Richard Worth's SOP to the Civil Union Bill
Richard Worth is introducing a SOP to the Civil Union Bill to include any two people in a civil union - like two old unmarried sisters who flat together. Worth wants to change the name of the bill to the Civil Partnerships Bill, and hold a binding referendum on the issue.
Worth is the National justice spokesperson and says:
There are no ceremonial procedures for entry to a civil relationship to avoid any parallel or comparison with marriage. It provides a civil contract entered into for the mutual support and benefit of the partners
Once registered, parties to a civil relationship are issued with a certificate which will provide next of kin rights and the benefits that the accompanying Relationships (Statutory References) Bill.
Apparently there is no transfer clause in the SOP, so, if successful, heterosexual civil partnerships cannot automatically be transferred into marriages. Nor is there a two-year separation requirement, as in the current bill. If that was the only part of the SOP, I would expect most MP's to support that.
This SOP has the support of the National caucus, and minimises the potential for same sex marriage in future. Combined with the RSR Bill this SOP is similar to the UK partnerships bill - but not limited to gay couples.
Will most MP's vote for it? I don`t think so. It’s the relationships bill with a certificate. The Labour caucus does not support a referendum in any case. NZ First MPs (who do want a referendum), may not support the extension to flatmates and old sister spinsters.
I don`t think most MPs will vote for it as this SOP changes the bill too much. It runs contrary to the aims of the bill, which is to recognise only unmarried relationships with an emotional and sexual attachment as equivalent to marriage, and as Jordan Carter saysthus may breach standing orders.
I`ve never heard of a successful SOP that has changed the name and the intent of a bill. Changes of name and intent are usually done through law reform - as seen with the Care of Children Act ( updating the Guardianship Act), and with Insurance, abortion, homosexuality and prostitution bills -and may also be seen with the Foreshore and Seabed Reform Bill, and the Adoption Law Reform Bill.
2 comments:
This is an unfortunate piece of opportunism.
I happen to think legal recognition of nonsexual cohabitant relationships is a *good* idea, but should
be considered on the basis of its own merits and disadvantages. For example, what about physically disabled people and their caregivers in this context?
Tim Barnett feels the same way, so there probably will be a Significant Persons Relationship Bill during the next parliamentary term. However, it'll have to go through the usual process of bill drafting, parliamentary vote, select committee referral and suggested amendments or otherwise.
Worth is shooting himself in the foot. I know a lot of disability rights activists and organisations who won't be happy at him for this. Fortunately, it probably won't succeed in its objectives.
Craig
We don't know that is the case, Greyshade. It may be that the Disabled Persons Assembly, CCS and other disability rights groups might have interesting
contributions to make about any future Significant
Personal Relationships Bill during the next
parliamentary term. Wonder if Ruth Dyson has received any feedback about this subject?
Craig
Post a Comment