Press Release – TVNZ
Colin Craig, youve just heard these young ladies talk. I mean, theyre high-functioning individuals. Ones training to be a doctor and theyre sitting there holding hands. Why shouldnt they be allowed to marry?Q+A March 10 – Susan Wood interviews Louisa Wall and Colin Craig
Sunday March 10, 2012
SUSAN WOOD interviews LOUISA WALL and COLIN CRAIG
Q+A, 9-10am Sundays on TV ONE and one hour later on TV ONE plus 1. Repeated Sunday evening at 11:30pm. Streamed live at www.tvnz.co.nz.
Thanks to the support from NZ On Air.
Q + A – March 10, 2013
LOUISA WALL and COLIN CRAIG
Interviewed by SUSAN WOOD
SUSAN Colin Craig, Louisa Wall, good morning to you both. Colin Craig, you’ve just heard these young ladies talk. I mean, they’re high-functioning individuals. One’s training to be a doctor – and they’re sitting there holding hands. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to marry?
COLIN CRAIG – Conservative Party Leader
Well, I think the key point, and it was your first question, is, look, we’ve done civil unions in this country, and we actually copied the Marriage Act. The only thing that’s different is the word “marriage” was changed to “civil union”. And that enables same-sex and other couples who didn’t want to go through the traditional marriage process to recognise fully their relationship. We changed 160 other pieces of legislation to make sure that civil unions wasn’t second-class, and I think it’s really concerning, given all the effort—
SUSAN But it is, because it sets this— Marilyn Waring actually made a very interesting submission about civil union, because what it does – it makes a different class of people. So you set gay as a different class and give them civil union.
COLIN No, no—
SUSAN It makes them different class.
COLIN Civil— Different, of course, because we recognise there is a difference here. I don’t think anybody intelligently can say, well, look, the dynamics between a man and a woman are the same as the dynamics between a same-sex couple, because there is gender difference. Now, we recognise that by having two parallel and equally legally entitled options for recognising union – that’s marriage and civil union.
LOUISA WALL – Labour MP
But that’s only for a heterosexual couple, actually, Colin, and what we’re wanting to do is provide that choice for all New Zealand citizens. And actually what we have to remember in New Zealand is only the state can issue a licence. There are differences in terms of how marriage is celebrated, so we have religious celebrations and cultural celebrations. So all we’re doing is opening up this wonderful institution, which is about family, love and commitment, which these two beautiful young women show. That’s what we want for everybody.
COLIN And civil union can be about that too—
LOUISA But it is about that—
COLIN …without taking anything away from marriage.
LOUISA It’s about that for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. We’re not taking anything away from marriage. Actually, what we’re saying is that—
COLIN No, you are.
LOUISA …this is an esteemed institution. It’s something that every citizen of the country—
COLIN But you are changing it.
LOUISA …wants. No, we’re not.
COLIN This esteemed institution—
SUSAN No, they’re giving it to everybody. They’re trying to everybody, Colin.
COLIN In giving it to everybody, you’re changing the definition. You’re changing what marriage is. Words like “husband”, “wife”, “bride”, “bridegroom”—
LOUISA All stay. They will stay. There will be 14 pieces of legislation that we’ll have to change—
COLIN Right, 14 pieces of legislation changed.
LOUISA …because they won’t be applicable.
SUSAN Louisa, to a lot of people, marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and they are genuine and sincere beliefs.
LOUISA Absolutely, and they can remain for people who believe that. So religious institutions—
SUSAN Well, the changes–
COLIN No, no, you’re forcing—
SUSAN Hang on, Colin. It changes it, though.
LOUISA No, it doesn’t change it. Not for them. They can define it for themselves, and section 29 is very clear that a celebrant is authorised but not obliged, and we’ve now made it really explicit that if you’re an organisational celebrant, if you’re a minister of religion, you explicitly now can say no and be very clear about why you’re doing that.
COLIN Why won’t you protect the right of all celebrants?
LOUISA It is actually a subsection of section 29 that celebrations are already protected—
SUSAN Alright, we’ll—
COLIN No, no, no, no.
SUSAN Alright, let’s get into that quite clearly. Now, what you are saying here – because Louisa has said all along, and you’ve stood up in parliament and said this – that nobody will be forced to marry a gay couple.
COLIN That’s the promise.
SUSAN Now, you’ve got an issue around this, Colin.
COLIN Absolutely. Look, the Crown Law report, and I’ve got it here – you’ve read this. It says if you want to protect that, make it explicitly so. At the moment, the proposed amendment only protects 38% of celebrants— uh, 32%. The other 68, you’re hanging out to dry. Why won’t you follow the Crown Law advice—?
LOUISA We have followed the Crown Law advice, and the Ministry of Justice advice, because this amendment, which was proposed by the select committee, is one that I recommend. And so already we have section 29—
COLIN But you’re not keeping your promise.
LOUISA …which says “authorises but not obliged”. The Human Rights Commission were very clear that we didn’t need to enhance that section.
SUSAN But let’s—
COLIN Crown Law says you should explicitly give and exception, and you’ve not done that.
LOUISA No, that is in the legislation, so you’re being really disingenuous, Colin.
SUSAN Alright, Louisa, can you then guarantee, because I have read all these legal reports, and we know what reports from lawyers are like – you get varying opinions. It does seem, from the evidence that Colin Craig has got, that there are a number, and it’s a significant number of independent celebrants, who could be forced to marry a gay couple if they did not wish to.
LOUISA No, because what we’ve done under section 29 is created a subsection, which is section 2 – so you’ll have section 29: “authorised, not obliged”—
SUSAN But what happens to those two-thirds of celebrants who are not from a church or—
LOUISA They already have the right to say no.
SUSAN But aren’t they regarded like a registrar—
SUSAN …who actually to do—
LOUISA No, they’re not.
SUSAN You know, you go a registry office, you have to—
COLIN So are you saying Crown Law are wrong?
LOUISA Registrars are employees of the state.
COLIN Are you saying that Crown—?
LOUISA So that’s an employment issue.
COLIN Are you saying that Crown Law are wrong?
LOUISA No, are you saying that the Ministry of Justice is wrong and that the select committee is wrong and that—?
SUSAN Well, let’s just be really clear. Will two-thirds of celebrants who are not involved with a church or organisation, if these lovely ladies here went along and said, “We want you to marry us,” and they didn’t want to, would they be forced to?
LOUISA No, they wouldn’t.
COLIN Are you prepared to guarantee that right in legislation?
LOUISA It’s guaranteed already in section 29 of the Marriage Act.
COLIN Crown Law says—
LOUISA It’s already guaranteed in section 29 of the Marriage Act.
COLIN Crown Law say it needs to be an explicit exemption.
LOUISA The select committee was very clear, and I agree, that no celebrant ever should be forced. Why would you want a celebrant—?
COLIN Why not put that in law?
LOUISA Why would you want a celebrant—
COLIN Why not put that in law?
LOUISA …at a beautiful celebration—
COLIN Why not put that in law?
LOUISA …actually not wanting to be there.
COLIN Why not—?
LOUISA It doesn’t make any sense.
COLIN Why not put that in law?
LOUISA It is in law.
SUSAN Alright, there’s one more thing around that I want to move on to. When we’re talking about buildings – we’re talking about synagogues, churches, mosques, whatever. Not necessarily the religious part of it – where they hold their services – but maybe their hall. Will people be able to use those against the religious wishes of those organisations for gay marriage?
LOUISA There is a distinction between the sacramental place of a church, absolutely, which the minister, by agreeing to solemnise a marriage, allows a couple to have access to. Any property that is classified as a good or service is a good or service. So you can’t discriminate under New Zealand law—
SUSAN So, for example—
COLIN So there will be discrimination on that basis. You will force church buildings to be used—
LOUISA No, it’s current law. We’re not— I’m not changing that law. If a church currently hires out their hall for money, they can’t discriminate against any group who chooses to hire out that hall.
COLIN No, no, actually, I believe they currently can.
LOUISA No, they can’t. They can’t.
SUSAN Right, adoption. Adoption. Of course, your bill becomes law, then it is legal for gay couples to adopt.
LOUISA Actually, it’s already legal for gay couples to adopt, except only one of them can become the parent and the other becomes and additional guardian.
COLIN Where there’s a family or blood relationship, yes, that’s true. But we’re talking about children with no home who are wards of the state getting placed in a brand new family.
LOUISA So you want to change the institution of marriage, actually, because what you’re saying is that married couples shouldn’t be able to jointly adopt.
LOUISA If they’re same-sex.
COLIN No, I’m—
LOUISA So you want to change the institution of marriage.
COLIN No, listen, what I’m saying is this: where the state has a child without any family, any blood relatives who will take responsibility for them, we’ve got to place them in a home. We should— Currently the law says they’ve got to go into a home with a mum and a dad. That’s right, according to me. I don’t think we should be changing it. This is not to say other people can’t be loving, but the reality is let’s stick to what we know works.
SUSAN Do you think a mum and dad’s a real family?
COLIN I think, look, if we look at the— Uh, Sydney University spent nearly, what—
SUSAN No, it’s a simple question. Is a mum and dad a real family to you? Is that what a real family is?
COLIN When we’re looking for an ideal family in adoption, a mum and dad who meet all the other criteria is the ideal.
LOUISA In the latest research from the UK, from the University of Cambridge, said that that’s not right, that the most important thing is for children to be brought up in loving families, and it’s about how they function. It’s got nothing to do with the gender of the parents.
COLIN Well, that’s not—
LOUISA So that’s the latest research.
COLIN That’s not the evidence out of Sydney, which is last year.
LOUISA Well, this is the evidence out of the University of Cambridge that came out two days ago.
SUSAN Let Colin get a word in.
COLIN Look, I think the Australian research, over $15 million spent, clearly said, look, this is the best scenario – a married mum and dad who are loving, that’s ideal. With adoption, and there aren’t many of these, we are looking for an ideal scenario. We have a lot a rules. We say that 24-year-olds can’t adopt, even though they may love each other and be great parents. Why? Because we’re looking for the absolutely best outcome. It’s about the best for a child, and I think it is an experiment if we start putting those—
SUSAN A social experiment, you think.
COLIN It is. Of course it is.
LOUISA Children are already being brought up in families with same-sex couples.
COLIN We’re not talking about those children. We’re talking about—
LOUISA Why? Why aren’t we talking about those children?
COLIN Because your bill is only changing the scenario for children without a home.
SUSAN Alright, Louisa, got the numbers to get it through this week?
LOUISA I believe that, yeah, there has been strong public support for the bill. Obviously—
SUSAN But I’m talking about in the House this week, which is where the rubber hits the road.
LOUISA I’m hopeful, but it’s a conscience vote. It’s up to every single member of Parliament.
LOUISA And obviously we do have leadership across the House that is supporting my bill.
COLIN Public support is declining.
LOUISA From the Prime Minister to the leaders of both the ACT Party, United Future, Mana, Maori Party and obviously there’s a strong group within Labour and the Greens, so I’m very hopeful.
SUSAN What are you going to do? I mean, it goes through. Louisa’s hopeful the numbers are there. Are you going to keep fighting against this, Colin?
COLIN Look, of course. Public support is moving. It’s moving in the direction of traditional marriage, not because people want to deny anybody anything, but we recognise we already made that provision. This is a rushed process. New Zealanders were denied the right to speak.
LOUISA This is a standard process—
COLIN That’s wrong.
LOUISA And actually—
COLIN No, it’s not a standard process.
LOUISA …Colin, you know that. If you ask people do they agree to the state issuing marriage licences to consenting adults who want to marry, you get a very different response—
COLIN You want a referendum on state assets; have one on marriage.
LOUISA Well, yes, have you gone out and got 307,000 people to—?
COLIN So you don’t want people to—?
LOUISA No, no, what have you done about it?
SUSAN I think both of you can argue in the green room for the rest of the day. Colin Craig, Louisa Wall.