Richard Worth: Relationships Bill provides legal security for all couples

Opinion

As a member of the select committee hearing submissions on the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships (Statutory References) Bill, I spent days listening to the wishes and concerns of both supporters and opponents of the bills.

Not only did this issue receive more submissions that any other but it has been one of the most emotionally charged I can remember.

Same-sex couples petitioned us to recognise their loving and committed relationships in law. But with equal sincerity most submitters expressed concern that the Civil Union Bill introduced same-sex marriage to New Zealand and would undermine the unique status of marriage.

Both sides of the debate raised valid concerns which deserve consideration. Unfortunately, the Government's haste to be done with civil unions before an election year does not allow sufficient time for amendments to be considered properly.

Law that is fair and in the best interests of all New Zealanders can be made only after proper debate.

My proposed amendment to the Civil Union Bill, called the Civil Relationships Bill, is just one being considered by Parliament this week. It sets out a genuine solution to this contentious issue and answers the major concerns of both supporters and opponents.

The select committee heard that not being recognised as next-of-kin had created a daily uncertainty for many same-sex and de facto couples, who, for example, feared not being able to visit their partner in hospital.

The right to be at their partner's bedside, and to be buried together, were understandably of great importance to many submitters who supported the bills.

We heard accounts of people being denied the opportunity to view their deceased partner's body or to be involved in important medical decisions.

While these stories are tragic and should not have happened, the surprising fact is that the Civil Union Bill and the Relationships Bill will do nothing to change them, because these are not matters of the law.

What would, however, be beneficial in such circumstances is legal certainty that a relationship is next-of-kin - but there is no compelling reason why such security should not be available to non-intimate relationships.

Some submitters believe that if we don't pass the Civil Union Bill, people will have to go to court to prove their next-of-kin status, and will risk hospital staff not knowing whether to believe "the homophobic family or the alleged partner".

The Civil Union Bill does not grant certainty of next-of-kin as claimed, but the proposed Civil Relationships Bill would. Once registered, parties to a civil relationship would be issued with a certificate which could be used as evidence of next-of-kin, providing a greater level of security, something the Civil Union Bill does not prescribe.

The Civil Relationships Bill would provide for any two people (including family members and friends) to register a "civil relationship". This allows same-sex and de facto couples to register their relationship for greater legal protection.

By removing the prohibited degrees of relationship, the amendment would ensure that protection and legal certainty are available to a greater number of people.

The Civil Union Bill does not, for example, allow two elderly widows who live together and are financially and emotionally dependent upon each other to be recognised and protected in law.

The Civil Relationships Bill would ensure that these relationships can be protected, regardless of sexual or romantic involvement, because all people deserve such security.

Importantly, a civil relationship looks nothing like a marriage. It does not pretend to be an equivalent alternative to marriage and is not a copy of the Marriage Act. Unlike the Civil Union Bill, a civil relationship does not pretend to be something it is not, in the hope that people will not notice.

The Government has consistently said that civil unions are not same-sex marriage, and that the two are very different.

When pressed on these legal differences, all the select committee came up with was that the name "civil union" is different from "marriage", the terms "husband" and "wife" are different, and the registration system for celebrants is different.

In other words, the Civil Union Bill is an exact copy of the Marriage Act.

Civil relationships will have no prescribed ceremony, no celebrants, no marriage-like registration system and they apply to a wider group of people. The Government will oppose the proposed Civil Relationships Bill only if it really wants same-sex marriage.

I am interested in seeing law passed which considers the long-term consequences for all; law that is honest about what it will and will not achieve; law that protects important social institutions like marriage.

If the select committee hearings are anything to go by, I am confident most New Zealanders would agree the Civil Relationships Bill makes a lot more sense than the Civil Union Bill.

* Richard Worth is the National Party's justice spokesman.