GEORGINA BEYER (Labour—Wairarapa): I regard it a privilege to take a brief call in this first reading of the Civil Union Bill. I stand to ask members please to give dignity to this bill by sending it through to the select committee for its due process, for that is where, I believe, the debate really needs to occur, in order to scrutinise the merits of both sides of the argument. It is a very good way of being able to engage with the public more fully, and for them to have their proper say, and I hope all members will consider voting in favour of this bill going through to the committee.
I am a taxpaying citizen of New Zealand. I was very lucky to be born into a country that, at this time, affords human rights, liberty, and dignity to people such as me—a transsexual. Members who have been in this House for some time may recall that, thankfully, in 1996, due to an amendment to the Birth, Deaths, and Marriages Registration Act, people such as me—post-operative transsexuals—were able to be made legally female, and therefore enjoy all the legal rights of being female, including marriage. So at this point, if I so chose, I could get married.
I put that view to a well-known pastor of a church called Destiny Church New Zealand, Pastor Brian Tāmaki, and he was horrified. He was horrified that that was allowed, and believed that it should end straight away. The kind of opinion held by people such as Pastor Brian Tāmaki and churches of that ilk is not, I would say, reflective of all churches and religions in New Zealand. In fact, I would say that only a glaring minority in this country would share their hateful opinions towards people like myself, and gay and lesbian people. This bill will give, once and for all, solemnised recognition of a civil union. It does not, as previous speakers have said, affect marriage in any way.
Although some opponents of this bill will argue that it undermines the very fabric of the family in this country, I say that is absolutely wrong. It does not. If anything, it will enhance the cornerstone of our society, the building block we call the family. We have marginalised people who are taxpaying citizens of this country, and law-abiding for the most part. They should also be able to enjoy the same rights and status in this country that every other member in this Parliament and every other citizen of New Zealand enjoys. Why do we continue to perpetuate discrimination and prejudice against—admittedly, as somebody said—a relatively small proportion of this population? That is no excuse to have negative discrimination against them—certainly, when we are talking about the very foundation of love and commitment. We want to enhance our society, I would have thought, by allowing children to grow up—whether in different-sex or same-sex relationships—being nurtured by the nurturers. If we undermine those nurturers who happen to be in same-sex relationships, it does not aid or help at all those young people whom we are trying to give the best start in life.
New Zealand is a fantastic country. It is a world leader in some human rights issues it takes on. So we should stand proud, and we also should endorse this bill by, at least, sending it through to the select committee for it to have the scrutiny it so richly deserves. That is acknowledged by many, whether for or against this bill. The committee could flesh out the whole story, so to speak.
In conclusion, I would just like to say that many thousands of New Zealanders would become greatly happy—very happy—if this bill were passed. I do not believe that many thousands of New Zealanders—as spoken by those who oppose this bill—will be horrified if that happens, because they are unaffected. Let us give ordinary New Zealanders a chance with this bill.
