This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content. You can search the text using Ctrl-F, and you can also play the audio by clicking on a desired timestamp.
Because will follow if they know that their masters and tutors are indulging in these unnatural practises. And if they know that the law of the land will allow it. What effect will it have on the moral fibre of these boys? Some of them quite young. And under 21 the practises are illegal. And yet suddenly, on the morning of their 21st birthday, they can do what they like. And they are a bull which will defy evil influences [00:00:30] which are seeking to undermine the very foundation of our national character. Defy them. Do not help them. I've heard some say, and indeed the noble Earl Earl said so himself that such practises are allowed in France and in NATO countries. We're not French, and we're not other nationals. We are British. Thank God. This is, uh, some of the This is some of the thoughts of, uh, Lord Montgomery in this regard. It was my intention, Mr Speaker to read, uh, further [00:01:00] evidence that came forward, uh, to suit my case. I will admit, but I won't We the house for that because I think the subject's been covered. Uh, very amply. And I know the house is ready, I believe to vote. So finally, could I say, expressed in the simplest terms. I suggest that the issue is this Is this house or is it not to give a lead to the New Zealand people by agreeing to a bill which will have the effect of undermining the moral fibre of [00:01:30] the youth of our country? That's my feelings, Mr Speaker. Uh, right arm. I also keep Holy oak and God, I am not other men. I thought there was one small element of that in the quotation. At least the honourable member for Rodney will excuse me for I hope so. I'm sorry. Excuse me for taking that line just to speak up. The thought of homosexual acts is absolutely and repulsive [00:02:00] to me. But who am I to judge? So I'm not going to compliment the member for not fulsomely at least the member for Egmont with his carriages on. I wish he'd take his jolly bill away. I wish we never heard of it. Um, we should never hear of these quest. Wish the problems would go away. And I suppose having said that, then one has to join the others say compliment sue for [00:02:30] his courage and bringing something forward that we all wish was not brought forward and that the problem itself would simply dissolve and disappear. Pardon, however, the problem is there and from time to time these questions, whether moral, legal and emotional or whatever they are, they will arise and have public common [00:03:00] currency and be discussed and have to be and have to be settled. Two years ago, I confess quite openly. Two years ago, perhaps one year ago, one year ago, I would have voted against such a proposition for this. Today I will vote for it, seeing that homosexual acts are obnoxious to me. And I think that just about all of us or the very great majority of [00:03:30] us and then, uh my and I suppose our natural instinct is to vote against any change in the law because of the natural lash out against the law or any proposal to change the law because we don't like the the context of the subject. Uh, that that is dealt with. That's a natural emotional reaction, but I believe we must use more than that. We use judgement as far [00:04:00] as we can. Uh, and whatever logic we have. So I'm not going to at this stage of the debate, going to go over all of it. And indeed, I'll go over very few of the arguments that have been ad produced by other members for and against except except I want to say this that I am not convinced that the present sanctions in the law have achieved very much. [00:04:30] I won't say they haven't achieved anything, but I don't think they've achieved enough. They are in balance to warrant their continuation. The member for Rodney, it was that quoted a lot of figures in respect to convictions in the law and the kind of penalties that have been imposed. Um, I'm sorry I didn't listen. Listen closely enough to him before he came to that passage in his [00:05:00] speech. And, uh, I have to ask him, uh, whether I'm correct when I say I imagine. I imagine he was dealing with all the offences taken under these headings. Not with the offences in the narrow range in which this bill deals. And that is homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. After all, this law doesn't alter all the rest of them And that would have been interesting if he had [00:05:30] the figures, and I presume he had. I haven't seen them. If he had figures to show how many cases have been brought and that would be affected by this amendment to the law, yes, yes, but for all kinds of homosexual acts, not just for homosexual acts but the very narrow range which are dealt with in this proposed amendment. It [00:06:00] is fun. Well, what is the difference? The difference is is that the member for Rodney quoted figures to prove something to prove that we should not carry this amendment. He was dealing with figures that have nothing to do whatever with this amendment. That's the point I'm making, Uh, or if they had, I shouldn't say whatever, but only to a very, very small extent. I believe, Well, [00:06:30] that's natural to begin with, if they are performed in private secret, naturally not, not not. Not many are detected, although, of course, some are I. I thought the figures were misleading in that he quoted the wider field of homosexual acts committed against the law and how the courts had treated them. Uh, it was an interesting comment, but I felt it was mainly not only but mainly irrelevant [00:07:00] to this proposed amendment. Um, it I would think so, of course, that that has been mentioned by other members. Sorry, I've got a heavy Colum mentioned by other members that the very nature of the homosexual acts that we are discussing that is homosexual acts committed by males consenting males in private. Um, [00:07:30] naturally, not many of them are detected and come before the courts. And for that very reason, and the existing law has very little application of this is virtually in in effect. However, I want to speak very briefly. The main points that have determined me to vote in favour of the law have been said so often Very briefly. I repeat them. I believe there should be no difference in the treatment [00:08:00] and the law of males and females, and that has been dealt with at great length. And I say no more about it. Secondly, I asked myself, Does the present law has the present law prevented or deterred homosexual acts between between males? I would think no one can prove this, but I would think to a to some extent, but very, very mindful, [00:08:30] I would have thought the advantage here would have been so minimal that it would not weigh heavily with me, at least as against the disadvantages as against the disadvantages under the existing law. With the proposed, I ask myself with the proposed amendment, tend to increase the number of homosexual acts between males, adult males. From my experience, from [00:09:00] what I have learned and what I've heard, I doubt it. If it would, it would be only to a very, very minimal effect and indeed we could not prove that this. So I am certainly not convinced that the flood gates will be opened. Indeed, I am utterly convinced that that argument is wrong. I am impressed also by the statement [00:09:30] of the member for Mont verified by some other members of the Select committee, which took the evidence that every body, every person and every organisation giving evidence to the committee was asked this specific question. Every church, every thank you, I'm corrected. Every church was asked this specific question, or perhaps not in these [00:10:00] exact words. But in this sense, if the existing law was, as is now proposed in this amending bill, if the existing law was, as he is now proposed in this amending bill, would you be proposing and crusading to change it, to change it to what the law is at the present time and after proper thought and consideration? The member [00:10:30] and others confirmed that all the churches said no. We would not be asking for the law to be changed to what it is at the present time, with the exception of one I think small section of the Anglican Church and evangelical evangelical section a crusading a crusading section. So I think, is that is the heart and the centre core of the whole question. [00:11:00] Does it exist? Is the existing law and an A and an Aron? Are we clinging to it, or are some people clinging to it simply because it's there? If it were not there as it is, not there for females, would there be a crusade to change it today to what is now the existing sanction under our law? And certainly would not. There will not be a widespread crusade. [00:11:30] I doubt whether there would be a crusade at all if there were one. It would be, I believe, very, very minor, very very minor indeed. This to me, sir, is a very important aspect of the of the whole question. So I'm also influenced by experiences that I've had in public life in offices that I've held in this house and in this country, [00:12:00] the knowledge I have of people in quite high places. Thank you so much. And quite high places. Exercising considerable responsibility and judgement and indeed influence. But who were homosexuals or homosexually inclined Being subject to blackmail, [00:12:30] to blackmail and mental torture as a result of all that stems from that mental torture. Well, the way it affected their whole lives the relationships in their families and indeed indeed with other people have no knowledge of that. Police have no knowledge. Um, [00:13:00] please have no knowledge that what I say is correct. Yes, yes. No, no. Um I accept. I accept what the member says, and all I'm saying is that I have knowledge of it, you know, I have knowledge of it. I have personal knowledge of it, and and of the, uh of the mental torture and the spiritual torture and that these people [00:13:30] that these people went through and to the number who are still alive are, I suppose still going through. I'm not saying that they should not have some mental experience, some mental torture, uh, in this field because, as I say, right, And I said right at the outset. And I'm still of the same opinion that homosexual acts between males [00:14:00] females, for that matter as well we're talking about male is abhorrent. To me, this is an UN thing. It is to me, an unnatural thing and an abnormal thing. And so I suppose anybody experiencing this for whatever reason, whether they are born with these tendencies, whether they acquire them, whether they're forced upon them through their environment or whatever, I suppose it's a natural thing again that they will suffer some mental torture and [00:14:30] pay some price in that respect. But from the experiences that I have in the positions, which I help, uh convinced me that these people suffered two great offences. Uh, this is only something that one can use one one's own judgement on again as one as one person observing another What? What penalty should they pay? [00:15:00] And I believe that the cases that I knew know of these people suffered too great a penalty too great a mental and spiritual torture because of the fear of discovery because of the fear of publication. Indeed, because of the possibility of the exercise of the law as it exists today, that again, [00:15:30] and perhaps more than any other thing with me, uh, has decided me to persuade me to vote in favour of the amendment, I repeat again that two years ago, perhaps one year ago, I It would have been difficult to convince me to support the law. But today I do the amendment today I do support, uh, speaker, Mr Bird [00:16:00] Speaker. Like most like many members in this house on both sides, I've had very considerable difficulty in deciding whether I should support or oppose the private members bill of my colleague, the member. For like him. I have considerable compassion for the problems of the homosexual problems [00:16:30] which the homosexual and many others, including, including many highly qualified, believe that the problems are centred around the intrusion of the statutes into moral issues. Yeah, in an effort to fully understand how the Crimes Act created additional pressures on those with homosexual tendencies, [00:17:00] I joined the member for Egmont in a number of early discussions with the homosexual Law Reform Society. Like others at those discussions, I was very impressed with the ability and equality of those who were supporting homosexual law reform. But this is not an issue [00:17:30] where one can or should look at the law solely through the eyes of those directly involved. But one must rather consider, in one's own conscience the effect of changing the laws on society at large. I have found, after very long consideration [00:18:00] that I believe that homosexual behaviour is not a behaviour that I could accept as normal and all that I wish to take part in any action that would be seen to condone, encourage or even passively accept homosexual practise. And it is for that particular reason, sir, I find [00:18:30] that I am unable to support the bill. I believe that to support the bill would be seen to condone, even though passively, homosexual behaviour. So it is then, with much regret that I am unable to support the member for Edmond. I also greatly regret that there is this anomaly in the law [00:19:00] whereby action by female homosexuals in private is what it seems to be and is within the law and action by male homosexuals in private is outside the law. I take the point that has been made by the member for Egmont and many others when he raises the question that if one is not able to support his bill, then should one not be [00:19:30] promoting law or an amendment to bring female homosexuals within the Crimes Act as well? I would answer the member for Egmont in this way that I am not satisfied until society is prepared to provide more positive assistance with those with homosexual behaviour and until society is prepared [00:20:00] to concentrate more of its resources into a study of the of the inherent influences which brings about homosexuality and is prepared, prepared to do more in those important fields that I believe this law should be changed. So I also make the point that the law falls unevenly [00:20:30] on sections of society. All of us, all of us, even in this House, are capable of criminal actions. We are discouraged from doing so or becoming for taking part in criminal actions by the fact that we in doing so, would lose the respect of our family. We would lose the respect of our fellow men. And finally we are discouraged because of the [00:21:00] punish punishment itself. But the greatest deterrent of all is that in moving outside of accepted standards, we transgress the norms of society, accepted behavioural standards set up and adopted by society itself. I fully appreciate that tendencies to act outside normally accepted [00:21:30] standards also fall unevenly. Some peculiarity of our chemistry, our background, our early childhood environment makes it more difficult for some than it does for others. I fully appreciate that. However, the attitudes of the community, its leaders and, most important, the attitude of parliament itself is vital to the standards accepted [00:22:00] by society at large. It seems to me, therefore in balance, that any action seem to Condoned any action, seem to accept the homosexual homosexuality itself, can have considerable influence on the views of society at large. And it is for that reason that I am unable to support [00:22:30] the member for Egmont in his efforts to have the bill introduced and the law changed much better. I believe for society to work hard in devoting more resources to understanding the influences that bring about homosexual behaviour much better, sir, to devote our efforts to correcting something [00:23:00] which the house I believe has agreed is not a normal human situation. I regret, therefore, that I will be voting against the law. Uh, Mr Mr Speaker, I do with my colleagues in the house who can. Congratulating the member Fremont in bringing this bill before [00:23:30] the house. I think we all know that it has taken a great deal of courage to do this because we're in an area of discussion, an area of debate which it is difficult to see clear lines of action which will follow the results of this bill. I think we're all aware of the degree of concern that is expressed by all people throughout the country in this matter. [00:24:00] And I think it's equally true to say that we have no evidence to suggest that by the removing of legislation in this area in overseas countries there has been any lessening of the promiscuity which has been and is causing considerable concern. I believe it is right, and it's proper that this topic should be discussed in this house. [00:24:30] As there is increasing controversy on the subject of homosexual behaviour, we have had the anomalies pointed out to us today and last night very clearly of the situation which exists as far as the male is concerned and as far as the female is concerned, it would also be true to say it would also be true to say that we are [00:25:00] not going to in any way improve the situation as far as the male is concerned by introducing legislation against female behaviour. And I think it's also true to say that the likelihood, the likelihood of reducing the activities, the obnoxious [00:25:30] activities of a number of the groups is going to lessen with the passing of this legislation. I don't believe it will thank you. I have over a number of years in the last years in particular had many very convincing arguments for changing the law in relation to homosexual acts and while they're very convincing and they're very logical, they are to a very [00:26:00] great degree academic and largely ignore, ignore a very offensive behaviour which undoubtedly causes considerable concern in the community. I think it is true and one of the difficulties with which we are confronted is that we are able to obtain driving licences at 15. It is unlawful and illegal [00:26:30] to drive under the age of 15. It is acceptable above that. Likewise, the laws relating to drinking likewise the law as far as voting is concerned, What we are saying now, Mr Speaker, is that we are going to have an age whereby certain acts are acceptable above an age. They're unacceptable below that age. And this is one of the difficulties [00:27:00] that I find in making a decision. As far as changing this legislation's concerns, I fully appreciate the fact that the that this anomaly does exist in the law. But it is equally true to say that as has been pointed out by the member for Rodney and that is that there is no mandatory sentence attached to this as it appears [00:27:30] on the board at the moment. In other words, there is no imprisonment involved and a lot has been made of this side of the argument. But as I say, it has not been proved and shown that that is sufficient reason for change in the law. I think when we make a change in the law, we must be extremely careful. I see that has been pointed out in the in [00:28:00] this bill that everything relates to this magic age. It does appear that we don't consider that those people above that age can be influenced or can be seriously influenced. But I would suggest, Mr Speaker that they are. They are and can be seriously influenced and generally have a serious effect on the lowering of the moral standards. I think that a [00:28:30] great disservice is done to this cause by such movements as the gay liberation movement and some of their publications. And I don't believe anybody in this House would condone the material which they put out. I'm saying here particular issues of their, um of some of their branches. I'm referring in particular to one extremely offensive article, which appeared from Christchurch earlier this year. This [00:29:00] article was written by a self confessed practising homosexual, and he was glorifying the acts of the Arabs. He even went further to state that those on whom this act had been, uh, that have been acted were actually changed psychologically as a result of it. I'm quite certain in this area a lot of very serious and careful thought should be [00:29:30] given before making a move to change this legislation. I think it has also been very noticeable. While the agitation to change the bill has been going on, the act, rather for has been going on for many years. It's been evident that these groups have been parading the streets, have been putting out an increasing volume of material and literature to advance their [00:30:00] cause. But I think it is having the re reverse effect as far as the public is concerned. While I do believe that there could be a change made to the law, I am not convinced and have not been convinced from the arguments that this bill, as presented all the amendments suggested, would answer the necessary criteria which would be required to make a change [00:30:30] which would be to the advancement and in the interests of our society. For this reason, Mr Speaker, I find it impossible to support this bill while recognising the difficulties when the in the individual problems that are associated with it, I feel that the bill in its present form does not and would not do what [00:31:00] it claims to speaker. Mr Speaker. I rise late in the debate to speak briefly on this bill, sir. And like my colleague, the member for Franklin. I was involved early in the discussions with the member for Egmont, with those who sought a reform in the law. And I listen, sir, with interest to the submissions they placed before us and to the arguments they advanced, [00:31:30] I must confess that they were unable to show us or to indicate to us where the operation of the present law was repressive or in any way was being harsh on those who had a natural inclination towards homosexual acts. Sir, I state quite clearly that although I understand and sympathise with the intention of this bill, I will not be [00:32:00] voting for the second reading of this. The reasons advanced for the bill fall broadly into three main categories. As I hear one compassion, very laudable sentiment, compassion for those who are so inclined two that the law, as present written, cannot be enforced. And three that the present law permits the ost or blackmail [00:32:30] of a person so inclined Could we briefly look at those three arguments? There are many sectors in society, sir. I submit who require compassion. But they all come under the same general law we have. And we know within society those who are much more prone to violence, much more prone to violent acts. And yet they serve. Excuse [00:33:00] me? Yes. Yet they come under the general bill regarding violence in society. We, also, sir, have the question of the law been unable to be enforced. There are many laws that are extremely difficult to enforce. The simple law on theft is most probably enforced only 50% of times that theft occurs. But we do not suggest [00:33:30] that we alter the law because it is difficult to enforce that law or many others. We also then look at the question of blackmail, sir, unless the less society's attitudes towards the state of a active homosexual altars, the possibility of blackmail will not be removed by the passage of the legislation we are present debating. So this also would not be achieved if [00:34:00] we vote in favour of the bill. Those who speak sir in favour of the bill advance, But as I read there, or listen to them that they don't consider that it is a natural act. They are totally opposed to perverting the young, and they are opposed to lowering the general standards of society. Sir, I submit that there is some inconsistency, because [00:34:30] in this bill and I have waited, sir, to hear some explanation for it in this bill we are excluding from its ramifications those who are in the armed forces and those who are in police force. I submit, sir, that the passage of this legislation creates another anomaly, then that for some reason, those who are in the Army or in the [00:35:00] police are considered more likely, are more susceptible because of the because they are excluded to homosexual activities because, uh, they are excluded. The member for said they come under a different act, but they are still not permitted in private. As I read the active, they are still not permitted in private to engage in homosexual activities. I would think so, and I would [00:35:30] advance the argument that there would be probably no group as a group that would be more mature in its outlook than those two groups in society. And I wonder, sir, and I would invite someone to advance the reasons why it was considered desirable to exclude those two segments from the passage of this from the ramifications sir of this legislation. So the question that must be discussed and was discussed [00:36:00] in the committee stages. I understand from reading the evidence and also has been raised in this house, and this is the question of the definition of an adult. The bill, as originally introduced, accepted the the old standard, if we might term it that of an adult 21 years. The bill has now allowed that lower that to the age of 20 years. But as you are aware, sir, there is considerable agitation among those who support a reform [00:36:30] in the law that the age should be lowered substantially below that of 20 years. And it is advanced by way of argument that heterosexual activity is permitted at the age of 16, that you are permitted to vote at the age of 18 and that it is repressive, that in this field of sexual activity you should be restrained until the age of 20 and probably the most or the stronger arguments, the strong arguments, [00:37:00] strong arguments advanced in favour of this was from the Methodist Church's submissions or the the uh Public Questions Committee of the Methodist Church to be more accurate. And they said there is justification for reducing this age to 18 years, or alternatively, to 16 years in support of reducing the age to 16 years and the proposed amendment. It is noted that a girl of 16 years may consent to carnal knowledge with a man. It [00:37:30] is difficult to find reasons that will permit such a girl to make a decision concerning her sexual conduct with either a male or a female, but yet deny the same right and responsibility to a 16 year old male. So there are strong arguments abroad, sir, to reduce the age to 16 because that is the heterosexual age. But, sir, we must look at this question one step further. You will be aware [00:38:00] that there is strong support in the community to lowering the age in which contraceptive advice and paraphernalia can be supplied to young girls. And it is logical that if we supply this to young girls, we will have to lower the age of consent for girls to less than 16 years, and we then can advance the argument that was advanced before so we would have to lower the age of homosexual activity to a similar lower [00:38:30] age. It is clear that the reason that the bill. And I'm quite sure this is the intention of the member. For Egmont, who is moving, it has retained an age of 20 years is because he wants to be sure that a person has this strong and permanent orientation towards homosexual activities and that those of a younger age should not be attracted temporarily and then [00:39:00] finally committed to this type of action or this type this, uh, type of sexual activity. But, sir, I think that if we pass this bill, we will again be asked to reduce the age within the next few years on a continuing downward scale. And then we run into not only the armed forces, because we have a single group of males together, not only the police force, we run into the additional problems of our single sex schools [00:39:30] who would then be placed in the same position. And will we exclude those from a passage of some future legislation? Sir, I believe that the bill they were intending to correct the situation which is frankly untidy, would produce a situation which would be equally untidy. And I don't in any way believe that the present situation is a perfect solution because I don't believe there is a perfect solution. But what we [00:40:00] have to ask ourselves is whether the alternative proposed under this bill would improve the situation or whether it would not, and in most emissions it would not. So there's been some discussion on the question of morality and its place in relation to the law. And there is some conflict here, no doubt. But Western society's laws are historically based on traditional morality. And that, I think, is a statement of fact. And let us consider [00:40:30] on what other base or what other guide will we use to base our laws. If Sir, we if, sir, we do not have this base to our laws, what will we substitute? I submit, and I know that there are many interpretations as to where a moral stance should be taken. But I do not believe it is simple, or it is accurate [00:41:00] to say that morality has no place in drafting laws in this country. It has always been a guideline. It has always established some degree of parameters on an area under discussion and always provided lawmakers down through history in New Zealand, with guidance if not direct solutions to the problems of writing law. Sir, it's been [00:41:30] put forward by many that there is no solution to the problem of a homosexual to place him in prison. I don't disagree with that. But, sir, the position is quite clear. The law does not automatically on those very rare occasions that a homosexual is brought before the courts have to punish such a person to prison. There are [00:42:00] many other punishments that are available to the law. And this, sir, I think should be understand, should be understood by all. It is not simply a matter, sir, of immediately ending up in jail. And I would I would suggest on the evidence that was for the discussions I had earlier before this bill was brought to the house that there are very, very few homosexuals in jail for the simple reason or the sole reason that [00:42:30] they are practising homosexuals. There is one that should be clarified. And this is that there is no law against having homosexual inclinations. None whatsoever. Just as there is no law for being hot tempered, all been inclined to be light finned. There is a law. There is a law against violence. When you actively participate in violence, there's a law against light fingers. [00:43:00] If you actively steal something, there is a law, sir, against homosexual activities when you partake in it. Not merely sir. The condition of being a homosexual is not illegal under the law. As a stand at the present time, sir, For these reasons and for others, I will be voting against the second reading of this bill, the honourable Mr Wal. I think the whole question has been [00:43:30] quite extensively and I have nothing much additional to add. But I intend to support the second reading because I believe that the present law is at least a logical and unfair and unenforceable. I think it's a logical, unfair and that it discriminates against women and men. I think it's enforceable, too, if in fact the state isn't to have the power of easy access to the bedrooms [00:44:00] of the nation. And once we give them that right to try and determine or to influence what the what are natural acts and what are our unnatural acts or what is normal? What is unnormal? We we create a dangerous precedent that the state should not become involved in these issues in that way, I think, except also that for some people there's [00:44:30] no matter what their sexual incarnations are, they've got no way whatsoever of changing them any more than they have of changing their eyes from blue to brown. I do accept that also that these people in the past have been subject to a great deal of misery. They've been subject to intimidation and they've been subject to blackmail, and that's undesirable. I also accept, and I support for [00:45:00] Doctor Wall's proposition that there should be some restraint on the activities of those who seek to advocate a different lifestyle. And I think these extremists do the whole cause a disservice because I do believe in these cases that people with bisexual sort of tendencies can be influenced. And if they are exposed to at an early age to this type of promotion, if [00:45:30] you like, then it can influence them and do untold harm. And whilst I can't accept the amendments that Dr Wall has proposed, I would still like to examine the opportunity later on to see if something can be done in this regard, because I think it is, um, quite important my own early days at sea. There's quite a bit of this activity going on, so enough there to at least convince me that young people can [00:46:00] be influenced, uh, in a way that they should not be. I think no matter what the law is, the social social stigma will remain. And that's still the most powerful influence against, uh, the type of activity that's referred to here. But I say again that the present law is illogical. It's unenforceable, and I intend to support the further progress of this measure before the house. Mr. Combet, [00:46:30] Mr. Speaker, During the course of the 1972 election campaign, I and I have no doubt most candidates for, uh, Parliament at that time were asked at some stage, uh, on a public platform what our views were relating to homosexuality. I gave what I know to be an honest answer. At that time, I was not fully enough informed [00:47:00] as to the full ramifications of any proposed change to be able to state categorically at that time my views on the issue. But I did give a pledge to the people of my electorate in 1972 that I would apprise myself of the background and the ramifications of any proposed change. And this I have done. There has been a lot of debate, uh, about a programme [00:47:30] the Doctor Brian Edwards programme on television, which, uh, openly discussed the whole practise of homosexuality within one week of that programme. During the course of my, uh, moving around my electorate, I met with and had a very forthright discussion with one of the, uh people who participated in that particular programme. [00:48:00] I must confess that as a result of all the discussions and the welter of, um, paper observations of submissions that I is, someone in this house commented during the debate on the hospital's amendment Bill have been torn in two directions and I have been asking myself if the law is at present written and more importantly, interpreted by authorities as oppressive [00:48:30] and unfair to practising homosexuals. I think four points emerge and I will be brief in my observations. Every parliament and every country legislates in some way in the moral field. Under the existing law, no homosexual has to go to jail. There is no mandatory jail sentence, although conceivably, as the law stands now, there is a maximum jail sentence [00:49:00] which can be imposed if we remove the legal sanction regarding adult homosexuality. The fact is that, in my opinion, the social stigma remains in this point was confirmed by the minister for overseas trade just a few minutes ago. The proposed bill won't mean more acceptance for them. [00:49:30] And as other members have observed, it is possible that if this measure is passed, there will be public pressure on Parliament again in a year or two or five to, uh, reduce the age of consent in this regard down to 18 16 and so on. If the law is changed now, will it lead to a more overt aggressiveness on [00:50:00] the part of homosexual sexual? We can only speculate on that, but again, I believe that if any member has any doubt, he should vote against the bill. The fact is that we do have a law on our statute books now, and we are proposing to amend that, uh, in the way suggested by, uh, my colleague, the member for Egmont and as brought out in the, uh select committee hearings. Any [00:50:30] enactment, Mr Speaker by this parliament to change the law must be seen, rightly or wrongly, to condone the act of homosexuality. I know that is not the intent of the bill and certainly not the intent of my colleague, the member for Egmont. But it will be seen, I repeat, rightly or wrongly, by the public to in some degree condone the homosexual act. I agree that the state has [00:51:00] no place in the bedroom of the country. But the fact is that we are debating here something that goes far beyond that. I do not believe that the amendment will lift the threat of blackmail, which is appalled by all members of this house. Everyone who has spoken either in favour or against the bill has made some passing reference to that fact. No [00:51:30] one has yet convinced me or has made any strong attempt to indicate that homosexual behaviour is normal or natural. It is a statement. Many males are, of course, born with strong homosexual traits, and that is accepted by me. But I asked myself, Should we do anything as a parliament to encourage or condone a move to a [00:52:00] situation where homosexuality is accepted and where we might give people who are torn between the homosexual and heterosexual, uh, situation to give them the easy way, as it were to adopt the homosexual trait. I don't believe it is the role, indeed the duty of parliament to do such a thing. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very sympathetic [00:52:30] to the plight of males who find that they have strong homosexual characteristics. And I do not say that in any patronising manner. I believe that with help, certain of these people can, uh, be council to help them through what is often often for them, a very difficult period. And of course, the the whole question of the home environment has been mentioned and brought out in earlier debate. [00:53:00] And I will not, uh, elaborate further on it. But I, I know that that does not cover the whole situation. I repeat again that I have weighed up in my own conscience all the views that have been expressed over the last 2.5 years since the election and when I gave a promise to the people of my electorate that I would look very, very closely at the ramifications of change, I am [00:53:30] finally swayed by the fact that under the law as it is written and interpreted. Now, there is no jail sentence mandatory, no mandatory jail sentence which can or will likely be imposed by the courts of New Zealand. I am also, uh, guided to the fact that the passage of this bill will not change the social stigma which will [00:54:00] attach to people who are homosexual. Mr. Speaker, it's after taking into account all of these considerations without malice or heat or antagonism to any person that I will be voting against the second reading of this bill, the right honourable Sir John Marshall. There you go. I just want to say, just simply and directly at the beginning of what I [00:54:30] wish to say about this bill that I'm opposed to legalising homosexual behaviour. In my view, it's an unnatural act, and I don't see any way in which it could reasonably be claimed to be otherwise. The human body is made for sexual relations between a man and a woman and not for a man with another man. And as I see it, it is [00:55:00] yes, or a woman with another woman. And, uh, for me, uh, that seems to mean that homosexual behaviour, whether between two men or two women is a per position, and for me it is not only unnatural but repulsive. And I know that, uh, there are some who don't take that view. But I think [00:55:30] a distinction should be made very clearly between homosexual tendencies, which some people unfortunately had, and homosexual behaviour. There are, I believe, a number of people who are homosexuals who live with the problem and keep it to themselves. And for them there is no condemnation. But [00:56:00] there should be understanding and commendation for the restraint that they show. And there is nothing illegal or immoral in being a homosexual. What most people and as far as I can gather all members of the House regard as immoral is the performing of sexual acts with persons of the same sex. I would [00:56:30] agree that if the homosexual behaviour was only a moral issue, if homosexual behaviour between two people of the same sex had no other consequence, that it might be left as a matter of morality only. But in my view, homosexual behaviour does raise more than moral issues. I believe it has social consequences. [00:57:00] I believe it hasn't public, uh, consequences, which ought to be the concern of the community and the responsibility of the state in the first place. Uh, I think that it is a responsibility of the state and I'm not talking now about government, but of of the community as a whole, uh, to be concerned about [00:57:30] the preservation and protection of the family, I think the the maintenance of family life is important for the stability and the happiness of our community. And I'm therefore concerned that a form of conduct which in my view, is incompatible, uh, with the preservation of family life should be legalised. [00:58:00] I believe there are people who have, as I've said, homosexual tendencies who do not give way to them. There are others who might go either way who might become addicted to homosexual behaviour or who might, uh, develop as normal people, uh, having normal sexual relationships. If homosexual behaviour were legalised, [00:58:30] as this bill proposes, it would cease to have the restraint of the law to the extent that it then became more widely practised. It would, in my view, tend to undermine what might otherwise have been a normal family relationship for the same reason legalising of homosexual behaviour would strike at a fundamental responsibility of the state, as [00:59:00] I see it, to protect the community from the spread of practises which are unnatural, which are a perversion and which, if they were to spread, would threaten the future of the race. The spreading of this unnatural profession, in my view, has in it the seeds of national degeneration. There have been, uh, [00:59:30] speakers in this debate who have referred to the fact that in Britain and in a number of other uh, countries, homosexual behaviour between consenting males and private has been legalised, and they have claimed that this has been done without apparent harm. I wish I could feel that that was so. But I don't think that the present social and economic conditions in Britain, to name only one country, provide [01:00:00] a model for this country to follow. It is sad that this should be so. It's very sad for those who have a great effect for Britain. But the plain fact is that a malaise has come upon that once great country. There is a general permissive, a lack of discipline and self control, which I would like to see encouraged in this [01:00:30] country. The attitude to homosexual behaviour in Britain, of course, is just a small facet of that general malaise. But I want to have no part of it. It's been claimed, uh, in this debate and I believe wrongly that the law, as it now stands, is not enforced and not enforceable. It's true that the police don't invade private places where these offences [01:01:00] are likely to be performed. I certainly wouldn't support that kind of, uh of, uh, intrusion. But when the police do have evidence of these offences, proceedings are taken in the ordinary course of the administration of the law. And this is common enough in the administration of laws of this kind and there is not a reason for [01:01:30] repealing it. There is some evidence that wife beating still goes on to some extent in this country, and occasionally a husband is brought before the court for assaulting his wife. But the fact that very few such cases come to the notice of the police even though they may be more prevalent, is not an argument for legalising wife beating. And similarly, the fact that there [01:02:00] are very few cases, uh, of prosecutions for homosexual behaviour is not a case for repealing the law. Mr. Speaker, I would concede that, uh, imprisonment is not normally an appropriate punishment. Uh, but as has been pointed out, uh, that is not the only deterrent that is available to the law. And I would certainly [01:02:30] favour a a reform if it's necessary to amend the law to provide for other forms of punishment for periodic detention, for fines, for probation, for requirements as to treatment. But I believe that that can, in any case, be done. Now, Mr Speaker, the final comment that I make is that I would hope that if this bill does get to the committee stages that the amendment [01:03:00] proposed by the member for will not be will not be accepted. It seems to me that that and I don't propose to debate the merits of it. But that would be a very retrograde step, Mr. Speaker, For these reasons, I am not prepared to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Young in reply, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank all members who have taken part in this debate. [01:03:30] I have an understanding for and with those who have struggled with their consciences before they have decided how they will speak in this debate and how they will vote on this measure. I think all of us have been able to think past an intinction that we have within us and consider the plight of people whose feelings, sir, we do. We do not feel it [01:04:00] is easily to comprehend, Mr Speaker. Naturally, I thank those who who have indicated their support, their support for the provisions in my bill, and particularly those who have stood on their feet and this house and have acknowledged that over the course of years they have changed their opinion, never an easy thing to do, sir. I also understand [01:04:30] those who have spoken against the proposals of the Crimes Amendment bill because of a deep religious conviction. Yet I know there are many others of equally deep religious convictions who strongly favour the measure. Mr. Speaker one cannot help but be persuaded by the support from from a wide section of the established judges for the provisions [01:05:00] that are contained in my bill. Mr. Speaker, there has been some suggestion and one particularly from my colleague, the member for Rodney that well, we shouldn't really change the law or even propose to change it because there is no one in prison at the present time, sir, I can only refer him to submissions that were made by the New Zealand Association of Probation Officers to the Select Committee. And they said this Sir arrest, trial [01:05:30] and sentence for a homosexual who is otherwise a law abiding citizen can be devastating. Career opportunities may be destroyed. Purpose and goal in life may be lost. Satisfactory adjustment and a worthwhile contract to society can become more difficult. Furthermore, sir, they say, it may be argued that adult persons engaged in homosexual activities in private at [01:06:00] the present time are not at risk of prosecution. Sir, the probation officers say this in our experience, this is not always so. There also remains for the person's concern a knowledge that the law has been broken, a constant fear of detection and the possibility of the various forms of ex extortion. Uh, Mr uh, Mr Speaker, [01:06:30] I do not propose to attribute to specific members whose arguments have been in opposition to the bill. But let me say this. I find it difficult to understand the opinion of members whose inflexibility of opinion has required them to argue on matters not contained nor even implied in the measure. [01:07:00] So the question of the age of consent was argued on the basis of next it will be 18. Then it may be 16. Then it may be 14. Then it may disappear altogether. So the members who used these arguments know full well that a number of submissions were made to the Select Committee who and these submissions advocated a lower age of consent [01:07:30] for clause two of the bill, but that in spite of this, the consensus of opinion of the committee and the provisions of this bill was the that the age of consent should be the age of 20. So some who have argued against the bill have equated legality with morality, as indeed the Sir John did who preceded me immediately [01:08:00] in this debate. There have been other criticisms, sir, about the definition of in private and a criticism of the definition of a place of resource from the member for sir, I point out that those matters are not contained in the bill. They have been removed by the amendments. Mr. Speaker, I make the point as I have done time and again that it is essential we define [01:08:30] between what is legal and what is moral. So those who oppose the bill have three main arguments. Society needs a moral code. Any breach of this code weakens society, society, even where no harm is accompanying the breach. Therefore, the law should reinforce this moral code. But, sir, surely this can only apply when everyone shares the same code of morality. And [01:09:00] those who support this idea must claim that morality must be won with the whole of society. Today. Sir, our society is heterogeneous, varied. There are various views of the morality involved, and I'm sure that the present at present a majority of New Zealanders support a change in the law. So in any case, how does one judge in a law what is moral? Secondly, sir, it is said that [01:09:30] punishing the homosexual demonstrates society's condemnation of the act. Sir, punishment is usually held to be either retribution or deterrent. That is, it does something to the individual to make him a tone for what he's done or it prevents others sir from doing the same thing. In fact, sir, the present law does so so few times there are consequently [01:10:00] few prosecutions. Therefore, sir, it is reasonable to assume that society as a whole cannot feel strongly about the need for punishment. Another point of view suggests that if society's laws don't condemn acts, then they must be taken to condone them. So that is simply not correct amount of sociological research that shows that people don't necessarily [01:10:30] associate what is morally wrong with what is illegal and that by repealing a law, people would not feel that moral sanctions are weakened. Thirdly, thirdly, sir, there are those who state that the law, though ineffective, is a way of showing society's condemnation, and its repeal would weaken the moral condemnation and lead to a change [01:11:00] of morality and more permissiveness. Sir, I believe this is completely incorrect. People have a very clear idea on what is morally wrong. At the same time, they have a very unclear idea of what is against the law. Let me ask this question, sir. What good does it is there to have a law against homosexuality if the law doesn't stop those who at present are [01:11:30] homosexuals? And sir, and, uh, sending sending these people to prison won't stop them either. Mr Speaker, there is no point in a member suggesting well, although the penalty is not imposed, we will leave it there. It is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that penalties fit the crimes and that the penalties are applied. So [01:12:00] unless the law is more rigidly enforced than at present, fear of being caught won't stop anyone either. In fact, legal enforcement, sir, of morality by punishment may indeed be a bad a bad thing. There is a grave danger that the moral sense may wither away and leave only a fear of punishment. Mr. Speaker, People conforming through fear and not [01:12:30] true belief, I don't believe is a solution that is sought even by those who oppose this measure. So everyone has the right to moral views and the right to persuade or educate others to know what is morally right. But the law does not do this and nor should it have this responsibility. Sir, let me repeat my invitation to those members who who have argued that the laws and the morals [01:13:00] are indivisible. If they consider that lesbian acts are immoral and I believe that they would hold this point of view then let one of them introduce a bill making this the case. Similarly, sir, If those opposed to the reform in my measure insist that the present law is a bastion for morality, then it is their responsibility to see that the present law is enforced. Otherwise, [01:13:30] sir, their case has no logic. Sir, My amendment to the Crimes Act is proposed on the basis of humanity, of logic and of equality. I believe New Zealand is a country where these values are held high. So let me conclude my summary by repeating what I said in my introductory speech. There are times [01:14:00] and countries where humanity becomes lost in laws inherited from the past. Equity, compassion and logic. Each demand that parliaments alter such laws. Sir, I move the second reading of the Crimes Amendment Bill. The question is that the Crimes Amendment Bill be now read a second time. As many as of that opinion will say I the country opinion will say no. The nose have it [01:14:30] division called for. Ring the bells. Yeah. The bells are ringing in Parliament buildings, summoning all members to the chamber to vote in a division. We'll return to the house when Mr speaker puts the question again until this happens. An interview. An interval of music [01:15:00] Question is that the Crimes amendment Bill? Be now. Read a second time. The eyes will go to the right and the nose will go to the left. Tell us for the eyes, Mr V Young and Doctor Basset Tell us for the nose. The Honourable Mr Thomson [01:15:30] and Mr Kirk. Yeah.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags