As a marriage and civil union celebrant for a decade or so, I officiated at some fantastic and moving occasions.
A grand ceremony for a staff member in the old upper chamber at Parliament. Several beachside services around the country. Overseas celebrations in the United Kingdom and Hawaii. A bittersweet bedside wedding in hospital for a terminally unwell friend.
And various matrimonial events in parks — including one in the Dunedin Botanic Garden livestreamed to the couple’s respective families in Silicon Valley and rural Vietnam.
I performed every kind of wedding or civil union: gay and straight; large and small; cross-cultural; as elaborate as the couple could afford and the most simple the law allows.
Despite giving away marriage celebrant duties after a bout of bad health last year, I still look back on those occasions — involving fantastic people on their happiest days — with a sense of being privileged to play a small part in making some memorable moments for so many.
I’ve stayed in touch with many of them.
None of them went into marriage anticipating that it would end in divorce, but the simple reality is that some have, and a fair number will in the future.
In 2024, there were nearly 7500 divorces granted in New Zealand.
This represents a little over 40% of the 18,000 weddings performed in the same period.
The legal process for securing a dissolution, especially the rules imposed by the state, should be as painless and efficient as possible.
Any couple whose marriage has ended in all but name will have already suffered more than enough emotional hurt and financial expense. The imposition of further delays, costs and stresses by an outdated legal process for divorce is a cruelty that benefits nobody.
Yet, that is exactly what the current rules impose.
While our law is ‘‘no-fault’’ and does not require a cause to be cited, a couple must still be separated for two years to prove that they are irreconcilable before they can apply for a divorce in New Zealand.
We are not the only country to have delays inbuilt by legislation.
In England and Wales, there is a 20-week ‘‘reflection period’’ and a further six-week wait for processing a final order, meaning divorce takes around six months.
Australia has a similar stand-down period, although theirs is for one year.
In the United States all states now have ‘‘no-fault’’ divorces available and these vary from six weeks to a year to obtain.
Scotland allows for ‘‘irretrievable breakdown’’ (try saying that quickly in a Scottish accent) to be proven by a separation of one year with mutual consent, or two where the couple do not both agree.
Legal purists may argue that marriage is a contract that should not be able to be easily broken, but unlike most contracts, there is only one standard form available — sanctioned by the state — which does not provide for an early termination clause.
Some religions teach that marriage is a lifelong covenant, and that divorce should only be possible under very specific circumstances: often adultery and abandonment. Those who hold these views may favour maintaining the status quo, with its two-year cooling down period as a deterrent from an excessively easy divorce.
These ideas form the historical context for New Zealand’s divorce laws.
Prior to 1980, one had to prove adultery, five years’ desertion, drunkenness, neglect and refusal of financial support, or more than seven years’ imprisonment for attempted murder of a spouse.
Pre-1898, getting a divorce was nearly impossible — especially for women.
But New Zealand is a far more secular society than when these rules were last revisited: barely a third of New Zealanders professed adherence to Christianity in the last census.
Before 1976, all marriages had to be performed in a church by a minister of religion, or in a registry office without ceremonial or guests.
In the 50 years since the introduction of independent celebrants — who can marry couples on beaches and in gardens, in resturants and halls, and in private homes — religious services have declined to only a quarter of the overall annual number of weddings.
A quarter of New Zealanders who marry each year are opting for registrar marriages and half of all those who marry choose an independent celebrant.
The latest update to our divorce law in New Zealand is the prosaically named Family Proceedings (Dissolution of Marriage or Civil Union for Family Violence) Amendment Act 2024.
This sensible measure, better known as ‘‘Ashley’s Law’’, allows for marriages to be dissolved immediately, without the two-year waiting period, in cases of family violence. This requires specific family violence orders to have been made.
Full credit to former Labour MP Angie Warren-Clark for advancing this important change.
While Ashley’s Law was rightly welcomed by victims’ advocates, and received uncommonly strong support across the political spectrum, I would argue it doesn’t go far enough towards a general overhaul of our archaic legislation.
Why should a person who has been robbed by their spouse, cheated on, disparaged, or deserted have to wait two years for a divorce?
Why should two adults who, for frankly any reason of their own choosing, decide they no longer wish to be married be unable to exit the contract by mutual agreement?
Why not have a more reasonable timeframe: a year, or six months, or six weeks, like comparable jurisdictions?
This is unlikely to be a priority issue for governments of any political stripe in these times of economic uncertainty, but it certainly would be a useful member’s Bill for an MP to introduce in the next Parliament.
- Paul Foster-Bell is a former National list MP and New Zealand diplomat. He now works for the University of Otago, where he researches international relations. All views expressed are solely his own.
