GEORGINA BEYER (Labour-Wairarapa): The member who just resumed his seat will be pleased to know that the Civil Union Bill does not touch the sanctity of marriage that the member talks about. He will be pleased with that. I find it quite amazing that aspects of the attitudes of those opposing the bill smack of hypocrisy. I have to say that. I am not pointing it out to anyone in particular; I am speaking of attitudes.
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am on to that. The member will withdraw and apologise.
GEORGINA BEYER: I withdraw and apologise, Mr Chairperson. But everybody understands what I mean. This is a human rights - based piece of legislation, and it sickens me to think that those who preach the piety I have heard in this place today absolutely throw away the human rights that we are talking about, in favour of the very exclusive marriage. We are not seeking marriage, with this bill; we are seeking a civil union. This is part of the cornerstone of the foundation of our society-to build strong family relationships to help maintain the society we live in. In a country in the modern world, we should be able to enjoy equal opportunity to contribute to that, no matter what our gender or our status may be. We actually preserve and uphold the institution of marriage so that it is not touched.
The arguments that opponents to this bill are putting up are based on pious moral grounds, with a very strong religious overtone. We in New Zealand live in a secular society, and, while much of our tradition may be based on the Christian ethic, in the modern world there are a number of other beliefs. Should we all live under the tyranny of the majority of so-called "Christian" believers alone? No, we have a much more diverse basis of belief. One of them happens to be that some people choose not to get married but would like to choose some other way of having their relationships solemnised and recognised by the State and society, and to move on with their lives and be part of that cornerstone that helps build strength into this country of ours.
This bill is about building nationhood. It takes nothing away from anybody. Not one person will have anything removed from him or her by the passing of this bill, and I wish members would remember that. As for referenda, that is a cop-out by politicians who wish only to rule by referendum on issues like this. I do not think so. I do not think this country can be ruled by referendum in that way. And, by the way, I do not think this issue is serious enough to warrant a referendum, when I know darn well that the politicians who have been elected to Parliament have been imbued, upon their election, with some trust in their ability to make decisions on these very sorts of matters, particularly matters that are about human rights and not about taking anything away from anybody else.
I do not know why members keep going on about their particular points of view when it comes to people who would benefit by this bill being banished because of these members' extraordinarily narrow beliefs. I cannot believe they can play both sides of the argument, saying on the one hand: "No, you cannot have access to marriage or a civil union.", but on the other: "By the way, we do believe in you and value you as members of this society." What does that smack of? It really does smack of something I apologised for previously.
With that, I end my contribution - one of many, I hope - at the Committee stage of this bill, in which we will flesh out even further some of the rather suspect contributions of members opposed to the bill that betray the real homophobia that pervades this place, and that the message from some of the extremists out there are now in here.
