that should not be determined by referendum, and I do not believe that the rights of any minority group should be subjected and only upheld on the will of the majority and members mentioned Switzerland where they do, uh, these issues a referendum [00:50:30] all the time. Uh, where as a result, women didn't get the vote until 1971 1971. And I want to tell members the reasons that were given at the time were that men and women were fundamentally different. Men and women were fundamentally different. And on the federal Department of Foreign Affairs website, they actually point out the order. Sorry, can I just remind members that you can interject on the speaker who has the floor? But you can't interject [00:51:00] on each other when you don't have the floor? If you want to do that, then it's not in this place. I call the Honourable Thank you. Um, very much Mr Speaker. So now on what they said at the time was one of the reasons given as to why women shouldn't be given the vote was quote. It wouldn't promote equality because their natural modesty would stop them going out to vote when pregnant. And since rural women have more babies and those in towns, this would go give an unfair advantage to the latter. So I think there are some intrinsic dangers in putting an issue like [00:51:30] that this to vote at a referendum. Now more generally, I want to. I want to address the issue that a number of people who've emailed us have talked about Children and what this might mean for Children. And I think we all agree in this house that marriage does afford benefits both legal and social. It provides stability. My question to members would be, Why should every child in this country not have access to those benefits? Why are we saying to Children who are currently living in same sex relationships? And they're there now? This bill doesn't pass. That isn't going to change that. They [00:52:00] don't get the full protections and benefits of marriage because some adults disagree with the relationship that their parents are in. I think if we're looking at the rights of Children in this country, then this bill actually does afford more legal rights and protections as well as social protections and to those Children who are being raised, uh, in those families, in terms of other matters very quickly, this will, uh, this will address an issue for transgender people where when they go through that process, they have to annul their marriage, Um, or choose [00:52:30] to, uh, remain listed as the original sex on the birth certificate, which puts a number of them in a horrible situation. This will address this, and some members say some gay people don't want this. That's true. They don't have to do it. But if they don't do it, it will be because they choose not to do it. Not because the state knowingly and deliberately excludes them from the institutions I call the Honourable Member Doctor Rajan Prasad. Thank you, Mr Chair. I, like a number of previous speakers, [00:53:00] was not able to take a call in the first two readings of this bill. So it's a pleasure to take this now. I want to come and speak specifically to Section five A. But before I do that, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to reflect on the bill. Uh, and, uh, how I've gone about making my decision on this particular bill when, um when we're asked to exercise our conscience, there is no guidance in this parliament as to how that conscience needs [00:53:30] to be exercised. And so I did a number of things, Mr Chairman. One was certainly to look to consult my own community. Um, And as I went about consulting the ethnic communities in Auckland, their leaders, I certainly found a range of opinion, some supporting the direction of this bill as an element of 21st century society, uh, and others a sizable proportion of the ethnic community not comfortable with [00:54:00] the direction of this bill. And in fact, as you went further into that, you realised. So I realised that they were not confident that they were not not comfortable with the existence, the legality of gay relationships. And that is one matter that could not be re litigated. And there have been many who have consulted us and made submissions. Who would like to relitigate that primary? Uh uh, principle. And that's not up for debate here. New Zealand crossed that bridge in the [00:54:30] eighties, and so we're now talking about something else. Then I reflected with my family and friends some very, very dear friends who are members of the gay community, some highly respected New Zealand families who have Children and grandchildren of gay relationships, and I looked upon them and talked to some of them and realised that here we people in gay relationships with Children leading normal lives with no effect on anybody else. [00:55:00] Great citizens, great mums, great dads bringing up Children that anybody in this house would be very proud of. So that matter then became part of my conscience. The third element, Mr Chairman, was the fact that I was a human rights commissioner for New Zealand. And once you swear to uphold the human rights of New Zealand citizens, you don't do that for the period that you hold that mandate. [00:55:30] You do it for all time. And so for me, in the end, it became a question of the rights of New Zealand citizens and for me, then it became very simple and very clear that we our laws, did not permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. And that indeed was enough for me to put all of the arguments together. All of the consultations that I had carried out together to say there was only one position one could take on this particular [00:56:00] bill, which was to support it, because I'd also want to look into the eyes of those Children, those mums and dads and those friends of mine and those leaders of our community who are members of this community and and they to look them in the eye and say that when the time came to express their rights in this parliament and the only way I knew how, then I did the right thing. So from that point of view, it was the right thing to do and I'm very pleased and proud [00:56:30] to be able to support that. I know that members of my own community will not accept that. But I asked them to reflect on New Zealand's history. I asked them to reflect on where New Zealand's history, its presence and its future and that's the country to which us as migrants have committed to. And we have to accept some of those things, particularly when a parliament such as this, the most democratic in the world makes a decision. So for those points of view, Mr Speaker, I was pleased there was one final element [00:57:00] pleased to support this bill. There was one final element, Mr Chairman, that influenced me and this it was this that this bill takes nothing away from anybody. It actually takes nothing away, and those who argue that it does somehow reduce us as a society in terms of our spirituality. Certainly have a difficulty with me because there's nothing about my relationship, my family, my marriage [00:57:30] that is negated or diminished in any way. I know that marriage, the institution of marriage, has developed for a long time and no doubt will continue to develop. It is not set in a form that has always been the same. It has always developed, and a bit like our society and our civilization. This institution will also develop. Mr. Chairman, I want to come. Mr. Chairman, Chairman, Dr Rajan Prasad. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do want to come [00:58:00] to Clause five A. I also had concerns about the role of ministers and the role of marriage celebrants. And there was a time when I thought that hang on. This this does impose this does create some difficulties and and how, And I wondered how the Select committee was going to work its way through this. And I'm very pleased with what they've done in clarifying [00:58:30] Section five, a section 29 of the act itself. And I think it's a very, very elegant way in which they've gone about doing this because they first underscore the the the principle that a marriage licence shall authorise but not oblige any marriage celebrant. And I think that provides all of the protection that I require for a marriage celebrant that says I'm not obliged to do this And I [00:59:00] can't imagine of any couple who would then want to use a marriage celebrant who expressed strong views. So, So So so For that reason, I accept the the the clarification. I also accept that the avoidance of doubt clause that has been written in into the new section 29 is also very powerful because it does satisfy those with strong religious beliefs and they are across a number of religions. They are protected, and so they should be. [00:59:30] So that satisfied the 22 of the major requirements I had. Then I come to the SOPS. All of I have difficulty with all of the SOPS that that comment on the role of marriage celebrants because I think inadvertently those sops are now licencing discrimination itself. And so I don't believe we need to [01:00:00] go beyond what is already in the amendments to this bill because to do anything else We argue against the very principles that certainly have led me to the position I take because in the end it will be discriminatory. And it is. This is not the time of place for us to include provisions in our acts that are discriminatory for no other reason. It's almost goes round in circles because we're saying to [01:00:30] saying that because you want to discriminate, it's OK to discriminate and yet the whole thing is about anti discrimination. And if that's where we start from, then Mr Chairman, I believe that none of the sops I cannot conscience support because to go beyond where they this particular amendment goes, would be unfair would be illogical and would be unnecessary. It does address concerns of our citizens, but I think we must shape responses to those concerns rather than accept [01:01:00] them and make the amendments that they require. Because the unintended consequences, as Mona Meki says, are too terrible to contemplate. They would be and I could not look then the people I talked about earlier in the face to say that I supported that, so I will not be voting for those kinds of amendments I do accept. However, the sincerity with which members have raised those in this particular particular house, and I know where it's coming from and I know what [01:01:30] what lies behind it. But I take comfort from the fact that the religious freedoms that are necessary and protected in our legislation human rights at the moment are protected here as well. So, Mr Speaker, with those comments, I want to thank those who have participated in this bill, the care with which they have made those comments. And I trust that those listening will accept that this is not a knee jerk reaction. It's been a long process. It's a process that I've gone [01:02:00] through personally and in many, many discussions arrive at a point that I now articulate, and I know that many will be disappointed, and I know that many, many more will not be disappointed. I want to be able to look at both those communities in the eye and say we have taken nothing away from anybody. We have in fact enabled us to be the kind of caring society we aspire to be, And if we create those who are inside and those who are outside, [01:02:30] then I believe We have done that for too long already, and this is not the time or the place to do it, and I certainly will not want to be part of it. So with those comments, I will support the bill I call the Honourable Member Paul Goldsmith. Mr. Chair, uh, reading Tony Blair's autobiography some time back, I was struck by his observation about politics. When you decide, you divide [01:03:00] and I'm conscious of the grave responsibility. Uh, that's on the house this evening, so I I've certainly struggled with this bill and given it a great deal of thought because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies. Uh, my conservative instincts on one hand lead me to respect traditions and the wisdoms of, uh, the wisdom of centuries. Marriage has traditionally been, uh, conceived as between a man and a woman, and, uh, the British [01:03:30] and Christian traditions for centuries has been between one single man and one single woman, and that's only been the case because it's made perfectly good sense, and institutions and ideas change over time. But the conservative in me makes me hesitate before changing something that has served society well for so long. And I certainly understand and respect the strength of feeling, uh, of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way they are running parallel to that. However, [01:04:00] my guiding political belief is my commitment to freedom for people to live their lives in different ways with respect. Life is interesting. Society is dynamic. Culture is diverse when people are free and have the liberty to live in different ways. 25 odd years ago, we agreed that the state shouldn't allow, uh shouldn't outlaw homosexual acts. And very few people disagree with that now. So I can understand why some gay couples would like to have access [01:04:30] to the institution of marriage. And people often ask, Well, why do they want marriage when they can have civil unions already? The answer, of course, is that words are important, which is why people on both sides feel so strongly about it. So on balance, Uh, Mr Chair, I've decided that for me, freedom or individual conscience Trump's, uh, tradition. So I am supporting this bill. My background has been, uh, that I was raised in the Christian [01:05:00] faith in the Baptist Church and many of my relatives and and friends from that background are disappointed that I'm voting for this bill, and I understand their disappointment. But I would remind them that the Baptist Church was born out of the idea of non-conformity. Uh, the early Baptists gathered together because they disagreed with aspects of the established church and suffered terribly for their individual beliefs. And that tolerance of religious nonconformity which [01:05:30] English speaking peoples had arrived at certainly by the 19th century was fundamental in establishing many of the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy today. And we are so much better for it, accepting that we can all live together in a society, even though we fundamentally disagree on matters that are very dear to our hearts. Many people have also raised the matter of defending the role of the family as the bedrock of society. Is this bill weakening the family? [01:06:00] I'm not convinced that it is. I do believe that strong and responsible families are essential to a successful society and that there is much work to do to strengthen families. But the real political battleground there, if there is indeed such a battleground, in my view, is over the messages and signals that the state sends, particularly through its welfare policies. In my view, the signal that the state has sent over uh, the past few decades through welfare policies has [01:06:30] in many ways undermined the family, and dealing with that is far more important than whether gay couples can call themselves married or not. In my view, turning back to the bill like many of my national colleagues, I needed first to be reassured that freedom of religion would be maintained so that no marriage celebrant would be forced to marry gay couples against their will. Those assurances were given, and an amendment to the bill strengthened protection for marriage celebrants. And I'm sure the will of Parliament on [01:07:00] this matter is very clear. Uh, an SOP by my colleagues and do and and Mitchell make that even, uh, even clearer. I. I also voted for a proposal that there be a referendum on this topic before the bill became law. I see it as materially different to a referendum on government policy, such as parcel assets, where the government policy was explicitly outlined before an election and as core to economic policy in those circumstances, To my mind, there's no argument [01:07:30] for a separate separate referendum. It seems to me, though, on matters of major social change such as this, particularly when there have has been relatively little discussion before or during an election campaign, a referendum is appropriate. So, uh, I was disappointed that that was, uh, lost, and I support No, that's enough. Thank you. I call the Honourable Member David Bennett. Thank you, Mr Chair. And I just want to take a short call following on from [01:08:00] my, um, colleague and, um, about the referendum issue. Uh uh, as somebody that's not married, um, for anybody to get married. I think that's a great thing. And so, um, I see both sides of the argument and, um and, uh, and encouraged by anybody that wishes to follow that path. And, uh um, as electricity, we have had numerous correspondence and meetings with people, um, on both sides of the debate, and, um, and understand the issues [01:08:30] raised on both sides of the debate. And I just want to thank everybody that has been part of that. Especially proponents of the bill in this house for the way they've done that. Um, I think they've done it in a very fair and open way. And, um, I'd like to thank them for that. And, um, and thank the members of the community that have shown their opinion. Um, outside this parliament tonight, we actually have, uh, people showing both sides of the argument. And, um, it becomes a question of whether we in this house really should be making that decision. [01:09:00] And it's my firm belief that, um, this is a decision that we can all hold opinions on, and some of us may not have strong opinions. Some of us may not know exactly which way they should vote, and it's going to be difficult to make a decision one way or the other. But I do believe it is an issue that could go to the public. It's a situation where the public could make their own mind up on. It is not a situation where there are hidden issues that [01:09:30] politicians have to understand and debate. It's not an issue that would be complex in the sense that it would be difficult to get the message out for the public. It's not an issue that you need a a public petition to get the number of votes to set the referendum off. Um, this part parliament can decide to have such a referendum. And I disagree with the the context that it's been said that a referendum would be, um uh not the right way [01:10:00] of dealing with this issue. This is the particular issue that is the right thing for a referendum to deal with. Um, and this is the time, which would be a particularly strong time for the public to do a referendum on this issue because there has been a very measured and developed public debate around this issue. Um, I think we need to give the public their say on this issue. Um, I don't know if we are elected to make [01:10:30] this decision here today. Um, I believe that we are here to debate this issue, and I believe that we are here to put this issue in front of the public, and I commend those people that have done that, but I actually believe it's up to the public to make that final decision. Um, at this stage. And so, um, and some members may say Be brave. Well, I think it is being brave to actually accept that. We don't know everything in this house to [01:11:00] be able to say no. They'd be able to say, at some point in time, we need to listen to the people. And that's what I implore this house to do. Um, I do not personally have a strong opinion for or against this bill. Um, um, I understand the arguments on both sides, and, uh, and many people will make assumptions that you are either for or against on the way you you vote. But I do believe in the New Zealand public. I do believe in the sincerity [01:11:30] of people to make a decision. I do not believe that the New Zealand public would make decisions based on preconceptions or, um, in any way wanting to hurt their fellow citizens. I believe that the New Zealand public can be trusted. They will take an open mind to this, as politicians in this house have. And if we can trust 100 and 20 of us to make that decision, why can't we trust 4 million of us to make the same decision? [01:12:00] And what's the difference between us and the people outside? There is no difference. We are all New Zealanders. We should all have this decision. This is a perfect opportunity for a referendum. I support the New Zealand First Party in bringing that forward. And I look forward to this house voting that way. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Welcome. I call the Honourable Member. [01:12:30] Uh [01:13:00] uh uh [01:13:30] uh [01:14:00] [01:14:30] [01:15:00] [01:15:30] [01:16:00] [01:16:30] Mr Speaker. [01:17:00] [01:17:30] Mr. Speaker The honourable member. [01:18:00] [01:18:30] Uh [01:19:00] uh [01:19:30] [01:20:00] Mr [01:20:30] No OK, [01:21:00] I call the Honourable Member Ian McKelvin. Thank you, Mr Chair. Uh, I've, uh I take the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate with a degree of sadness, but I can no longer give uh, the bill my support. And I wish to explain why Firstly, I do not accept that the marriage act, as it currently stands, denies anyone a human right. We all have the right to act and behave as we see fit in life. We have the right to choose our partners or our wife or our husband. [01:21:30] We have the right to join them in legal, civil union or marriage is appropriate. The act as it stands certainly denies many people the right to marry. And so it should. There are other positions, roles and opportunities that cannot be taken, used or filled by us in life. And that's how it will always be. We have the right to respect respect for our differences. Respect for our opinions, Chris. One of the greatest attributes a human can have is the ability to tolerate difference, to accept others for what they are or believe, [01:22:00] and to give them the opportunity to thrive and lead a positive, fruitful life. Mr. Chair, On that note, I want to acknowledge all who participated in the debate on this bill, all who behaved in the best spirit of this house. We are attempting to negotiate, to legislate, to eliminate difference in this bill and for no other reason than to overturn the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman and make it available to everyone. But I'm sorry, but that's not the way of the world. It's not the business of parliament to rural institution that has been in place in [01:22:30] life for thousands of years. I can tell you now, this Parliament will not be able to turn a sheep into a goat no matter how hard it tries. It is not our business. Uh, in my view, to do that. All the changes proposed in the course of this leg of change could be done through strengthening the civil union bill. In fact, the whole objective could have been affected through changes to the civil union bill without affecting the status of many thousands. In fact, millions of New Zealanders who have married in good faith [01:23:00] over the years stated in her closing statement on the second reading and voting on this bill. I hope the house will give a message to young people. You don't have to change, You can be who you are and where society will value who you are. Mr. Chair, this bill creates a situation that's not about young people or old people. It's about all of us. It's about finding a way for us to live in harmony and I don't believe that we've handled this matter appropriately [01:23:30] and the actions we are proposing to take in passing this bill, I find myself in the odd position of agreeing with the leader of New Zealand first. There is no mandate for this house to pass this bill. I've already said that it's not the place of parliament to make this decision It's the place of the people, and they have not been consulted satisfactorily. Mr. Chair, I'm not a great supporter of referendum, but in this case, I need to be. And so, as a consequence, we'll be supporting the bill. I would also like the statement. Mr. Chair, I voted for this [01:24:00] bill in the first, uh uh, reading and I voted for it because I genuinely believe we needed to find a solution to this issue. I still believe that I can't, however, accept that this bill is the best way to deal with it. Thank you, Mr Chair. I call the Honourable Member Tim McIndoe. Thank you, Mr Chair. Could I begin by acknowledging the courteous and I think intelligent and sensitive way in which the vast majority of members of this house have conducted [01:24:30] themselves throughout all stages of this debate. It is, of course, one of the most highly charged and emotional subjects that we've ever been asked to grapple with. And many people who have been listening to the debate, whether they're for or against it have commented to me how impressed they've been that they think it has been parliament at its best. Could I also acknowledge Mya Mackie, who's in the chair at the moment. Earlier tonight, she called for those who are promoting SOPS, and I'm one of them to clarify their protections for people of conscience that the sponsor of the bill [01:25:00] promised the nation and which the Government Administration Committee has tried to secure to instead promote changes to the Human Rights Act. I certainly had to consider that in looking to put my SOP together, but it was very clear that that would have been well outside the scope of this bill and would not reflect the concerns or the intentions of those who are promoting the supplementary order papers, or at least the ones that I've read. There may be more to be tabled. My supplementary order paper, however, does refer [01:25:30] to the Human Rights Act to ensure that marriage, celebrants and others, I guess in what might be called the wedding business will not be subject to prosecution in the future. If for reasons of belief or personal philosophy which may have nothing to do with religion, they are unwilling to conduct or participate in same sex marriages. Now that is a very important protection for organisations such as the Roman Catholic Church, and I want to acknowledge the plea for our understanding that we've received from the church, including [01:26:00] Archbishop John Jew. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I certainly read his submission particularly carefully. My own views on this bill are well known because I've had the privilege of speaking in both the first and the second readings of this debate. I did so in the second reading because I had been a substitute member of the government administration committee. So in this particular call, I want to explain my thinking on the issue of the referendum. And like the speaker who's just spoken before me, I don't often agree with Winston Peters either. But on this occasion, I do support [01:26:30] his supplementary order paper calling for a referendum, and the reason is because this clearly was not an election issue in 2011, and it is one of the most divisive issues of our time. The only time in the whole of the 2011 campaign that I, as a candidate for Hamilton West was asked. How I might vote on this issue was when I attended a meeting which was also attended by Kevin Haig and a few other members of this house, uh, at a nightclub. And it was a meeting organised by our GL [01:27:00] BT community in Hamilton, and it was certainly quite a challenging meeting. But it was also one that was conducted with courtesy. And contrary to the nonsense that has frequently been written about me in this debate, including just in the last few hours on Facebook, I want to say again that I am neither anti gay nor homophobic. I certainly don't want to support any form of discrimination. Most of my gay friends know that and acknowledge that not all gays, of course, think alike on this issue, [01:27:30] just as not all Christians do. And many of my gay friends and acquaintances have paid me the compliment of reading the speeches that I have delivered and responding to me intelligently. I acknowledge the fact that many of them don't agree with me, but I thank them for that engagement, and they have paid me the compliment of saying they understand where I'm coming from on this issue. By contrast, those who have been vitriolic in their attacks have never engaged with the arguments that I've put forward, [01:28:00] and it's conspicuous when I read what they post about me and about others who have spoken on this bill that when they constantly learn, use terms like bigot and homophobic, they are running away from real engagement in the debate, and it says far more about them than it does about me or about others who have a different view from theirs. So I respect the many gays who have contacted me intelligently and insensitively to engage on the issue. [01:28:30] I respect them. I thank them for respecting me. Like many MP SI wish I didn't have to express a view on this topic. I acknowledge my friend David Bennett a minute ago, who explained that so many of us find ourselves in a position where we have to because we're here and this issue has arisen. But there are so many New Zealanders who currently feel disenfranchised and deeply disturbed by what is occurring, because it is a fundamental social change [01:29:00] that they are despairing of the fact that this has come upon us in this parliament without their any opportunity to influence the way we would vote. None of my constituents, apart from the few who attended that GL BT meeting that I mentioned in Hamilton just before the election had any reasonable way to indicate to me their vote. I call the Honourable Member Joe. Thank you, Mr Chair. I hadn't intended to take a call, but I'm here in the [01:29:30] house on what we call duty, and I've decided that I will do, in fact, what I suppose is, in fact, my duty, my duty not only to vote on this bill, but to lay on the record the reasons that I will be voting for this bill. Many of my constituents have been surprised at my positive support for the bill, and many of them have contacted me and sought to turn my view around. In some [01:30:00] cases, um, they have demanded I turn my view around, and in many cases, they have sought to persuade me, um, we have, over the course of this bill heard, um, a lot of the information or read a lot of the information from family first. Um, it has come repeatedly to our inboxes, but what The reasons I'm voting for this bill is several fold. Firstly, I [01:30:30] do not believe my marriage or the marriage of other New Zealanders will be in any way diminished by this bill. In fact, it is because I believe so strongly in marriage and my marriage that I understand why other couples want to be married too. Yeah, and I don't see why I should have that privilege, that right with other people, that other people in loving relationships and relationships [01:31:00] that they enter into for life just as I did, why they can't have that privilege as well. And there in lies, the equality. I don't subscribe to the stories of the moral decline that will surely follow the passing of this bill. And I have found it unfortunate that some of the language that I've been treated to, um has been, um, so strident and, um, a little unfortunate. [01:31:30] I have made the point that I respect other people's views and would never ask them to do anything to contravene their views. I only ask the same for myself, and I do want to add to the record that some of the most poignant stories have been the stories that I can't tell because they are the stories of individuals who have also contacted me and told me how important this is to them. Um, [01:32:00] I'm going to finish there, but I'm pleased now that I have set the record straight as to why I will be supporting this bill. One of the last things I lay on the record is that I am very concerned, as I've already mentioned that no one should have to take action in a way that contravenes their beliefs. And for that reason, I will be voting for one of the SOPS, which I hope adds to the committee only adds to the committee's complete conviction that no person should have to perform a marriage, no celebrant or member [01:32:30] of the clergy. Um, if it is against their beliefs and I am voting for that in the hope that it will further add to the record our conviction about that Mr Chair. Thank you. I call the Honourable Member Chris. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I hadn't intended to speak particularly about the referendum, but I will in fact start with that because the and I am opposed to referendum referenda [01:33:00] as a system of, uh, decision making in this type of government. But the proposal to have a referendum is in keeping with New Zealand first tradition with their practises and with it's what they do and I respect them for that. And I think they're very since they are very sincere in promoting a referendum. In this case, they've always liked them, even though they don't always benefit from them. And I think of, uh um, the right [01:33:30] honourable Winston Peters. And I think it was compulsory superannuation, wasn't it, when there was a ghastly result to the Reverend. So, you know, courage and er, and one could hardly complain about New Zealand first putting forward their proposal, and I'm sure they'll all vote for it. I won't. The reason the reason I won't is that I'm very conscious in my mind that the law should not be used to exclude people, and neither should referenda be used [01:34:00] to exclude people. And I think that could be the result of using a referendum. In this case, we have heard that it's recommended because it will involve people. What it won't do is inform people, and this is a case where you really do, I think, need a lot of information to come to any sort of a sensible decision and so a referendum in this case would of itself be divisive and opinion driven, no matter which way the result [01:34:30] might go, The purpose of our being here is to legislate based on the information we have considered. I was deeply grateful to Moana Mackie, my, uh, colleague at the committee meeting for her presentation of, uh, facts this evening. It did. I feel set things in context very clearly, but in this respect, Mr Speaker, I can, uh, Mr Chairman, I completely understand the supplementary order [01:35:00] papers that are coming forward because they reflect exactly the same sequence of thought processes which we went through as a committee. The difference is that they've come in at this stage without the benefit that we had of a number of weeks. To carefully consider which parts of the bill the amendment should be directed to in regards to the SOPS. If I may, uh, complement [01:35:30] the work done by Sir William and the way it was presented. And again, I'd like to say to that member that I have no doubt about the sincerity with which he approached the task. However, if I may, I have a few arguments against the provisions that have been put forward. The first one about the celebrants, religious and independent. This wasn't something that we treated [01:36:00] lightly at all. The select committee fully investigated this section. And their amendment, I consider best, reflects the advice that we received on this issue. The current section 29 and 29 A, as recommended by the Select Committee, already provides strong protection, which they have, uh, which has been stronger protection than has been there before. A triple protection is really not going to achieve anything other than [01:36:30] increase the chances of litigation. And this is not, uh I mean, if you look at the old uh, the old uh, sorry. The the, uh, section 29 it's pretty sort of, general and that, you know, uh, you may but are not obliged to conduct the wedding, and then we made it a little bit more specific for religious people. But if you then go further again, you are becoming more and more specific, and [01:37:00] spec spec that specificity, uh, introduces new opportunities for litigation. And, you know, honestly, do you really think people want to lawyer up reach for the lawyers? What are you doing? Reaching for your lawyers. Well, I'm intending to get married, so I must sue some. I don't honestly think it'll be like that, but we made provision for it. Basically, the act needs to be read consistently with the [01:37:30] Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. I'm I'm surprised that we have SOP suggesting that those acts should be negated. What is it you want to do that? Um uh avoids those Mr. Chair, the Honourable Member. Chris. Thank you. The Ministry of Justice expressly stated in its advice to the select Committee we re we and we were very impressed with the quality of service [01:38:00] we got from the ministry officials. We recommend that the exemption extend to religious bodies and approved organisations, but not to independent marriage celebrants or registrars A key purpose of religious bodies. And I think it is very important. And most approved organisations is to promote religious beliefs. And therefore there's something that lawyers would understand much better than I and that is a hierarchy of, uh um purpose. So Section five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act [01:38:30] allows rights affirmed under under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be justifiably limited. Accordingly, an exemption could be justified where it would be contrary to the recognised purpose of religious bodies and approved organisations to require their celebrants to solemnise certain marriages. In contrast, independent marriage celebrants and registrars are appointed by the Registrar general to perform a public function not to promote their own religious [01:39:00] or personal beliefs. It appears unlikely that they could lawfully be refuse to solemnise a marriage on religious grants. Under Section five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, the select committee extended the exemption for religious bodies and approved organisations in section 29 A. When we look at the, uh, call for freedom of expression, uh, where it's, uh, no challenge may be made under any act to the lawfulness of the following conduct [01:39:30] by a person or organisation, provided that the conduct is based on the belief or conviction that marriage should be the union of a man or a woman. I have a few problems with this one, Mr Chairman, because, um, the Select Committee have removed Section 56 of the Marriage Act that made it an offence to question another's marriage. The removal ensures no person can be convicted of expressing such a view. Incidentally, there never was a prosecution under that section. [01:40:00] I have some problem with the drafting of this particular recommendation. Because what it does say, Mr Speaker, is that, um yes, uh, the mar the or the conviction that marriage should be the union of a man or a woman. It doesn't add exclusively. And so you could easily add after that or two people of the same gender. So I think the the the the proposals are from a drafting point of view riddled with difficulties, especially when we start talking about, [01:40:30] um, the need to identify the genders and just who's going to do that sort of thing? Yeah, exactly enough. We don't need to start thinking in that direction, but that is one of the difficulties about introducing specific requirements. Uh, against the, um uh, the the the bill as it is the, um the use of premises for marriage. What we understand there, uh, Mr [01:41:00] Chairman, is that no challenge may be made under any act to the lawfulness of a refusal by a religious body or approved organisation to allow premises being premises that are occupied and used by the body of the organisation for an association with its religious purposes to be used for in connection with the marriage. That is not a marriage between a man and a woman. There is a fundamental difference, Mr Chairman, between private and public spaces. We don't leave it to churches and organisations to determine whether they sell their services [01:41:30] or not. We should leave the bill as it is, and it protects religious freedom. And the Human Rights Commission has been clear that there's a distinction between private and public places. Mr. Speaker, I really understand where these submissions are coming from. I understand the, uh, impulses that have brought them forward. It's not strange to members of the committee. We have been through the same processes. I think given time people will come. As [01:42:00] Moana Mackey said, Pretty much we're we're fairly close to where we would have been. Uh, I think we can move forward and trust the bill. We should pass this bill. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I call the Honourable Member Sua William a lover, fellow lover, chairman. I just want to take a short call in responding to some of the comments by the former speaker, Uh, just to provide some clarity [01:42:30] for the consideration of the house. Um, the wording that I've used in this draught of the supplementary order paper, uh, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, is consistent with the bill that's in hand. Um, and you'll find that in section four of the the main bill that we're discussing, that's the wording that it has marriage between two people, regardless [01:43:00] of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. So my amendment, the words that I'm using are consistent with the main bill. That's the first point. Second thing is I. I take on board what the select committee have done. It's not an easy job and accept fully the sincerity of their, uh, desire to protect these, uh, these these religious freedom In the first part of my amendment, um, I've tweaked and add it to ensure [01:43:30] that because the the slick committee says with refers to, uh, marriage celeb, but who are authorised by the body of their church. We have a case currently where the Anglican Church and Presbyterian, as a body, do not have a position one way or the other, and ministers and on their individual basis are divided on the issue. So my amendment provides the protection to that individual minister who whose body of religion had not yet [01:44:00] made a decision of whether to adopt, uh, a formal position one way or the other in in terms of the, uh, uh, section B part B of my amendment. Um, yes, the committee I acknowledge removed section 56 because that was incompatible by the rights provided the freedom of religion provided by the the Bill of Rights Act. However, it it doesn't state that those rights are there. And we know and those of [01:44:30] you who are in the legal fraternity will understand that the Bill of rights do not have supremacy in our laws, and any other act can therefore, uh, overcome or, uh, that particular bill. And finally, in terms of the, um, in the last amendment of my last clause of my amendment with regard to premises, I make reference specifically to religious premises consecrated [01:45:00] for the purposes occupied and used for religious purposes only, and I'm asking that that protection be there. I'm not worried about premises that are used for profit commercial or investment purposes. That's not the intention of my amendment. And finally, it's also not the intention, and I want to make it clear of it's not the intention of my amendment to cover broadly protection for civil, uh, marriage celebrant because civil marriage, celebrant and registers [01:45:30] are conducting a public service and are paid for I. My amendment in the hold is about providing certainty and greater certainty for the freedoms of religion that are provided for in the Bill of Rights. And I'm simply wanting those rights to be explicitly part of the bill. And that's why I ask, though it's in the late in the piece, I do ask and hope that members of the House can have consideration. It's about balancing the [01:46:00] rights provided by the state of protecting equality for all members as as versus the rights of the church and how churches conduct their affairs with its members. Uh, Doctor Paul Hutchison, You Mr Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the committee stages of this highly controversial and important bill, which I continue to support. I want to start [01:46:30] by acknowledging the incredible energy effort and thought put into submissions from both sides of the discussion. I also want to acknowledge the very high quality report of the Select committee. I believe that this sort of report shows our Parliament at its very best when dealing with views that are passionately held and are about human [01:47:00] rights and beliefs. I also want to acknowledge the huge number of letters, emails, discussions that I've had in the electorate that I'm so honoured to represent. I've got great respect for the sincerity of all those comments. On many occasions I've referred people who have written me written to me to the select committee's comments as highly worthy of reading. [01:47:30] And I do note that the commentary, uh, mentioned that in some European jurisdictions a marriage is authorised and registered by the state first, and a couple is then free to choose to have a religious or cultural ceremony appropriate to them. Perhaps that's the ideal in terms of solving human rights here in New Zealand. From both sides [01:48:00] of the issue, there was a very strong message that marriage celebrants, church or independent should not be compelled to carry out a ceremony if it was against their wishes to do so. Hence the amendment that I have tabled, which is in line with several other SOPS but in my case is simple and conforms with the second option the Parliamentary Council put before the Select [01:48:30] committee. I'm absolutely aware that the Select Committee spent significant time with parliamentary Council and others discussing the options for amending Section two during the superb second reading speech of my colleague Chris Oval. He mentioned that of over 9000 marriage celebrants in New Zealand, only two only two. As he put it, Submissions were sent to the select committee. [01:49:00] But I've since contacted the clerk of the committee and others, and no one seems able to identify those two or remember exactly what they said, even my esteemed friend and colleague Chris. However, I've read carefully through the Celebrants Association of New Zealand submission and while they support the bill, they have two major concerns. One was to quote the continued Abbi ability [01:49:30] of celebrants to officiate only at ceremonies of their own choosing. It's accepted that any law is challenging through the courts or subject to change by the parliament as we are seeing in the United States, as we debate here in the parliament in New Zealand today, what we write into this bill will surely give a signal as to the intention of the parliament for any future court challenges. Hopefully, [01:50:00] however, court challenges will not happen. This amendment is not just about triple protection for a specific group, the churches or independent marriage celebrants, but seeks to extend that protection to all celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness which underpins this bill. I do note that schedule one of this bill only includes Christian churches [01:50:30] and would not protect other religions such as practised by my colleague. All marriage celebrants, either independent or church, are in fact facilitating the state's requirements in terms of the marriage certification. While it's accepted that a key purpose of religious bodies and most approved organisations is to promote religious beliefs, surely that should not [01:51:00] override the religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of independence, marriage, celebrants or other significant religious bodies. Some have argued that my amendment will lead to independent marriage celebrants saying No, Mr Chair, saying, saying no for all sorts of spurious reasons. Exactly the same could be said of the churches. Surely [01:51:30] the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act should apply in an even handed way at some peril to open a can of worms. A powerful corollary to providing individual choice in perhaps an even more contentious area is the Contraception sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977 where the conscientious, conscientious objection clause provides [01:52:00] explicit and clear exemption, overriding any rule of law, terms of any oath or any contract. Many may say such a degree of protection is quite inappropriate today and needs to be reviewed in reality. In a country such as New Zealand, where there is not entirely clear separation between church and state and a lot has been written about that, [01:52:30] I suggest these protections remain necessary and practical. So, Mr Chair, I call upon all members to carefully reconsider their proxies to support my amendment instead, which is designed to protect choice for all marriage celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness, which is what this bill is about. Honourable Cheers. Thank you, Mr Chair, [01:53:00] I'd like to, uh, speak in support of the need for, um, a supplementary order paper with respect to protecting the ability of, um, celebrants to be able to refuse to marry gay couples depending on their, uh, the way they see this particular issue. And I have some, um, sensitivity around it. Having been a married a civil. Um, um, independent marriage celebrant for a number of years, I have, I think, officiated about 100 weddings. And, uh, in [01:53:30] the last three weeks, I've I've, um uh done a tag team with someone who is currently licenced because I'm not currently licenced having uh, handed in my warrant when I became a bit busy as an MP. But I've officiated at two weddings in the last three or four weeks, and I am, uh, happily officiating at my nephew's wedding. Uh, this Sunday, Um, I would also like to point out a lot. People have said those civil, uh, or independent celebrants, uh, do it for the money, and they are authorised by the state, so they should marry all [01:54:00] comers. Um, in actual fact, the time I've accepted a bottle of wine as a full payment. Um, because I saw this as some way that I could help people within my community. I wasn't doing it for any particular award. Um, at times, when mileage was required, et cetera, et cetera. Then we got up to 100 bucks, But generally it was for a bottle of plunk. Uh, having said that, the the point is, um, I believe quite specific here because I agree that there are protections within the bill as it is at the moment. Um, that protect those celebrants who [01:54:30] are, um, uh, authorise or endorse as part of the organisation they belong to, as long as their, um, organisation that is, in effect, their sponsor to be a a cele, um, has a position on gay marriage, and it's been raised already tonight that there are churches, um, for instance, that don't, uh, hold official, um, positions on this issue the member number of members within their community do. But those people who are in the position as I was as an independent, uh, celebrant [01:55:00] would not be protected in this way. Um, and yet, and although there is, um, a clause there that says no celebrant has to is obliged to marry any couple that presents themselves, um, for marriage, the fact is, you would have to tell a lie not to, uh, not to perform that marriage. And And people have said to me even people that I'm very friendly with just there, you could always just say you're busy. But in fact that would be [01:55:30] that would not be true. That would not be true in the case in the case, he's only good to listen to for so long. Um, the point. The point of the matter is this. That if if I decided I wasn't going to marry a gay couple who presented themselves for marriage, it would be because I didn't agree with gay marriage to go and create some other fanciful reason that my diary was full would be telling a lie in effect. And I don't [01:56:00] think people should be put into that position. It's the same as someone, a shopkeeper who doesn't have to serve somebody in a shop. If they come in, they want to buy some goods. He can decide whether or not he wants to sell those goods to that person coming in a shop. That's fine. But the Human Rights Act prohibits that shopkeeper from refusing to serve that person on the basis of a number of those bases within the Human Rights Act, one of them being sexual orientation, race, colour, creed and all the rest of it And so it should. But, uh, there [01:56:30] is an alignment with what? Um, my friend, Um, Doctor Paul Hutchison was saying, we're talking about, um, people, for instance, within the medical fraternity, um, who are able to rely on their moral code beliefs, well held religious or otherwise, not to perform, um, certain procedures that people present themselves for. You can think, for instance, of, uh, circumcision of male child Children some years ago. Um, a doctor wasn't required to perform that if they didn't believe that that [01:57:00] that was, uh, within their keeping or ethics. And the performance of terminations is exactly the same. If people can think that this issue is different, it is not, uh a a medical practitioner is dealing with the physical. That's right. A person, uh, in in my position as a, um a celebrant who got into it through community service and and, uh, initiated through, um, a faith interest is dealing with something spiritual. And I don't believe that the physical and the spiritual could necessarily just be, um, conveniently [01:57:30] uh uh uh, protracted or diverged. For those reasons, I think that it is very important that we have a, uh uh an amendment to this bill that makes it quite clear that an independent celebrant, um, can decide not to marry a couple. A gay couple who present or any couple who present themselves. Um, on because of that, uh, because of that situation, I just underline it like this, too, If a couple came to me and were And, uh, if it came round to their wedding day and they turned [01:58:00] up Mr Chair, uh, Morris and they turned up and they were drunk, I wouldn't marry them because I don't believe they're in the right space in their heads to get married. If, uh, if they turned up and if they turned up to, uh, present themselves asking me to take their wedding. And I believe that the woman was obviously suffering from, um, physical abuse and had been assaulted, or was there in some way not there? Um, because she wanted to get married to this guy because she was under some sort of duress or pressure. [01:58:30] I wouldn't marry them. And that would be fine because the law says you're covered. You don't have to. But if I decided not to marry the couple that present themselves for marriage because of any of those bases under the Human Rights Act. I am acting illegally and I believe, as a celebrant, as an independent celebrant, even when only authorised civilly and not promoted by some organisation of faith, I should have the ability to decline that marriage. Thank you. You do, Tim McIndoe, Mr. Chair, I'd like [01:59:00] to begin by acknowledging my friend Chester Burrows and that fine contribution could I also, um, in particular acknowledge Sir William Seo, who spoke a short time ago and indeed, earlier this evening, in a previous call. I think that all members of this house have had particular challenges in dealing with this issue, regardless of what side we're on. But I particularly want to acknowledge Mrs who I think has faced unique challenges in dealing with this issue and has, in my view, conducted himself with great integrity and conviction. And I wish to acknowledge [01:59:30] that and put it on the record and to wish him well with his supplementary order paper, which in many respects I think is very similar to mine. But there are some differences which I'll come to in a minute a minute ago, Mr. Chair When I was, um, interrupted in a previous call, I was just making the point that none of my constituents with with the few with the exception of a few who had attended a meeting of the GL BT community just before the election, had had any way of ascertaining what my views were on this issue. So that in casting their votes for a potential MP [02:00:00] for Hamilton West that can't have been something that they were taking into account. And that is one of the reasons why I felt that I should consider the call for a referendum on this issue, because I have been, um, criticised, as many in this house will know for allowing my faith to influence my conscience vote in this matter. I have to say that for any person of faith, what could be more important as a foundation than faith in determining our view [02:00:30] on a conscience vote? Others have different beliefs from mine, of course, and I respect that. But my faith and my values and my beliefs are the foundation, the cornerstone for my conscience vote. So I cast my vote in the 1st and 2nd readings of this debate according to my conscience, but because I acknowledge that many voters in Hamilton West and of course elsewhere in the country may disagree with me. [02:01:00] In fact, of course, many do. I also decided to support the call for a referendum, and immediately some of the same people who attacked me for voting according to my conscience rather than trying to reflect theirs, then accused me of cowardice, of all things, for wanting to let the public have their say. Well, I say to those people, You can't have it both ways. I will vote for a referendum again tonight not so much because I think it's the best way to decide the outcome. [02:01:30] But because that way I can exercise my conscience while also enabling as many electors in Hamilton West as possible, who wish to to exercise theirs as well. And that seems a pretty reasonable compromise. I want to turn back now to outline more of my thinking behind the supplementary order paper that I've tabled, and at the outset I want to acknowledge my friend Mark Mitchell, who has this evening tabled an amendment to my supplementary order paper and to say to members [02:02:00] I fully support Mark's thinking and I urge members to support his amendment as well as my supplementary order paper. I thank Mark for the work that he has done on this issue. I think he has improved and clarified my SOP when I was present for discussions in the Government Administration Select Committee and that was on two occasions. There was considerable focus on whether those who on the grounds of conscience would not feel able to participate in a formal [02:02:30] or professional capacity in a same sex marriage would be respected and protected. In that view, the majority of the committee, of course, said that they would be, and the bill's sponsor, who I acknowledge who I think has conducted herself with decency and a real sense of determination in this matter has also always promised that they will be protected. But the important thing is that legal opinion on this matter is deeply divided. [02:03:00] So my supplementary order paper seeks to guarantee the assurances that Lesa Wall and the Government Administration Committee say they support. So I urge all MP S, whether in favour or opposed to the substantive bill to support my amendment, and I want to read to you just some of the wording from Mark Mitchell's amendment that no marriage celebrant is obliged to solemnise a marriage if solemnising, that marriage would conflict with religious or philosophical [02:03:30] beliefs of the individual, or of the religious body or approved organisation, if any, to which he or she belongs. So it is designed to be comprehensive and fair to give the assurances in clear language that the sponsor of the bill and many others have claimed, should be there. For those who have, as a matter of conscience, a different opinion on this issue, it is not therefore about re [02:04:00] legalising discrimination, which has been alleged by quite a number of people who have spoken this evening or who have written. Those who claim that that would re legalise discrimination are surely throwing open to real risk, including legal challenge. Those who might wish, through reasons of good faith and conscience, to stand by their convictions. It is therefore, about protecting churches, celebrants and [02:04:30] others from being forced to act contrary to their concerns. I urge members to support it. Uh, Colin King, Mr Chair, thank you very much. It's, um, with great consideration that I I take this call. Uh, we've got a bill in front of us that, uh, doesn't sit comfortably with me, But I guess that we've all been in select committees from time to time where we have had, um a view about [02:05:00] a bill that, um, gets the majority vote and goes forward. And I just want to grab this opportunity to support those people who have put for, uh for SOPS. Because in the context of it all, when you look at the bill as it stands, there certainly doesn't provide me with sufficient comfort that the the the the principles and the values that the individual may hold [02:05:30] are taken adequately into consideration. So when we look at the bill there on clause five A where it applies to section 29 is amended. Uh, sub clause two talks about it without limiting in generality the subsection, uh, sub clause one no celebrant who is a a minister of religion and it goes on and talks about authorised organisations, approved organisations. [02:06:00] And there's no doubt been some work given and thought, uh applied to that particular bill and it stands comfortably with me that we need to clarify that so that there is a level of certainty that the the individuals view and I can think of many people out there who as an MP we've all supported to become a a celebrant. And yet they are not actually [02:06:30] associated with any organisation authorised organisation as it says, or, uh, a church. And on that basis, I think it's very important that members of the house here as we go forward on a very serious matter that involves a whole lot of ramifications that we do. Look at those SOPS that are tabled, uh, and and consider that we support those bills [02:07:00] now. My particular situation is that, um I've chosen to support a bill that has been put forward by Tim Macao and and Mark, uh, and it encapsulates, I believe, the most, uh, essential elements that would add value to the bill. And I do acknowledge William CO over there as well. It's so heartening to those of us who who find the bill somewhat challenging to actually see that when it does go through [02:07:30] that it will be given the, uh clarity and certainty to those people who have to administer it in one shape or form and And I acknowledge those other speakers, especially Chester Burroughs, who talked about, uh, giving these people a good, solid platform on which they can actually have approached by people of the same sex who want to be married, uh, can and can decline gracefully because we appreciate that there is [02:08:00] elements of, uh, society that needs to be, uh, considered in such way. So, Mr Speaker, uh, when we look at the the actual preamble to the bill, it talked about the level of people who are actually married at registry office. It talks about 23% 32% in churches or organisations, uh, and 45 people, 45% by individual celebrants. So, on that basis, I would urge the House to seriously consider [02:08:30] the SOPS that have been put forward, uh, with a view to adding special clarification to the individual's right to say whether they will or will not. Thank you, Mr Speaker, If, uh, no other member is seeking a call, I think it would be helpful to the house if I explain the process a little bit from this point on because I'm going to commence the voting without a closure. If we're not concluded at 10 o'clock, the voting will stop at [02:09:00] the conclusion of the vote that crosses the 10 o'clock. I'm not predicting that will happen. I'm just saying that in the eventuality that that happens, Um, the the second point I I wish to make when it comes to, um uh I think there's four or five amendments and starting with William CO, we will vote on these chronologically as they were tabled. Now, if the first one [02:09:30] passes a majority, it negatives the subsequent ones. So members need to be quite clear in their mind. Which of those, uh, amendments, uh is the one that they personally want to follow? Because I need to explain that before we start the third issue I wish to just acquaint the house with is from standing order 2981 and and I'll read it for you. Uh, the committee of the whole house considers a bill to determine whether [02:10:00] the bill properly incorporates the principle or objects of the bill as read at the second time in the house. So the second reading declares the intent of the house in relation to the bill and in that regard. The house voted down an amendment to have a referendum. So the first point is that the two refer, uh, two amendments, one in the name of Brendan Horan, the other in the name of the right honourable Winston Peters. To have referendums [02:10:30] are out of order because of standing order 2981 when the House has already declared its intent. So we move to the amendment in the name of Sir William the. So the question is a point of order. Brendan Horton. My my referendum was distinctly different from, uh, SOP 188. And I have cleared that with the house. Um, [02:11:00] the issue of referendum is the guiding principle upon which that has made I have sought advice. I have consulted with the various, uh, uh, references that we have available to us and, uh, both the the two amendments are out of order. So the question is that Sir William C OS amendment to replace Clause five a a point of order David Bennett if for the house to grant, um uh, the [02:11:30] option of having the referendum one leave us so for that purpose, is there anyone opposed to that? course of action. Yes, there is. So we move to Sir William C OS amendment to replace Pause five A as set out on SOP number 202. Those of that opinion will say a contrary. No nose. Have it. I have it. A party vote. [02:12:00] Uh, the members should call. I declare a party. They have asked for a personal. There will be a personal vote. Ring the bells, The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left and abstentions will come to the table. The teller for the eyes will be teller for the eyes, for you are Tell her for the eyes. Tell her for the nose. Trevor [02:12:30] Honourable Trevor Mallard abstentions will come to the table. Proxy votes must be marked as such. The question is that Sir William Seo's amendment to replace Clause five a as set out on SOP number 202 be agreed to. The eyes are 22. The [02:13:00] nos are 87. The motion is not agreed to unlock the doors. Unlock the doors. The next question order. The next question is Mark Mitchell's typescript amendment to Tim Min's amendment set out on SOP number 203. The question is that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to those of that opinion will say, I con no eyes have [02:13:30] it order I'll I'll Reut. I'll Reut on the voices. Uh, those of that opinion will say I contrary. No eyes have it personal vote. The clerk will conduct a personal vote. Uh, ring the bells. [02:14:00] The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. Tell her for the eyes will be Mark Mitchell. Tell us for the eyes will be Tim McIndoe. Tell us for the nose Honourable Trevor Mallard. Abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. Proxy votes must be marked as such. The question is that the marked Mitchell Typescript amendment to ti Tim Min dos [02:14:30] amendment set out on SOP number 203 be agreed to. The eyes are 35. The nos are 80. The amendment to the amendment is not agreed to. We unlock the doors, unlock the doors a point of order. The honourable Ruth Dyson. Mr. Chairman, I regret to, um, ask the leave so early in the voting, but I seek leave to correct the, um, voting record of the First Amendment. That of honourable, uh, of, um, Cyril MC [02:15:00] O Amendment 202. When I regret, I admitted to have vote for which I carry a proxy recorded in opposition to that SOP. Uh, so you are seeking leave to correct the vote leave as sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not. The record will show the amended numbers. So we move now to Tim MDOS amendment to replace a point of order of the [02:15:30] amendment. The amendment was not carried. Yes, I read. I declared it. And then they've called. Unlock the doors. We're now on to the next one. Sorry, I'll do it again. For the members, the, uh the eyes were 35. The nose were 80. Right? So we now move to the Tim McIndoe amendment to replace Clause five A as set out on SOP number 203. The question is that the amendment [02:16:00] be agreed to Those of that opinion will say I contrary. No, the party personal vote the C a personal vote will be conducted. Ring the bells. Uh, eyes will go to the right nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. Tell her for the eyes will be Tim McIndoe. Tell us for the nose will be the honourable Trevor Mallard. Abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. [02:16:30] Proxy votes must be marked as such. Get so. The question is that that Tim Macedo's amendment to replace Clause five A has set out on SOP number 203 be agreed to. The eyes are 36. The nos are 80. The, uh, amendment is not agreed to. We come to the last of the SOPS in the name of Unlock the doors, unlock [02:17:00] the doors. We come to the last of the SOPS in the name of Doctor Paul Hutchison type script amendments to Clause five A. The question is the amendments be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say a contrary, no personal vote. A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells, the eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Abstentions will come to the table. Tell us for the eyes will be doctor Paul Hutchison. [02:17:30] Tell her for the nose will be the honourable Trevor Mallard abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. Proxy votes must be marked as such. Lock the doors. The question is that Paul Hutchison's typescript Amendments to Clause five a be agreed to the eyes are 18. The nos are 85. Abstentions are one. The amendment is not agreed to. Unlock [02:18:00] the doors. Unlock the doors, members. We come now to the substantive vote on clauses 1 to 7 and the schedules one and two. The question is that Clauses 1 to 7 and schedules one and two stand. But those of that opinion will say I contrary. No. A personal vote. A personal vote will be held. Ring the bells, the eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Abstentions [02:18:30] will come to the table. The teller for the eyes will be Trevor Mallard. The honourable Trevor Mallard. Uh, the teller for the nose will be Tim McIndoe. Abstentions will be recorded by the clerk. Proxy votes must be marked as such. Lock the doors. The question is that closes 1 to 7 and schedules one and two stand part. [02:19:00] The eyes are 77 the nose of 43. The questions are agreed to unlock the doors. Unlock the doors. I will report this bill without amendment forthwith from the second the House has resumed. Mr. Chairman Mr. Speaker, the committee has considered the holidays [02:19:30] full recognition of Waitangi Day and ANZAC Day Amendment Bill and reports, uh, it without amendment. The committee has also considered the marriage definition of marriage amendment Bill and reports it, uh, without amendment. Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted. Thank you. Honourable members. The question is that the report be adopted. Those of that opinion will please say I to the contrary. Know the eyes have it. The bills [02:20:00] are set down for third reading. Next sitting day, honourable members of the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. Good evening.
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