Parliament: Committee of the whole House debate on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors. If you would like to help create a transcript, please volunteer to listen to the audio and correct the AI Text - get in contact for more details.

[00:00:00] This podcast is brought to you by pride in It's a copy of the New Zealand parliamentary broadcast, which has been lightly edited to remove extended gaps and proceedings. [00:00:12] Members, we now move to [00:00:14] consideration of the marriage definition of marriage amendment all. The question is that closes one to seven and Cheetos wanting to stay in part. [00:00:29] Five is Michael. Kevin. Hi. [00:00:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's It's a pleasure to take the first call in this Committee stage on marriage amendment bill. Mr. Chair, this is in fact, a bill with a narrow scope. And it's a bill with with a pretty straightforward purpose is one of the shorter those in fact that this has considers and it has been Sir, a bill that is engendered some impassioned submissions by for and against and passionate debate in this house that his his took the house in good stead with the public. Other public have appreciated the tone with which members on all sides have divided the bill butsu while those submissions that have been heard against the bill and the speeches that have been made in this house against the bill, have, I am sure been sincere. They have largely been motivated by fear by fear of concerns that are largely imaginary and fear that has been whipped up by a campaign in the community lead particularly by a couple of individuals 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 to address imaginary concerns don't in any way impugn the genuine nature of of the members who are bringing those bills they believe so that they are bringing those bills to do something that is important. But, but the concerns that they are that they are rising are the ones that have already been dealt with in the bill or they are ones that are false concerns where there is there is no problem whatsoever. And Mr. Chair, I will be taking I expect some further calls during the evening to address those. So please, on a particularly note, sir, there none of the supplementary order papers that his so far been tabled to amend the bill has come from a member of the government administration. So the committee and I want to say is the chair that I believe that that is because all of those members who said through said through the bulk of the submissions, and I acknowledge, so that to make and I did, in fact, participate for for, for meeting or towards the end, but all of those who sit through the submissions, and sorry, so, it was two meetings at the at the end, all those who said through the analysis of the submissions, appreciate the complexity of the issues and understand why the select committee has made a very precise amendments to this bill that we had all of the mentors literally Sue all of the mentors that had been raised and the supplementary order papers so far tabled. ones that were very seriously considered by the select committee and were rejected. So I want to, I want to come to, to the vsop is about referendums. Because there are two that were considering tonight. An idea so that was rejected in the second rating of, of this bill. And one, along with all of the other supplementary order papers that had been tabled to date will be will be opposed by our party. And I'm sure by by most members tonight. thing about referendums is that they're good for some situations. They're great for constitutional measures, for example, but they are a terrible, terrible way of addressing matters of human rights. Human Rights advisor very nature in alienable. They are not an appropriate topic for referendums. They are also soon not an appropriate topic for issue of minority rights, 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 has only changed in 1971. [00:05:36] I Michael lamb, the Honorable Ruth Dyson, [00:05:38] Mr. Chairman, can I first of all, acknowledge the member who's just resumed his seat and I hope that at some point during the rest of the Committee stage of the debate is he's able to elaborate on that because I think that voting the voting ability for citizens in the proud record that New Zealand has in comparison to those cap countries with it, rights to vote was determined by race. Freedom 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 issues that you and I know. David Bennett doesn't agree with it. Either. He supports the right of women to vote. Mr. Chairman, I want to acknowledge the week of the select committee up to this process, and particularly in relation to the supplementary order papers that the committee will be considering. But actually the week 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 of it and those who just joined us it sometimes some of the stories we heard, we really had to listen to some of the stories that told of how people from when they're very, very young feel about being excluded from the families and being excluded from the communities always feeling different. And how this, how frustrating how demoralizing. And actually, the worst part was how suicidal that made people feel, particularly young people, we heard factual evidence of the much higher rates of suicide amongst young people whose sexual orientation was different than they had expected it to be. And different than the families and the communities expected to be there are gay and lesbian and in ways 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 to make sure that our laws and our leadership and our attitude ensures that people who do others know ham made to feel part of our community and made to feel his values as they are valuable. In my view, every gay and lesbian law abiding citizen and our country deserves the support of our parliament to ensure that they never feel sick and right, that they never feel less worthy than anyone else, and that our law backs them in the love, which is the proposal that we are progressing tonight as a team, and 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 will be debating tonight. We hit some interesting tensions, the tension between religious freedom in protecting 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 each and every member of the House to oppose the supplementary order papers, which extend discrimination provisions to all marriage celebrants Don't agree with it. I think when we say in this house, what should we tolerate is discrimination. What should we accept is being actions which clearly breach our human rights provision? You know, they've been in place for nearly how long a long time two decades, that are old provisions, that 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 in before that marriage, celebrants who are associated with religious organizations should lawfully be baked to decline, the obligation of solemnize and a same sex marriage. Every was that it was already covered in the law, but we A belt embraces approach to make sure that that religious freedom is maintained. We've specified it and our amendments to the legislation, any further amendment. Whether it's the ESOP, in the name of solium, CEO or the SI P and the name of Dr. Paul Hutchison goes beyond what I think is fair and reasonable for this parliament to justify this IP in the name of Sir William Co. It actually extends that in narrows that at the same time in a way that I think will give a confused message from the parliament. And it's not one I want to get. [00:10:41] Williams to. Thank you, Miss Jim. And I want to introduce to the house for consideration the supplementary order paper number two, two in my name, I want to make some preliminary remarks about the supplementary order paper and the bill and then introduce The closest that I have when President Obama indicated he would support same sex marriage. Most New Zealanders who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage 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 the stance the in in favor 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 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 of the religious and faith communities whether they are Christians, Muslims, Jewish, Hindu or other faiths have access Brace and continue 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 true and heartfelt. And many trace the source of this belief back through history to the deity. In additions, views expressed by my colleagues, friends and family members are also genuine and strongly held in favor 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 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 boat 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 and provide new legal marriage freedoms for to people regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity. If this be the wall of the house that this bill passes that its third reading, the 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 and to ensure that the newly created rights for same sex couples do 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 between a man and a woman my amendments make an appropriate distinction between the affairs of the state to protect the quality of For all citizens and the fears of a 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 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 and belief and expression. With the greatest respect however, the Select committee's recommendations do not protect persons and organizations from freedom of expression outside the context of a clergy who is authorized by the organization to refuse the performance Pacific marriage. The select committee's recommendations do not protect church organizations from refusing to allow its premises that are occupied and use 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 laws and can be overwritten by other legislation. And because of the provisions in the main bill specific provision is also now needed protect the rights of those who believe that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. My amendments provides protections that are clear in their intent and design to avoid unintentional conflicts. My supplementary order paper producers introduces one amendment with three clauses. In the first clause into a my amendment provides protection to religiously affiliated celebrants or church minister. If your personal beliefs are that marriage must be between a man and a woman. Even if [00:15:40] the religion Mrs. Chairman show are willing to share even if a [00:15:43] religion is not absolutely against same sex marriages. The select committee's efforts refers to and I quote the religious beliefs that the religious body that is the denomination as a whole. This means that all the ministers of religion within the church are bound or otherwise The religious belief of a 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 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 your own conscience. In the absence of a formal position by the body of the church. I have tweaked the select committee amendment to include protection of freedoms of belief and expression for individual church ministers whose religious organizations have not yet formalized a view on whether to accept same sex marriage or not, or where the church organization has 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 abuse by the whole body of the church. My amendment does not broaden out this individual right to civil celebrate Some registers, civil celebrant and registers would not have this protection because they are performing a paid public service. And this is in accordance with the precision of Canada and the United Kingdom. In the secret clause my memory provides and to be that a person of religious or religious organization will continue to have the freedom to express their views and provide counseling 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 for the rights and freedoms sit out in the Bill of Rights sec, and the human rights. My amendment, however, explicitly removes all doubt and provides greater certainty of these freedoms of religious belief in expression. And then the final clause my limits and to see provides for religious organization 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 recommendations and they report my quote. Therefore, if parliament and 10s that religious congregations not be required to permit their place of worship to be used for the solemn isolation 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 amendments, 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 properties that are consecrated and occupied and use 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 divisible and entirely unnecessary conflicts myself Your paper isn't alignment with the intent and statement by the select committee. it reaffirms with certainty, the freedoms of religious belief, conscience and manifestation as 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 stains. 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 intention crystal clear otherwise what may occur is that Parliament's and tension may be challenged in a court of law in the future. I have attached for the sake of members of this house and my supplementary order paper references to Canadian law and Canada for people's information has some experience in maintaining this balance. Given lay in the head same six minutes Since 2001, I see consideration by this house. And I asked that you find in favor of my supplementary order paper, or the right honorable Winston Peters. [00:20:12] Mr. Chair, we have heard that none of the proponents of acps this [00:20:21] meta were members of the covenant ministration. Committee. [00:20:27] And as a consequence, they did not hear the arguments. They were not part of understanding the analysis, and that they did not appreciate the intensity of submissions. And then we've also told that a referendum was rejected by MPs because it's good for some situations. But then, it is a bad way of addressing human rights issues. I wonder why Abram Lincoln would have thought he Fixed ways to hear that an issue that went in the end because of its expansion, not the cause, but the expansion of slavery, and the secession of it led to the Civil War, the United States amount of October, what not to have our Abraham Lincoln, this magnificent leader in attempts to human rights would have thought of such an argument said many of this debate last year, the opponents of the bill talked a lot about public opinion. One was reported the same quotes, twice as many New Zealanders support marriage equality as opposed to it. So we can now make it law end of quotes. All that we can paint on this very, I've got the manifesto here of 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 of respect, please make claims in this house that can be sustained by how was pre warned to the As the word wasn't able to be done, but some of us have been around long, long, long enough to know one thing that the public on this matter is seriously concerned. 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 law in New Zealand, and it should not be repurposed in 121 tenderly empowered Members of Parliament. That's the fundamental issue here, and then just come to the house and then start disputing the efficacy of an expanded democracy, where you share views with the with the public of this country, in this computerized age, is an extremely astonishing and alarming development. I know there are people who want to ignore the public and pass laws. We've seen it on asset sales and all other sorts of other things. But a lot of the people who aligned up for our public referendum on asset sales and money River Power, now say all but you can't have it on this issue. So they can trust the public on money, real power and assets, but we can trust them on moral issues. And I'll ask you again. Where did some of the members of this Parliament entertain that intellectual and moral and ethical superiority with a toward shamefacedly in front of the whole public and recorded by hand side, tell New Zealanders what they think of the abuse hadn't happened to our democracy in 2013. that people could be so bold, no pre election morning. Just a post election onslaught. Now the committee and the committee processes showed that the public is split. The public meetings show that the public is split. Let us [00:23:57] to the editor say the public is split [00:24:01] talkback, radio, social media. All indicators suggest that this is a polarizing and the visit issue in the community and everyone here knows what my view of poza but my view of pauses because they are a service professional, that these things should be banned. Internationally, you get a 3% spread between five major pollsters they make to try and sort out what is wrong with their methodology. Here we have a 14% spread and they carry on regardlessly. 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 neighbor who is the murderer of this country, and who we are meant to be the servants of really think so what's wrong with us from them? The workplaces but churches are split. With inside the church churches are split. Families are split where Lives Matter GRT 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 spigot there's no consensus, there's no majority, there is no mandate. And you know, you can ridicule it by saying, well, is your first leader once a man Ifan date, and try and make it the dead? The Democratic dream is a issue of hilarity and humor, or comedy. Let me tell you that person who wrote that sort of thing, that they will be the first victims if that was what resided in this country, a contempt for democracy itself. And yet we are here as Parliament about to totally disregard public opinion. And all that referendum ask 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 of the cells. All we ask you is to wait a public referendum. to endorse your claims of having a majority. Is that so bad? Can it be so wrong? Oh, you know, again, I asked those members if they were on other issues of importance. Would I still say my conscience, right or wrong, regardless of the constituency? Now, you as you know, Mr. Chairman, opposition is well known. We've been consistent all along on this for years. We have never got up on a stage and said, we're going to bump that person's view, or despise that person's view. What we've stayed on day after day and night after night, and a more product made is that most people either bad and with big audiences or 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 Taking. We stand by that policy, and tonight we have repeating our call. We want to find out where the truth lies. I've asked people I know, and friends 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 in law nor Boston for this. I'm happy with what I've got, or to be ambushed in the middle of a parliament. You're not defined out. Well, now that you're living in a long term relationship, you're subject to a claim of 50% of your assets. These people never asked, and they are homosexual. Perhaps I should have a survey or a poll amongst them. But I haven't seen it yet. All I'm hearing is people claiming to represent a certain view. And that view was correct. Then why were they so view actions, all the civil union bill why so few sort 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. So those who say it was an election manifesto, we have to say, well show me because it can be what I'm reading. And I would be fun hard pressed to find any reference to this. Pre 2011. I have the manifesta. Nowhere in the document is there any stipend of the labors and Tim, for example, to change the definition of marriage is not there. may get, as I say, on page 374, that commitment to review and update relationship and relationship probably law. Whatever that means. Apparently, the media didn't know what it meant either. There was not one news story regarding labor stance or marriage in 2011. Not one [00:28:55] we have a report which is labor support gay adoption. We have report saying maybe once a month Schools, but no mention of marriage equality. Now not here to criticize people over them. They put this in contention when I said it, so if you're gonna contender them prepared for the examination of whether it's truth or not, no billboards, no mail ads, no TV ads, no speeches, just a deafening silence. In fact no no no, Mr. Golf Satan July 2011, there is so no need to redefine marriage. He was the leader of the Labour Party, the last nation when whatever man died will not be old God came into effect. Now, let's not forget 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 I'm going to 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. Know the next election result that goes for national as well. It's a funny thing is that in the National Party, it's the list members are going for this bill. And the ones that got a constituency seat in the main are going against that. Many of those are going for the referendum. And I'd say one more time if you want to say you want to survive electoral Holocaust sorry [00:30:24] for the referendum. The time has come for me to leave a chair for the dinner break. [00:30:28] This debate is interrupted I shall resume the chair at 730 [00:30:38] committee is resumed pure a touchstone or rated to following up in a real and how with Bettina [00:30:45] Coto de na koto Koto Koto. [00:30:49] Well, thank you Mrs. Collins. [00:30:54] One of the members when we were debating this part of dinner by the right honorable Winston Peters hit the court and he had just completed this course. I remember him doing sorry. So I'm going to invite some other members to seek the call. I call the honorable, just member jacinda ado, thank you, Mr. Chair. [00:31:12] Mr. Chair, this is my first and only speech that I will make on the spill. While I sit 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 who are more personally affected by it than I. But doesn't it say something in and of itself, the fact that whether the scope passes or not my rights and my privileges as a heterosexual 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, I say always for a reason. debates of conscience such as these do tend to lead to Christians over an individual members of parliament see the 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 cleaning out some old University papers and stumbled across an essay I'd written for a comparative policy class, and 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 campaigning for civil union sometime later, I decided that I couldn't sustain such competing value seats 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 I never ever doubted. While I'm no longer a member of the Mormon church I greatly respected and I respect its members. I also respect their right to choose how marriage is expressed within the religion and therefore 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 religious institutions today that this protection exists. While section 29 of the marriage act 1955 already states that quote a marriage license shall authorize but not obliged any marriage celebrate to solemn is a marriage to which it relates. the select committee will even further with drafting in the shows that no celebrate was a minister of religion, recognized by religious body and nurse celebrant, who was a patient nominated to perform a marriage Brian improved organization is obliged to solemnize iF solarizing that marriage would contravene the religious beliefs. Not only does it law contain this protection, the handset the record of this parliament will record it also Put simply, Mr. Chair, the requests laid out to us by institutions like the moment church have been heard and have been made within the bill. No amendment is required. Mr. Chair, I couldn't end my small contribution to this debate without acknowledging the roles of those who will pave the way for the marriage amendment bill, frame walls with homosexual law reform, Tim Barney with civil unions, and of course, Lewis the wall for marriage equality, that are behind each of these sec community members who have fought hard with pride and in spite of personal anguish, and attempts to get us where we are today, and they deserve our thanks, Mr. Chair in 1948. my great uncle was in prison for no other reason than his sexuality. He was in a state prison for three years for what was being considered to be a crime. Although in the eyes of the law, we know that Longer criminalize the expression of someone's sexuality. I don't believe we will have a float fully inclusive society until we remove all [00:36:08] forms of discrimination this year. [00:36:10] I truly want to remember until we [00:36:12] reformed remove all forms of discrimination be the physical barriers, or the stigma imposed by legal differentiation. That's why today Mr. Cheer, 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. [00:36:37] Members calling I call the honorable member Tim hora. [00:36:47] Apology accepted. [00:36:52] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take the call tonight to urge every member of this house to vote for a public referendum by post died to bring this bill into effect that is provided for and supplementary order Piper 187. And my name. Mr. Chair the opportunity to have a decision made by the public of New Zealand should be welcomed by those. But in support of and as opposed to the bill. There is nothing to be afraid of, and everything to embrace. And sir, two speakers previous to me, two speakers who two members that are respect very much in the honorable Kevin Hagen and the honorable Ruth Johnson [00:37:39] said, [00:37:42] words that actually disturbed 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 spill. And so to hear fellow employees suggests that leaves me in a conundrum because I was under the impression that we were here by the will of the people of New Zealand and therefore, should be exercising that will. So all of us in this chamber have been inundated with miles an 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 Zealand does have a very firm view on. And no one can argue that it has long term social ramifications for our society. consultation by referendum 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, the most sensible way forward Mr. Chair of the 120 main 121 men and woman 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 Lewis of walls words second class citizens, whose feelings of injustice and resentment will last for years. Sir, I am concerned that bitterness, acrimony and bigotry [00:39:43] could linger. [00:39:46] 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 would like to address some of the things that have been seeing. And if we take the words from Chris Rock about two weeks ago, where the member said a referendum is something you call for when you cannot make up your mind. Well, on the contrary, I say a referendum recognizes, but there are times when this house needs to recognize 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. Hereafter all gave us the mandate to be here. So the honorable man that Kevin Hague and the second reading identified the key divided those New Zealanders on the one hand who see us as a pluralistic society, in which Parliament creates a supportive framework, and that is on the other who say that Parliament should legislate for a strict code of behavior. The referring to my propose is not to a pace that chronologically advanced, it would not be able to be hijacked to become an election bandwagon. Rather, this referendum is for all New Zealanders. It is for young New Zealanders, including those too young to understand. And also there is 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. [00:41:32] Mr. Chair, I would like the people in New Zealand in 10 years time to be able to look back. And when I asked was this change, this dramatics decision, the view of the nation, or was it the decision of the state Mr. Chair, Mr. Chairman, member, [00:41:53] Brandon board. [00:41:55] So this referendum will give that decision to the nation 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 depends upon, I asked 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. [00:42:36] I call the honorable member Muara [00:42:39] making. [00:42:41] Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm happy to be filling in for my colleague, Lewis award, who can't be here tonight. And also happy to be a member who's sitting 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 for the sapis that people have drafted? I appreciate that the full sincerity of trying to get the best possible law that we can. And I'm hoping that my contribution may actually be able to provide some clarification. Because I think we're actually a lot closer the members might believe 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 in an ESOP, 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 move foods that the main issue that people have been raising, which is the protection of religious freedom, and the concerns that churches and religious organizations might be forced to marry gay couples against your 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 license shall authorize but not obliged any marriage celebrant to solemnize. The marriage to wish it relates. Now that's been in place since 1955. There hasn't been an issue with that at all. Not even civil unions were passed in 2004. Has this ended up going into some kind of legal steps. But concerns were raised that the refusal to solid lies on the grounds of sexual orientation might breach the Human Rights stake. Now, the Human Rights Commission which is the body that would investigate any such claim, have said they would not hold up hold a complaint of discrimination against a celebrant who declined to sodomized a marriage. So that's in place there as well. So there is a protection of Section 29. But to put up beyond doubts, because we recognize the genuine concerns that were being raised by submitters, the select committee actually proposed an amendment to make it clear because we appreciate the marriage it predates the Human Rights Act and the Bill of Rights. To make it clear that in this day and age, we do not believe that religious freedom of religious expressions should be overruled by this piece of legislation. And the any celebrant acting on behalf of or appointed by a church can refuse to marry any couple of to do so would contravene the religious beliefs. Now, we deliberately included celebrants and that to this applies not just to religious ministers, but to celebrants who are associated with those religious organizations as well. So the issue has now come down to what we call independent celebrants 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 organization to whom they belong in the state independent celebrates are acting solely on behalf of the state. And I want to direct me to section five of the Bill of Rights Act. This is the official information that we got from officials, which see that indeed, it does allow rights assumed under the Bill of Rights to be justifiably limited accordingly and exemption could be justified where it becomes Trees are the recognized purpose of religious bodies and approved organizations to require the celebrants to colonize certain marriages, and contrast, independent marriage, celebrants and registrar's, are appointed by the registered general 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 carrying out a public function, are not subject to the Human Rights Act, and what does it 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 the church and hit the church appoint them as acting under their authority that way they are given the full protection of this new clause which the select committee has put on. So I believe we have covered off that issue very, very carefully. And I would be concerned if we were to vote happen limits which might not be that because it was a very deliberate decision to make separation between church and state, but to provide an avenue for those celebrates who are currently independent, who wants to be able to exercise their own religious beliefs in their own religious freedoms. [00:47:11] So [00:47:12] And can I just point out 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 capital is going to want to have someone presiding over this ceremony who doesn't want to be there, and who was 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. It came in in 2004. I don't believe it's going to be an issue going on into the future. I accept the principle of the matter. But in reality, I do not believe that anyone is going to be free 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 the facilities for same sex marriages, if this bill passes, and I want to Ray two 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 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 organization 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 in the legal opinion of family foods. So the idea that this is going to be carte blanche if one has to provide the facilities is not true. Can I say to members that this has been the law of the 20 years that if you provide a commercial 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 the sets not the Marriage Act, because it is a major winding back of the human rights legislation. If we now say that the law that speaks implies between two years where we haven't had any issues, is now going to try the wound back by an amendment to the Marriage Act. So can I then come to the gift of freedom of speech, and concerns that that passage of the SEC may mean that some people cannot express the views on gay marriage. And one thing that came up was in 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 they will feel that this could be used against those now who refuse to recognize the validity of same sex marriages, what's never been used, this penalties never been exercised, it's a 100 pound fine. And slick committee basically said, let's get rid of it, it's no longer appropriate. So that fear 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, and the suppose that implies and the honorable Winston Peters seed So we thank you could have a referendum on sex 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. And that is absolutely open to members who oppose this bill just as it wants to members who oppose it sales. What these IPS 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 world. The majority and members meet in Switzerland, where they do these issues by referring to all the time. We as a result, woman didn't get the vote until 1971 1971. And I want to tell me, the reasons that were given at the time were that men and women were fundamentally different. mean we're fundamentally different. And on the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs website, They actually point out order. [00:51:02] Remember, can I just remind members that you can interject on the speaker? [00:51:09] Raise the flu, but you can interject on each other when you don't have the flu. [00:51:14] What to do? They're installing this place. [00:51:17] Coolio wanna make. [00:51:19] Thank you very much with the speaker. So now on what they said at the time was one of the reasons given as to why a woman should have been 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 rule woman had more babies and those and towns this would government given unfair advantage to the later. So I think there is some intrinsic dangers and putting an issue like that that's to vote [00:51:42] it a referendum. [00:51:44] 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 will be why should 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 in the dnl, this bill doesn't pass there isn't going to change, that they don't get the full protections and benefits of marriage, because some adults disagree with the relationship that the appearance, Aaron, 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 stability to those children who are being raised and those families in terms of other matters very quickly, this will, this will address an issue for transgendered people, when they go through that process. They have to announce the marriage or choose to remain listed as the original six on the birth certificate which puts a number of them in a horrible situation. This will address this and somebody besides some gay people don't want this. That's true. They don't have to do it. But if they don't do it all the way because they choose not to do it not because the state knowingly and deliberately exclude them [00:52:59] from the institution. [00:53:02] I call the honorable member Dr. Rajan precise. [00:53:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, like a number of previous speakers was not able to take a call in the first two readings of this bill. So it's a pleasure to take this and 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, and how I've gone about making my decision on this particular bill. When, when we were asked to exercise our conscience, there is no guidance in this Parliament as to how that conscience head needs to be exercised. And so I did a number of things, Mr. Chairman, one was certainly to look to consult my own community. And as I went about consulting the ethnic communities and opened their leaders, I suddenly found a range of opinion some support Taking the direction of this bill, as an element of pretty first century society, and others a sizable proportion of the ethnic community, not comfortable with the direction of this bill. And in fact, as you went further into that, you realized, Oh, I realized that they will not confident not they're not not comfortable with the existence, the legality of gay relationships. And that is one method that could not be relitigated. And there have been many who have consulted us and made submissions, who would like to relitigate that primary principle. And that's not up for debate here, the Zealand cross that bridge in the 80s. And so we're now talking about something else then. I reflected with my family and friends, so 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 are looked upon them and hope Some of them and realize that here were people in gay relationships with children, leading normal lives with no effect or anybody else, great citizens, great moms, great dads, bringing up children that anybody in this house would be very proud of. So that matter then became part of our 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 this, the human rights of New Zealand citizens, you don't do that, for the period that you hold that mandate. 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 are laws did not permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. vet indeed was enough for me to put all of the arguments together, all of the consultations that I get together to say there was only one position one could take on this particular bill, which was to support it. Because I also want to look into the eyes of those children, those moms 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 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 way New Zealand history, its presence and its feature and that's the country to which us as migrants of competitor 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 pi was pleased as one final element, please support this bill. There's one following the final element. Mr. Chairman, that influenced me in 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 being because there's nothing about my relationship, my family, my marriage 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 lighter. Our society and our civilization, this institution will also develop. Mr. Chairman, I want to come with the chairman machine. [00:58:07] Dr. Rajan precise. [00:58:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to come to close five a, I also had concerns about the 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 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 license shall authorize but not oblige, any married celebrate. 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 can't imagine of any couple who would then want to use a married celebrant who express strong views. So, so, so, so, for that reason, I accept the clarification. I also accept that the avoidance of their pros that has been written in the interview 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 so that satisfied the two, two of them major requirements I had, then I come to the slps. All of I have difficulty with all of the slps that that comment on the role of marriage celebrants because I think inadvertently those slps I include are now licensing discrimination itself. And so I know I don't believe we need to go beyond what what is already in the amendments to this bill, because to do anything else, we argue against a very principles there certainly have led me to the position it because in the end it will be discriminatory. And it is this is not the time or place for us to include provisions in our x that are discriminatory for no other reason. It's it's almost goes around in circles, because we saying to saying that because you want to discriminate it's okay 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 soap is I cannot conscience support because to go beyond where this particular amendment goes would be unfair, would be illogical and would be unnecessary. It does address [01:01:05] concerns of our citizens. [01:01:07] But I think we must shape [01:01:08] responses to those concerns, [01:01:10] rather than accept them and make the amendments that are required because the unintended consequences, as Monica 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 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 it what it what lies behind it. And but I take comfort from the fact that the religious freedoms that are necessary and protected legislation, even rights at the moment are protected here as well. So Mr. Speaker with those comments, I want to thank those that will participate in this bill, the QA 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 a been a long process. It's a process that I've gone through personally, and in many, many discussions arrived at a point that I know 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, that 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 would not want to be part of it. So with those comments, I will support for them. [01:02:56] I call the honorable member who Goldsmith [01:03:00] Mr. Chair, reading Tony Blair's autobiography sometime back I was struck by his observation about politics when you decide to divide and unconscious of the grave responsibility that on the house this evening. So I've certainly struggled with this bill and given us a great deal of thought, because it lies in the territory between two of my core political philosophies. My conservative instincts, on one hand lead me to respect traditions, and the wisdoms of the wisdom of centuries, marriage has traditionally been conceived as between a man and a woman, and the British 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 of many New Zealanders who feel that we should keep things the way they are. running parallel to that, however, 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 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 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, Mr. Cheer, I've done cited that for me, freedom or individual conscience Trump's tradition. So I am supporting this bill. My background has been that I was raised in the Christian faith in the Baptist Church. And many of my relatives 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 nonconformity. 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 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 many Is that a very dear to our heart? 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? 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 battle ground there, if there is indeed such a battle ground and my view is over the messages and signals that the state sins, particularly through its welfare policies. In my view, the signal that the state has sent over the past few decades through welfare policies, has in many ways undermine 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 are 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 this matter is very clear. And ESOP by my colleagues McIndoe and Mitchell, make that even call it even clearer. I also voted for a proposal that there'd 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 is core to economic policy. And those circumstances to my mind, there's no argument for a safer 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. [01:07:58] So I was disappointed that that was was lost. And I [01:08:02] know that's enough. Thank you. I call the honorable member, David [01:08:07] Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I just want to take a short call following on from my colleague, and about the referendum issue. As somebody that's not married, for anybody to get married, I think that's a great thing. And so I see both sides of the arguments and, and, and to encourage by anybody that wishes to follow that path. And as selected MP, we have had numerous correspondence and meetings with people on both sides of the debate and, and understand the issues raised on both sides of the debate. And I just want to thank everybody that has been part of that especially proponents, the bill in this house. So the way they've done that, I think they've done it in a very fair and open way and I'd like to thank them for that and and thank the members of the community that have shown their opinion outside the Parliament tonight we actually have people were showing both sides of the argument. And it becomes a question of whether we in this house really should be making that decision. And it's my firm belief that 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 that is an issue that could go to the public. It's a situation where the public could make their own mind upon, but it's not a situation where there are hidden issues that 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 public petition to get the number of votes to sit the referendum off this how Parliament came decide to have such a referendum. And I disagree with the context that it's been said that a referendum would be not the right way of dealing with this issue. This is the particular issue. That is the right thing for a referendum to deal with. 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. I think we need to give the public the essay on this issue. I don't know if we are elected to make this decision here today. 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. At this stage, and so, 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 be able to say, No, they'd be able to say at some points in time, we need to listen to the people. And that's what I implore this house to do. I do not personally have a strong opinion for or against this bill. I understand the arguments on both sides. And and many people will make assumptions that you are either for or against on the way you vote. But I do believe in the New Zealand public, I do believe in the sincerity of people to make a decision. I do not believe that the New Zealand public would make decisions based on preconceptions or in any way wanting to hurt their fellow citizens. I believe that the New Zealand public can be trusted. They will take it over mind this is politicians in this house have and if we can trust 120 of us to make that decision. Why can't we trust 4 million of us to make the same decision? 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 and bringing that forward. And I look forward to this house voting that way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [01:12:34] I cool your new member to uplevel Janaka way Mr. Tanaka Mr. Chair [01:12:39] can return he can go to my IKEA to occur it unable [01:12:45] to attain a Point Loma, California Hippo in a photo aqui taka taka taka room idea here away with a poor Karen working during a quarter computer for a minute Imma capo to co Mickey intimate call it the party Murray to know who Nick he can make it difficult to you know co owner Koto koto mo Kiko negative Coca Cola data inaugurated on euro Africa policy multicultural title total oxycotin a period my unity matano quarter of a thought on Okinawa ketone omotola Kadokawa committed architecture enochian Lusa wall with owner Maya arctica with a co Papa Cory Cory Romo a few of the cuckoo, cuckoo Cuckoo Cuckoo for caffeine a quiet the condo Hilton, a typo patera Paco Kotaku nazira No, no, Kevin Heigl. No. Auto a few of the cuckoo for the coming heeta cara cara takato he coordinated na na ko Papa coming he rocketed committee fire ticket the select committee, a tomato a department on a third way Romo a quarter to pour the water moutoku forgot to know it with a with a tougher tougher here they finally tomorrow he put it out to the committee for it right come to come here on the table with a poor can wanna make you multiply autoencoder he moved to a nakatani a quarter name with a with a moto moto moto in a quarter from a quarter mile widow a multinational Naka Papa greater quality Tahitian bottom quarter Mr. Mr. Chief acota tomatoes tamata meta meta key How do you make it difficult two or three quarter inch vertical tamata could the kicker cover it taka taka a tomato tomato? Tony Boyer haha cortona Why not Tony, Tony. Tony. Eat a tomato, tomato. The key colorway Peeta kitana tip a curry owner here capira wakita by the mama no tomato total cookie cutter a cup of Mr Jay Africa hold on a tomato potato cuckoo around the horn hola autonomy or data data or to to your data and data in a hotel no koto Koto No not at all not at a time of quite a poor decay factor to tackle the capability policy model to hear kokuto here it'll take a quarter alma mater to put in Africa Toki ma, ma, ma, na koto Koto Koto, a we had a taco toy to talk poquito inori Kotaku thought it was a carcano area how you do it only out there in a quadrocopter if a moto Moto, moto moto period, automatically determine whether to enable katoki quarter quarter data at quarter maintain a man with a modern with a modern whether he could try kill him quarter Vokoun a motel hotel motel mo it all morning Mr. Speaker called Mr enough to find my ATM I can find my coat my coat a rotator Amari Cooper a tick on kemboi data data to Monaco terracotta Chica, Matera Koto, Koto, Mo Arteta kita come with a multi point in a modern of it difficult the hippie pie keyonnah pie, I in my head a llama Lorina altaira Africa Moto, Moto, Moto, moto Moto, moto Qatar master Kota key Mr. Speaker, container for the Hong Kong matamata kioto hemella Africa Koopa Papa Papa Arteta data, a fuckup a homeowner. homeowner a quarter of a quarter hotel Modi if 100 notating na na haka? No hitori it oh no motor no my coordinator hotel hotel bar Martha tificate the data data a phone call. Not only the medical difficult Papa Papa practicode Tokyo Tokyo Tina multiform katinas to Tucker credit a nightmare autorama. Tanaka Tanaka. [01:17:43] Mr. Speaker Mr. T Yato member level killed a quote unquote a co papa. I will take the food to 10 Ml 200 with a tomato tomato or not cooked a nightmare for the farmer to farmer Monica haitai kitty kitty A more modern era naked data here to how to take democratize democratize a call to chemical Ty get the Madea get the targeting and get a catechumen kitty farmer. Define okay we are no hook by the Terra Terra quarter. Holly to magmatic tificate no no moto. moto moto the party motivated care to go to fornicator to Tokyo a hotel combo to a holiday miracle day with a foreigner humor okatee to turn off the call with the foreigner him a photo Kota in a holiday Mater tificate no data. Meta keoki could they could not take it a tomato hako tonawanda now turn it on or on a table number on a target at coterminal kitana. Quantitative to tackle tanika Papa Menaka data data type decodable taught entertain me multiple focal phenomenon, the phenomenon not a ticket Data chiroto in our quarter rocoto my heater heater yoga moto Moto, Moto, Moto, moto moto moto Chiaki Nakamoto gotta head out lococo 10 mo mahoma quiera kurata Tahoma timoteo King automatically he talked to Tito in auto Cohiba automatically take care to to Connecticut a Kia coracii Toma toma kotero tamata referendum a quarter How can a quarter Martha difficulty potato Mr. g for the mata keota referendum potato Quincy calling in our walk upon medical quarter ricotta hotel hotel Modi el Terra, Hema Hinata taco at Manafort the referendum the Copa de da da na na na monetary cookie a cuddle with the with the new data, it'll take a select committee not a chemical called a hit auditorium. Why Hold the quarter Oh, you don't make the PDA accountable why doTERRA Cuneta Holly to me Mayra wiki wiki careful chapati okay. Jackie, Tina hi take the point guard hit tomahto to bury the Queen a puku quarter the Mister Mister Mister Chair me to kill two key key of course Koto Koto Koto Koto, Koto Koto Koto party maracle to total greetin a period to connect tonopah catina to connect up tone automata a point of capital era Toner cahokia mockito people thought for a minute the party had already done the cocaine withdrawal capaco the party that are darling I kinema ecola ramaiah john key motel hotel motel hockey jinora Tina Turner Kotani Tara data point for Canadian hockey Ott no no Tina Turner, Luther torito Papa Papa kupwara yT Neva thought to corner total quantity period kakaka. C'mon one way to tokoto. [01:21:13] I call the honorable member in makovan. [01:21:17] Thank you, Mr. Chen [01:21:20] taken the opportunity to speak tonight in this debate with a degree of sadness, but I could no longer give the bill my support. And I wish to explain why. Firstly, I do not accept that the marriage He currently stands denies anyone a human rights. We all have the right to act and behave as we see fit in life. We have the right to choose our partners or a wife or a husband we have the right to join them and legal civil union or marriage is appropriate. The exit stance certainly denies many people the right to marry and sell it should. There are other positions, roles and opportunities that cannot be taken, used or filled by us and life and that's how it will always be. We have the right to Respect, respect for our differences, respect for our opinions. Because one of the greatest attributes a human can have is the ability to tolerate difference, to accept others for what they are, or believe, and to give them the opportunity to thrive and lead a positive, fruitful life. So cheer on that note, I want to acknowledge all participated and debate on this film, all have behaved in the best spirit of this house. We are attempting to negate, to legislate to eliminate difference on this bill, and for no other reasons and 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 the world stopped the business of Parliament to run the institution that has been in place in 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 a business. In my view, to do that, all the changes proposed in the course of this little sort of change could be done. Franklin civil union bill. In fact, the whole object of could have been affected through changes to civil union bill without affecting the status of many thousands in fact, millions of New Zealanders who have married in good faith over the years. First of all stated in her closing statement on the second reading, advising 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 we as society will value who you are, such as Bill reacts to situations 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 and the actions we're proposing to take and passing this bill. I find myself in the 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 is not the place of Parliament to make this decision is the place of the people and I have not been consulted says satisfactorily. As the chair, I'm not a great supporter of referendum. But in this case I need to be. And so as a consequence will be supporting the bill are also like the statements the child voted for this bill and the first reading, and I voted for it because I genuinely believe we needed to find a solution to the session. I still believe that I can't, however, accepted this bill as the best way to the world. Thank you. [01:24:28] I call your member [01:24:30] from Maryland. [01:24:32] Thank you, Mr. Chair cannot begin by acknowledging the carriers and I think intelligent and sensitive way in which the vast majority of members of this house have conducted 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 has commented to me how impressed they've been that I think it has been talented, the specced could also acknowledge minor Mackie who's in the terror at the moment. earlier tonight, she called for those who are promoting si PS. And I'm one of them to clarify the protections for people of conscience that the sponsor of the bill promise 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 SAP 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 or the papers, or at least the ones that I've read, so maybe more to be titled. My supplementary or the paper, however, does refer to the Human Rights Act to ensure that marriage, celebrants and others I guess 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 insane, safe marriages. Now that is a very important protection for organizations such as the Roman Catholic Church. And I want to acknowledge the plea for understanding that we have received from the church, including Archbishop john do. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but I certainly read his submission particularly carefully. My 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, he's just spoken before me I don't often agree with Winston Peters either, but on this occasion, I do support his supplementary or the 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 are I'd fight on this issue was when I attended the meeting, which was also attended by Kevin Hague, and a few other members of this house at a nightclub, and it was amazing, organized by our GLBT community in Hamilton. And it was certainly a 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, 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 saying they understand where I'm coming from on this issue. By contrast, those who have been vitriolic in their attempts have never engaged with the arguments that I've put forward. And it's conspicuous when I read what they post about me and about others has spoken on this bill, that when they constantly use terms like bigots 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 this. So I respect the many guys who have contacted me intelligently and insensitively to engage on the issue. I respect them, I thank them for respecting me. Like many MPs, I wish I didn't have to express a view on this topic. I acknowledge my friend David Bennett a minute ago, [01:28:53] who explained [01:28:54] that so many of us find ourselves in a position where we have to because we're here 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, that they are despairing of the fact that this has come upon us in this Parliament without their having any opportunity to influence the way we would vote. None of my constituents apart from the few who attended that GLBT meeting that I mentioned and Hamilton, just before the election [01:29:29] had any [01:29:30] reasonable way to indicate to me their vote. [01:29:34] I call the honorable member joe good you [01:29:37] Thank you Mr. g. I hadn't intended to take a call. But I'm here in the house on what we call juicy and I've decided that I will do and fake what I suppose is in fact my juicy, my juicy not only to vote on this bill, but to lay on the record. The reasons that I will be voting for the spell many of my constituents has been surprised it my positive support for the bill. And many of them have contacted me and sought to turn my view around. In some cases, they have demanded, I tuned my view around, and in many cases they have sought to persuade me. We have over the course of this bill hood. A lot of the informational read a lot of the information from Family First, it has come repeatedly to our inboxes. But what the reasons I'm voting for the spillers civil fold. Firstly, I do not believe my marriage or the marriage of other New Zealanders will be in any way diminished by this phone. And fact, it is because I believe so strongly in marriage and my marriage that I understand why other couples want to be married to And I don't see why I should have that privilege that right with other people. There are other people in loving relationships and relationships that they enter into for life just as I did, why they can't have that property as well. And therein 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 traded to has been so strident and a little unfortunate, I have made the point that I respect other people's views and would never ask them to do anything to contravene the views. I only asked the same for myself. And I do want to add to the record, that some of the most poignant stories have been a story That I can't tell, because now the stories of individuals who have also contacted me and told me how important this is to them. I'm going to finish the 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 all i 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 CO pays, 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 of the clergy. If that is against their beliefs, and I am voting for theirs and the hope that it will through the air to the record, our conviction about this is to cheer Thank you. [01:32:56] I call the honorable member chris. [01:32:59] Thank you Mr. Gentlemen, I hadn't intended to speak particularly about the referendum but I will in fact stop with that. Because the end I'm opposed to referendum referendum as a system of decision making in this type of government but the proposal to have a referendum is in keeping with New Zealand First tradition with their practices and with its what they do and I respect them for that and I think they're very sincere and they are very sincere in promoting referendum in this case, they've always liked them even though they're tangible was benefit from and I think of right honorable Winston Peters and I think it was compulsory superannuation was it was a ghastly results the river and so you know, carriage and, and one could hardly complain about New Zealand First putting forward their proposal I'm sure they'll all vote for. I want the reason the reason I learned is that I'm very conscious environment, that the law should not be used to exclude people. And neither should referenda be used 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 divisible and opinion driven, no matter which way the result might go. The purpose of our being here is to legislate based on the information we have considered. I was deeply grateful to Miranda Mackey, my colleague at the mini committee meeting for her presentation of facts This evening. It did I feel set things in context very clearly. But in this respect, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I completely understand the supplementary order papers that are coming forward, because they're reflecting exactly the same sequence of thought processes, which we went through as a committee. The difference is that they've come in this stage without the benefit that we had have a number of weeks to carefully consider which parts of the bill the amendment should be directed to, in regards to the sfps, if I may, complement the work done by Sir William sir, 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 approach 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 lightly at all. the select committee fully investigated the section. And their amendment I consider best reflects the advice that we received on this issue. The current section 29 and 29 is recommended by the select committee already provides stronger protection, which they have, which has been stronger protection than has been there before. A triple protection [01:36:38] is really not going to achieve anything [01:36:40] other than increase the chances of litigation. And this is not I mean, if you look [01:36:48] at the old, the old, [01:36:50] sorry, the section 29 [01:36:53] it's [01:36:54] pretty sort of general and that, you know, you may but are not a blind To conduct the wedding. [01:37:02] 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 specific, [01:37:12] specific. entity specific. [01:37:17] specificity introduced introduces up new opportunities for litigation. And you know, honestly, do you really think people want a lawyer I reach for the lawyers, what are you doing retrieve your lawyers? Well, I'm intending to get married. So I'm assuming it. I don't honestly think it'll be like that. But we made provision for basically the act needs to be read consistently with the Bill of Rights Act and the Human Rights Act. I'm surprised that we have SAP suggesting that those acts should be negated. What is it you want to do? That? avoids this gym? [01:37:58] member Chris, aka [01:38:00] Thank you. The Ministry of Justice expressly stated in its advice to the select committee. We, Rick, we and we were very impressed with the quality of service we got from the Ministry officials. We recommend that the exemption extend to religious bodies and approved organizations but not to independent marriage, celebrants or registrar's, a key purpose of religious bodies, and I think is very important and most approved organizations is to promote religious beliefs. Therefore, that something that lawyers would understand much better than I and that is a hierarchy of purpose. So section five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act allows rights affirmed under we're under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to be justifiably limited. Accordingly, an exemption could be justified whether it be contrary to the recognized purpose of religious bodies, and approved organizations to require their celebrants to solemnize. Certain marriages Contrast, independent merit, celebrants and registrar's are appointed by the registrar general to perform a public function not to promote their own religious or personal beliefs, it appears unlikely that they could lawfully be refused to solemnize marriage on religious grounds grounds under section five of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The Select Committee extended the exemption for religious bodies and approved organizations in Section 29. When we look at the call for freedom of expression, where no challenge may be made under any act to the law, fullness of the following conduct by a person or organization, provided that the conduct is based on the belief or conviction that marriage should be the union of a man or woman. I have a few problems with this one, Mr. Chairman, because the select committee have removed section 56 of the marriage that my is an offense to question and others marriage. Removal ensures no person can be convicted of expressing such a view. Incidentally, the never was a prosecution under that section. I have some problem with the drafting of this particular recommendation, because what it does say, Mr. Speaker, is that the merit 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 all two people the same gender. So I think they the the proposals are from a drafting point of view, riddled with difficulties, especially when we start talking about the need to identify the agendas and just who's going to do that sort of thing. Exactly. And we don't need to start thinking in that direction. But that is one of the difficulties about introducing specific requirements against the [01:41:01] That the [01:41:03] bill as it is [01:41:06] the use of premises for marriage. What we understand there, Mr. Chairman, is that no challenge may be made under any act to the lawfulness of refusal by religious body or approved organization to allow premises being premises or occupies news by the body of the organization for in association with its religious purposes, to be used for in connection with the marriage. It 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 organizations to determine whether they sell their services 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 [01:41:51] places. [01:41:53] Mr. Speaker, I really understand where these submissions are coming from. I understand And the impulses that are 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 Maulana macky said, pretty much where we're fairly close to where we would have been. I think we can move forward and trust the bill. We should pass this [01:42:23] bill. Thank you this week. [01:42:25] I call the honorable member sewer. [01:42:28] William C. on [01:42:30] a local level, federal level Chairman, I just want to take a short call in responding to some of the comments by the former speaker, just to provide some clarity for the consideration of the house. The wording that I've used in this draft of the supplementary order paper, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity is consistent with the bill that's in hand and you'll find In Section four of the the main bill that we're discussing, that's the wording that it has a marriage between two people regardless of a sex sexual orientation or gender identity. So my amendment the words that I'm using our consistent with the main bill that's first one 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 and desire to protect these, these these religious freedom in the first part of my amendment. [01:43:38] I'm tweet [01:43:40] and edit to ensure that because the slick media says, with refers to marriage celebrate who are authorized by the body of the 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 the individual basis are divided on the issue. So my amendment provides the protection to that individual minister, who, whose body of religion have not yet made a decision of whether to adopt a football position one way or the other. In terms of the [01:44:20] session be part B of my amendment. [01:44:24] Yes, the committee acknowledged removed section 56 because that was incompatible by the rights provided the freedom of religion provided by the Bill of Rights. [01:44:35] However, it doesn't state [01:44:37] that those rights are there. And we know and those of 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 overcome all that particular bill. And finally, in terms of the little The movement of my last closer my limit with regard to premises, I make reference specifically to religious premises consecrated 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 marriage celebrate because civil marriage celebrant and registers are conducting a public service and I paid for I my amendment in the whole 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 And that's why I'm ask, though it's in a light in the peace, or do ask and hope that members of the House can have consideration. It's about balancing the rights provided by the state of protection equality for all members as as versus the rights [01:46:18] of the church and how churches conduct their affairs with its members. [01:46:26] Paul Hutchison, [01:46:29] 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 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 edits vary based when dealing with views that are passionately held, and are about human 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 honored to represent an hour. 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. And I do note that the commentary mentioned that in some European jurisdictions, marriages authorized 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 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 producer hits the amendment that I have tabled, which is in line with several other si peas. But in my case is simple and conforms with the second option, the parliamentary council put before the select committee. I'm absolutely aware that the committee spent significant time with parliamentary Council and others discussing the options for amending section two. During the Sapir second rating speech of my colleague, Chris Allan Poe, he mentioned that Over 9000 marriage celebrants in New Zealand, only two, only two as a product submissions were sent to the select committee, but I've since contacted the clerk of the committee and others, and no one seems able to identify those two or a member remember exactly what they said, even my esteemed friend and colleague, Chris, Arkansas. However, I've read carefully through the celebrants association of newzealand submission and file a support the bill, they have two major concerns. One was the quite the continued a bigger ability of celebrants to officiate only at ceremonies of their own choosing continue. It's accepted that any law is challengeable through the courts are subject to change by the parliament, as we are seeing in the United States as we debate here in the parliament in the Zealand today. What we right into this bill will surely give a signal as to the intention of the Parliament for any future court challenges. Hopefully, however, court challenges will not happen. First Amendment [01:50:15] is not just about triple protection for a specific group of churches, or independent married celebrants, but seeks to extend their protection to all celebrants in the spirit of equality and inclusiveness, which underpins this bill. I do know that shade you're one of the spill only includes Christian churches, and would not protect other religions, such as practiced by my colleague can origin faction. All marriage celebrates either independent or church are in fact facilitating the state's requirements in terms of the marriage certification. wallets accepted that a key purpose of religious bodies and most approved organizations is to promote religious beliefs. Surely that should not override their religious beliefs or philosophical or humanitarian convictions of independent marriage celebrants, or other significant religious Balis. Some have argued that my amendment will lead to independent marriage celebrants [01:51:29] saying No, Mr. Chair, [01:51:33] saying no for all sorts of spurious reasons. Exactly the same could be said of the churches. Surely, the New Zealand Bill of Rights it should apply in an even handed way, at some Piro to open a can of worms, a powerful corollary to providing individual choice in perhaps an even more contentious area. Is the contraception sterilization abortion pact 1977 where the conscientious, conscientious objection clause provides explicit and clear exemption overriding any rule of law, terms of any guys or any contract, many might 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 there. I suggest please, protections remain necessary and practical. So was the chair. I call upon all members to carefully reconsider their proxies to support my amendment and state which is designed to protect choice for all marriage. Celebrate In the spurt of equality and inclusiveness, which is what this bill is about. [01:53:09] Our votes tomorrow thank you [01:53:10] as the chair like to speak in support of the need for supplement your paper with respect to protecting the ability of celebrants to be able to refuse to marry gay couples, depending on their the way they see this particular issue. And I have some sensitivity around and having been America's civil [01:53:33] independent marriage celebrant for a number of years, I have, I think officiated about 100 weddings. And in the last three weeks of have done a tag team with someone who was currently licensed because I'm not currently licensed, having hated in my warrant when I became a busy as an MP, but I've officiated two weddings in the last three or four weeks and I'm happily officiating at my nephew's wedding. This Sunday. I would also like to point out low people have said those civil or independent celebrants do it for the money, and they're authorized by the state, so they should marry all comers. In actual fact, most of the time I've accepted bottle of wine is full payment. Because I saw this is some way that I could help people within my community. I wasn't doing it for any particular reward times when mileage was required, etc, etc, then we got up to 100 bucks, but generally it was for a bottle of plunker. Having said that, the point is, I believe quite specific here, because I agree that there are protections within the bill as it is at the moment that protect those celebrants who authorized or endorsed as part of the organization they belong to, as long as the organization that is an effective sponsor to be a celebrant, has a position on gay marriage and it's been raised tonight that there are churches, for instance, that don't Hold official positions on this issue, though member number of members within the community do. But those people who are in the position as I was, as an independent celebrant would not be protected in this way. And yet at the end, although there is a clause there that says no celebrant, his two is obliged to marry any capital that presents themselves for marriage. The fact is, you'd have to tell a lie not to not to perform that marriage and and people have said to me, even people that I'm very friendly with their you could always just say you're busy. But in fact, that would be that would not be true. [01:55:43] That would not be true in the case in the case. [01:55:48] He's only good to listen to you for so long. [01:55:53] The point the point of the matter is this, that if [01:55:56] if I decided I wasn't [01:55:58] going to marry a gay couple of themselves a marriage, it would be because I didn't agree with gay marriage to go and create some other faiths and for reason that my daughter was full would be telling a lie in effect, and I don't think people should be putting into that position. It's the same as someone a shopkeeper who doesn't have to sue somebody in a shop. They Cameron they want to buy some goods, he can decide whether or not he wants to sell those goods, that person coming in a shop, that's fine. But the Human Rights Act prohibits that shopkeeper from refusing to save that person on the basis of a number of those bases with a new human rights a one of them being sexual orientation, race, color, creed and all the rest of it. And so it should. But there is an alignment with what our friend, Dr. Paul Hutchison was saying we're talking about people for instance, within the medical fraternity, who are able to rely on their moral code beliefs will help religious or otherwise, not to perform certain procedures that people present themselves for you can think for instance, of circumcision of male child children some years ago, Doctor wasn't required to perform it if they didn't believe that that was whether they are keeping or ethics in the performance of pregnancy to the nation's is exactly the same. If people can think that the session was different, it is not a medical practitioner is dealing with the physical that's right person and my position as a celebrant who got into it through community service and and initiated through a faith and trust is dealing with something spiritual, and I don't believe that the physical and the spiritual can necessarily just be conveniently protected or diverge. For those reasons. I think that is very important that we have a an amendment to this bill that makes it quite clear that an independent celebrant can decide not to marry a capital a gay couple who present or Careful who present themselves on because of that, because of that situation, I just underline it like this too. If a couple came to me and we're in, if it came around to the wedding day, and I tuned up, it was crystal bars, and I tuned up and I would drunk, I wouldn't marry them. Because I don't believe they're in the right space in the heads to get married. If If I turn up and if they tuned up to present themselves asking me to take their wedding, and I believe that the woman was offering, obviously suffering from physical abuse and have been assaulted or was there in some way, not there. Because she wanted to get married to this guy because she was under some sort of duress or pressure. 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. I'm acting illegally and I believe as a celebrant, is an independent celebrant at one only authorized civilly and not promoted by some organization of faith by should have the ability to decline it marriage. Thank you, [01:59:09] Tim Mac, and I [01:59:11] like to begin by acknowledging my friend Chester bars and that fine contribution. Could I also, in particular acknowledge, so William CO, who spoke a short time ago and indeed earlier this evening in a previous call, I think they're all members of this house. I've had particular challenges in dealing with these issues, regardless of what side we're on. But I particularly want to acknowledge Mr. CEO, 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 that and put it on the record and to wish him well with his supplementary or the 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 America. Mr. Chair when I was interrupted in a previous call, I was just making the point that none of my constituents with with the few the exception of a few Who had attended a meeting of the GLBT community just before the election had had any way of ascertaining what my views were on this issue. So they didn't casting their votes for a potential MP for Hamilton West, that can 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 criticized 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 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 first Second ratings 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. 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 this, then accused me of cowardice of all things, for wanting to let the public have their say, [02:01:31] what I say to those people, you can't have it [02:01:33] both ways. [02:01:35] I will vote for a referendum again tonight, not so much because I think it's the best way to decide the outcome. 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 about Behind the supplementary order paper that I've titled, 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, I fully support max thinking, and I urge members to support his amendment as well as my supplementary or the paper. I thank Mark for the work that he has done on this issue. I think he has improved and clarified my SAP 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 or professional capacity and the 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 acknowledged who I think has conducted herself with decency and a real sense 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. So my supplementary order paper seeks to guarantee the assurances that Lewis a wall and the government Administration Committee say they support. So I urge all MPs whether in favor 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 solemnize a marriage is solarizing that marriage with conflict with the religious or philosophical beliefs of the individual, or of the religious body or approved organization, 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 a as a matter of conscience a different opinion on this issue. It is not, therefore about re legalizing discrimination, which has been alleged by quite a number of people who've spoken this evening or who have written those who claim that that would re legalize discrimination I 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 others from being forced to act contrary to their concerns. I urge members to support it. [02:04:50] Column King. [02:04:52] Mr. Chair, thank you very much. It was great consideration that I take this call. We've got a bill of In front of us that doesnt sit comfortably with me. But I've guessed that we've all been in slick committees from time to time, where we have had a view about a bill that gets the majority vote and goes forward. And I just want to grab this opportunity to support those people who have put forth forward so peace, because in the context of it all when you look at the bill as stains, there certainly doesn't provide me with sufficient comfort, that the the principles and the values that the individual may hold, taken adequately into consideration. So when we look at the belayer, clause five a word applies to Section 29. As amended something subclause to talks about it without limiting and generality the subject Sub clause one knows celebrant who was a minister of religion. And then it goes on and talks about authorized organizations approved organizations. And there is no doubt been some work given and fought 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 individuals view and I can think of many people out there who SNMP we've all supported to become a a celebrant. And yet they're not actually associated with any organization, authorized organization, as it says, or 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 so peas at a table and and consider that we support those bills. Now my particular situation is that I've chosen to support a bill it has been put forward by temeka dough and mark and capture lights, I believe the most essential elements that would add value to the bill and I do acknowledge William C over there as well. It's so heartening to those of us who who find the bill is somewhat challenging to actually see that when it does go through that it will be given the clarity and certainty to those people who have to administer and one shape or form and, and I acknowledge those other speakers, especially Chester barrows, who talked about 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 pain and can decline gracefully, because we appreciate that there is elements of society that needs to be considered in such way. So, Mr. Speaker, when we look at the the actual preamble to the bill that talked about the level of people who are actually married at registry office of talks about 23% 32% in churches organizations, in 45 people 45% by individual celebrant. So, on their basis, I would urge the house to seriously consider the ESOP that have been put forward with our view to adding special clarification to the individual's right to say whether they will or will not Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [02:08:55] If I know other members seeking the call, I think it would be helpful to the house if I actually buying 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 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 happens. The second point I wish to make when it comes to I think there's four or five amendments and starting with Sir William Co. We will vote on these chronologically as they were tabled. Now, if the first one passes a majority, it negatives the subsequent one, so members need to be quite clear in the mind. Which of those amendments 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 quite the house with is from standing order to 981. And I'll read it for you. The Committee of the Whole House considers a bill to determine whether the bill properly incorporates principal or objects of the bill is read at the second time in the house. So the seeking reading declares the intent of the house in relation to the bill. And in that regard, the House voted down in amendment to have a referendum. So the first point is that the two referring to amendments one in the name of Brendan horn, the other in the name of the right honorable Winston Peters, to have referendums are out of order because of standing order to 9811. The house has already declared its intent. So we move to the amendment in the name of Sir William fear. So the question is a point of order Brendan horn [02:11:00] My referendum was distinctly different from [02:11:06] the one I take [02:11:09] and I had cleared that with the house [02:11:10] Yeah. [02:11:12] The issue of referendum as the guiding principle upon which there has made I have sought advice I have consulted with the various references that we have available to us and both the the two amendments [02:11:27] are out of order [02:11:29] so the question is that so William CEOs amendment to replace clause five a point of order they've been [02:11:38] a for the house the grant [02:11:41] the option of having the referendum on [02:11:46] leave us up for that purposes really want to post that course of action. So, we moved to Sir William CEOs and me meant to replace prophesied day and sit out on SMP number two today Those that opinion will say I country now. [02:12:05] Now you save it. I save it. [02:12:09] A party vote. [02:12:12] The members should call on nuclear party they last for a personal they 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 telephone the eyes will be telephone the eyes for so. So you are telephony eyes? telephone the nose. Trevor? honorable Trevor Miller. abstentions will come to the table. proxy votes must be marked as such. [02:12:57] The question is that Sue Williams See I mean meant to replace post five a sec down on si p number two Oh to be agreed to the eyes of 22 the nose at seven The motion is not agreed to unlock the doors unlock those The next question or the next question is Mac metros, TypeScript amendment to Tim mechanize amendment sit out on SAP number two or three The question is that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to those who that opinion will say I country now is heaven. [02:13:43] Order. I'll read put a report on the voices. [02:13:50] Those that opinion will say I country now. [02:13:55] I save it [02:13:58] personal by the clock. conduct the personal but [02:14:07] bringing the bells [02:14:11] the eyes will go to the right the nose will go to the left abstentions will come to the table telephone the eyes will be Metro. Tell us for the eyes will be to make a note for the nose honorable Trevor Miller abstentions will be recorded by the clock. proxy votes must be marked as such. The Christian is that the Mac Metro TypeScript amendment to mechanize amendment sit out on his op number two or three be agreed to the ISO 35 the knows that add amendment to the means is not agreed to we unlock the doors unlock the doors a point of order the honorable Raiffeisen [02:14:59] human I repeat to I'm asked the slave solely in the voting that I seek leave to correct the voting record of the first amendment that [02:15:08] of honorable have [02:15:10] sold him to amendment 202 when I regret I a message to have on a vote for which I carry a proxy recorded an opposition today so P [02:15:24] So, you are seeking leave to correct the vote, leave assault for that purposes or anyone opposed to the course of action. There appears not the record will show the mean the numbers so we move now to to mechanize amendment to replace a point of order [02:15:41] of the amendment. [02:15:42] The movement was not carried. [02:15:45] Yes, sorry, are declared and cordon off the doors. We're now on to the next one. Sorry. [02:15:54] I'll do it again. For the members the the eyes were 35 the nose what a Right so we now move to the second amendment to replace clause five a FCD up on its op number two or three The question is that the amendment be agreed to those that opinion will say I country now. [02:16:17] Hiring personal the personal bike will be conducted ringing the bells [02:16:27] eyes will go to the right nose will go to the left abstentions will come to the table telephone the eyes will be to Meccano tell us for the nose will be the honorable Trevor mela abstentions will be recorded by the clock proxy votes must be marked as such. The question is that term mechanize amendment to replace pose five is it out on sob number two or three be agreed to the Isaiah 36 thing Notice are at the amendment has not agreed to. We come to the last of the so peace and the name of unlock the doors. unlock the doors. We come to the last of the so peace in the name of Dr. Paul Hutchison TypeScript amendments to close five it The question is the amendments be agreed to those that that opinion will say I country no personal vote. I personal life will be held ringing the bells the eyes will go to the right the nose will go to the left Epstein show come to the table. Tell us for the eyes will be Dr. Paul Hutchison. Telephone the nose will be the honorable Trevor Miller. abstentions will be recorded by the clock. proxy votes must be marked as such. Love to those [02:17:54] the Christian is a port Hutchison's, TypeScript amendments to close I'll be agreed to [02:18:04] the eyes are 18 the nose or 85 abstentions or one main mentors not agreed to unlock the doors and offer those members we come now to the substandard vote on closest one to seven and the sheet jewels one and two. The question is that closes 127 and Cheetos one and two Stand back. Those are that opinion will say I country 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 will come to the table. The telephone the eyes will be Trevor mela the honorable Trevor Miller. The telephone the nose will be Tim Meccano abstentions will be recorded by the clack proxy votes. Must be marked as such as the Christian is that closes one to seven and she just wanted to stand pat the eyes of 77 the nose 43 the Christians are agreed to unlock the doors [02:19:17] and lock the doors. [02:19:18] I will report this bill without amendment forthwith. [02:19:36] The house has resumed Mr. Chairman, [02:19:38] speaker the committee has considered the holidays for recognition of vitality day in and day Amendment Bill and reports. It without amendment the committee has also considered the marriage definition of marriage amendment bill and reports it without amendment [02:19:58] Mr. Speaker, I move that the report be adopted. [02:20:01] Thank you honorable members. The question is that report be adopted those that opinion will please say aye. To the contrary, no, the eyes have it. The bills to sit down for third reading next sitting day. honorable members the house stains a June until 2pm tomorrow party raw battery Good evening.

This page features computer generated text of the source audio - it is not a transcript. The Artificial Intelligence Text is provided to help users when searching for keywords or phrases. The text has not been manually checked for accuracy against the original audio and will contain many errors.