Parliament: introduction of the Homosexual Law Reform Bill (8 March 1985) [AI Text]

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.

A bill stands in the name of Fran Wild. Mr. Speaker, I move that leave be given to introduce the homosexual law reform bill. Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I want to make it quite clear that this bill is not a government or party measure. It is a private members bill, and as such, I would ask all members to listen to the debate and the issues carefully and to make their decision on the information the real information. Mr. Speaker, I'm brief. The bill is designed to eliminate legal sanctions on consenting homosexual [00:00:30] activity between adults, to remove the legal sanctions on anal intercourse between consenting adults, to strengthen protection for boys under 16, along the lines of protection already provided for girls and to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. The bill, as the house now has it before it is in the, is in the form of an omnibus bill to facilitate consideration and discussion during the various stages in parliament. However, it is intended to seek the leave of the House [00:01:00] to break the bill up into two component parts for final enactment as a Crimes Amendment Act and a human rights commission Amendment act, Mr Speaker, I will briefly outline the main changes which this bill would bring about. The amendments to the Crimes Act 1961 are found in part one Clause three of that repeals Section 140 of the Principal Act and substitutes two new sections. The present section relates to indecent act committed upon or with boys under the age of 16 [00:01:30] years. The new substituted sections adopt the approach followed in sections 1 33 and 1 34 of the principal Act which involve indecency with a girl under 12, and sexual intercourse or indecency with a girl between 12 and 16. The principal features of this approach are parallel to the provisions and the penalties that there are current currently provided for those sections dealing with girls. [00:02:00] Mr Speaker, Clause four repeals Section 141 of the Principal Act and substitutes a new section. The present section prohibits indecency between males. The new section follows section 135 relating to indecent assault on a woman or a girl of of or over the age of 16. In line with that provision, the maximum penalty for an offence against the new section 141 is raised to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. Clause five Repeat section repeals [00:02:30] Section 142 of the principal act relating to sodomy and substitutes a new provision relating to anal intercourse. It is drafted on the assumption that the relevant provisions of the rate law reform bill presently before Parliament are enacted in broadly their present terms. In that event, nonconsensual anal intercourse will constitute the new crime of sexual violation and will be dealt with accordingly. For this reason, the new section 142 is limited to consensual anal intercourse and then only where it is [00:03:00] committed upon a person who is under 16 years or is severely subnormal. Mr. Speaker Clause six Repeals Section 146 of the principal act keep in place of resort for homosexual acts and consequentially amend Section 147 Brothel Keeping To make it clear that premises where male or female prostitutes work may be a brothel. For the purposes of this section, the the amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act come in part two and they will render [00:03:30] it unlawful to discriminate against the person on the ground of that person's sexual orientation where it is in those circumstances where it is presently unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex. Mr. Speaker, it is 10 years since this House last had the opportunity to consider. Consider a bill of this nature introduced at that time by the member, for there is no doubt that in that decade our community has developed an awareness of the justice of this cause. People have moved [00:04:00] steadily away from the knee jerk hysterical opposition to a position of more informed considered acknowledgement that there is no evidence in favour of the punitive criminal code, which deals with this area of consenting adult sexual activity. Even five years ago, there was majority support for homosexual law reform in a Hale poll of 2000 people. Those who oppose this bill advance a number of arguments, which I'm sure are based on a genuine [00:04:30] but mis misinformed concern about the nature of homosexuality and the effect on our community of legalising adult cons. Consenting homosexual activity. In the last few days, we have heard that homosexuality and in particular sodomy, is a violation of Christian moral standards. In fact, Mr Speaker, modern biblical scholarship with The assistance of the science of linguistics does not support the long held theory that the city [00:05:00] of Sodom was destroyed as a punishment for sodomy. The Old Testament story actually was an illustration of the effect of of continual violation of rigid hospitality customs and the homosexual punishment interpretation appears to have gained currency. About the second century AD. In the New Testament, Jesus said, practically nothing about sexuality and nothing at all about an age of consent. A rigid and complicated theology of sexuality which prescribed [00:05:30] homosexuality, began developing with Paul and proceeded down through the ages, ably assisted by a succession of Christian Roman emperors concerned as much with political and financial considerations and with the traditional opposition to Greek culture. It was strengthened during the Inquisition, when professional heresy hunters were employed to extinguish all forms of dissent, including sexual, religious and political nonconformism, which were very often defined and perceived as the same thing. [00:06:00] The treatment of homosexuality by the modern legal systems of European countries has until recent years been largely a relic of this history. Contemporary Christian views are more diverse, and legislatures in many many countries have also changed their opinions as a result of evidence gained from modern social and medical research. And more enlightened attitudes which have followed this information now often argue about the detrimental effects on the institution of the family [00:06:30] or on young people. Should adult male homosexuality be legalised? Those arguments should be examined by this house. All homosexual people, like all heterosexual people, are brought up in some kind of family. Most heterosexuals appreciate family life, as do most homosexuals. Homosexuals can and do produce Children. Many, particularly in New Zealand, are married, not necessarily happily, [00:07:00] because of the suppression of such an integral part of their personality. However, the effect of the current situation is that there are many, many New Zealanders who have a homosexual parent, either male or female. One of the major myths surrounding homosexuality is that gay people are child molesters. All statistical evidence from every place where it has been collected contradicts this overwhelmingly. Those who molest Children are heterosexual men who molest [00:07:30] young girls and less frequently young boys if they can't find a girl. But they are overwhelmingly heterosexual in their basic sexual orientation. Laws do not government Wellington central protection from assault and rape, particularly when it occurs in their own own home, where it most often occurs and the perpetrator is a relation or a friend. But it is not from adult homosexual men that Children are in more need of protection. They need [00:08:00] protection from adult heterosexuals, most notably fathers, uncles and relations and friends of the family. It was only a century ago that the idea of homosexuality and child molestation be became intertwined, as they are now, and that was the result of a law change in which anti homosexual provisions were slipped into legislation designed to curb child prostitution, which was rife at the time. The fact is that most adult gay men prefer [00:08:30] other adults and are attached to adults, just as most heterosexuals are. Opponents of this bill also claim that if it is passed, young people will be corrupted. They imply that if young people are exposed to ideas or information about homosexuality or to social or sexual contact with homosexuals, they will find it so attractive that they will themselves choose homosexuality again. There is no evidence whatsoever to back up this assumption. On the contrary, there is a vast body [00:09:00] of research showing that even actual sexual experience in the mid to late teenage years does not play any part in determining sexual orientation, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has publicly stated and given evidence to the effect that a person's primary sexual orientation is fixed very early in life, definitely before the age of 16, It is commonly accepted that at least a third of all males have some homosexual experience. Yet still, the number [00:09:30] in the population whose prime sexual orientation is homosexual remains on a much lower level. Whatever the state of the criminal law and any particular country, there will always be the same proportion of homosexual and heterosexual people in any population before or after a law change, as has been proved in places which do not have anti homosexual laws. I believe that protection from sexual exploitation, protection of people of any [00:10:00] age and any sex is not achieved by a law which totally bans male homosexual activity. Nor is it achieved by setting variant, varying ages of consent. Homosexual people are to be found in all walks of life amongst the educated, the uneducated professionals, manual workers, policy makers and administrators. I would venture to suggest that if all gay people were to be publicly identified, there would be much surprise [00:10:30] expressed. Many people would be moved to comment that that nice Mr Brown, the grocer or Mr Smith the doctor or Mr Jones, who works down at the factory, was actually gay. What a surprise. He seems so normal, Mr Speaker, There is one more compelling argument for the introduction of this bill. New Zealand, like other Western countries, is now faced with having to deal with the AIDS syndrome. We are relatively lucky in that, like most other things, both desirable and undesirable, [00:11:00] it has reached us last. We have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of others. AIDS is not, as some have described it, a homosexual disease. It is a sexually transmissible syndrome, which can be caught by anyone who receives the virus through a bodily fluid. I should also add that it is not easy to catch in some parts of Africa, where it is very common. Heterosexual people are the main sufferers. However, in recent [00:11:30] years it has entered America and Europe primarily through the homosexual community, and therefore it has been gay people who have been largely the victims in places where the gay community can live an open life and associate with other homosexuals without fear of Reprisal. There are now being put in place big public education and health campaigns aimed at preventing the spread of AIDS in New Zealand. We have a problem in this respect. Homosexual acts are illegal, a very big proportion of homosexual men. No one knows exactly [00:12:00] how many are married living as heterosexuals. Many of these men express their homosexual orientation only occasionally through casual sexual contacts with strangers. They run the risk of acquiring AIDS and of passing it on to their wives. They are unlikely to come forward to identify themselves for diagnosis until it is too late. And AIDS is most infectious in its early stages, or to take the necessary steps recommended for safe sex to prevent the spread of AIDS in the first place. [00:12:30] Mr. Speaker, if we are to effectively combat the spread of AIDS in New Zealand, we must remove the criminal label from the Prime Target group and ensure that they feel secure enough to participate in a public education programme, Mr Speaker. Finally, I want to say that this bill is a serious attempt to reform the law and what I acknowledge can still be a contentious area. It is a private member's bill, and, as I have said, every person in this House has a free choice of how to vote. Introducing a private member's bill [00:13:00] is a basic right of all MP S as representatives of the people and it. It has become something of a convention in this House for members to vote for the introduction of such bills to enable the House to examine in, detail the proposals and hear the evidence at the Select committee. It has been 10 years since Parliament has had the chance to scrutinise this issue in that way, I know that some members support the principle of homosexual law reform but disagree with me on the age of consent. Others question the Human [00:13:30] Rights Commission proposal. I ask them to vote for the introduction of this bill. They will have the chance at a later stage to move or vote on any amendments they think appropriate and, of course, to vote on the two parts of the bill separately. Do not discard the whole bill because you do not agree with part of it this reform is long overdue in New Zealand, and I ask the House to vote to allow the introduction of the homosexual law reform bill. [00:14:00] The question is that leave be given to introduce the homosexual law reform bill. This bill does not involve an appropriation. The honourable Mr McClay, Mr. Speaker, members of the National Party will have a conscience vote on this bill for reasons that are well understood. It is not a matter on which there is party policy. There is no party line. The whips on this side of the House, sir, will not be operating. [00:14:30] And therefore, any member who seeks a division on any aspect of the bill will have to provide his or her own tellers. So, Mr Speaker, I think I've got to say that for many members on this side of the House, with the country reeling from crisis to crisis, this bill would not have enjoyed any high legislative priority at this time on the issue that is addressed by the bill itself. And I'll be brief, sir, because I know there are many members who do want to speak. I've always said that had [00:15:00] I been in Parliament in 1974 75 I would have supported the bill that was introduced then by my colleague, now the member for Wait Tora! That sir remains my position. It was a cautious bill. However, this is an area where I believe if there is to be change Parliament, acting in the interests of the whole community, has a responsibility to move cautiously. I am particularly concerned, sir, at the age of consent [00:15:30] provisions that are contained in the measure introduced by the member for Wellington Central. While any age is inevitably arbitrary, I am aware that strong evidence in 1974 75 persuaded the majority of the select committee to a higher age 20. I want to make it clear, sir, that I will not support the third reading of this bill If the 16 year old provision remains. Sir, it has been my practise. As [00:16:00] a local member of the parliament, I intend to consult with my electorate before exercising a final vote. Although I do have previous expressions of opinion from my electorate which provide me with some guide as to the attitudes of my constituents. Finally, sir, my vote as must be the case with all members of this house must be in accordance with my conscience. Sir, I am aware of differing religious points of view of the on this issue, but particularly of the fact that now [00:16:30] many of the mainstream churches support some change to the law, although probably not as radical as that which is proposed by the member for Wellington Central. I also want to say, sir, that I regard the argument that the bill should be passed to facilitate the treatment of AIDS as being utterly fallacious. Sir, for millennia, history has demonstrated that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed on regardless of the law, [00:17:00] as is the case with all such diseases, including those that result from legal heterosexual activity. Many sufferers do not seek treatment, not because the law prohibits their behaviour but because they fear embarrassment arising out of their predicament. The state of the law has nothing to do with those attitudes. Doctors do not sit in judgement on their patients. They do not report patients to the police because they have contracted [00:17:30] a disease that might have resulted from illegal sexual activity. Doctors act in accordance with their ethics and their professional oaths and they treat and care their patients regardless of the source of the disease, and certainly regardless of the law in that regard. In my view, sir, the sponsor of this bill does it a disservice by advancing that particular argument. Mr. Trevor de Clean, [00:18:00] Mr Speaker, I rise to support the member for Wellington Central and wish to compliment her on the courage in producing this private members Bill before the house and I speak in favour of its introduction. And I echo her strong words, sir, when she points out that it's a tradition in this house that a private member's bill should be given at least the first hearing so that the evidence for and against it can be heard and determined [00:18:30] in the rationale of a select committee. Now I am a member of Parliament, sir, but I was and still am a practising barrister of the High Court of New Zealand. Like most of the males in this chamber, I was brought up under a system that regarded homosexuality with odium and contempt, and I was brought up under a biblical training of the [00:19:00] famous So Sodom and Gomaa of Babylon and a great deal of the Old Testament. But I wish if we get into religious argument also, Mr Speaker, to refer them to Matthew 71 judge. Not that you be not judged now, sir, in the career at the bar, I have, of course, acted in many cases where people have been tried, convicted and indeed have had to have had pleas made in mitigation of penalty [00:19:30] Gradually throughout life. I became sympathetic to these people because of the tragedy and in making this submission to this chamber. Sir, I do not want in any way to think that I have got so far along the line of life that I condone that behaviour. The early training that I had certainly prevents me, probably coming to that step. But I have learned from the career at the bar not to be judgmental on fellow human beings, in their models [00:20:00] or in other matters. Secondly, the law teaches one the discipline of mind that enables you to look at some things with rationality rather than with emotion. And I hope that also, the members of this house will conduct themselves in approaching this matter in that regard. Now, I have seen presidents and I've acted, sir for pre, for a president of a rotary club who did tremendous service to his community in this regard and played a part in that [00:20:30] case. As a young man, I have acted sir for chairman of a county council who locked the scrum and a provincial rugby team and whose wife, when she became paralysed from the waist down in a very tragic car accident, reverted to what was described in the open court as practises that were forced upon him in a boy's boarding school. One could help not help but feel sympathy for those people now, Sir, that was the worst [00:21:00] type of case because they interfered with young boys. That is not the position of the bill. Before this House, I asked the lawyers in this house to look at it coldly and calmly and say that the law ought to be certain it ought to be fair, and it ought to be equitable between male and female. And one of my strongest arguments in supporting the member's bill before this House is the fact that it's not an offence to have such [00:21:30] consenting acts of intercourse between females. Why then should it be between males. And if we are to have true equality, which I'm sure the women of this house espouse and most of the men espouse, then there must be equality before the bar of justice, just as there must be before the bar of conscience. And I am saying so that this very act which we are now trying to bring in to reform the homosexual laws the very act which made [00:22:00] it an offence was only brought in by accident. Late one night, in a bill to protect prostitution of young women on the streets of London, Laha moved an amendment which was thought to be, in a further to stop the prostitution of young boys without the proper scrutiny of Parliament, with only a smaller members present. That bill was passed with that amendment, which did not have either the intention then, nor was it ever professed to have the intention, sir, [00:22:30] to make consenting males guilty at the bar of criminal justice. Of course, the tragedy was that one of the greatest of our literary exponents, Oscar Wilde, was one of the first to feel the lash of that law which was not then intended. It was brought into our law, sir, about 18. 57 adopting the English practises. And in 19 08, it became enshrined in the review and the legislative enactment of the common Law of a Felony into our laws of New Zealand. [00:23:00] I would point out, sir, that at that period of time, even then, it was not just a homosexual act, but it was an act offensive against women as well. And as the member for Wellington Central has pointed out, this Legislature has already sent to a select committee a bill largely in the form that the members of the opposition now saw it as before. It came before the statute provision for a second time, and that law will deal when it comes back before [00:23:30] this house with much of the nature of the heterosexual offence that was previously in other bills that came before this house, Mr Government, between males that are deemed of an adult age. I, too, like the leader of the opposition, wish to reserve my view on the question of age, although I'm bound to say that in logic again that if 16 is the consenting age for heterosexual intercourse and for women, then I must, [00:24:00] in favour of my own sex. Say this this that at least we are no less mature than the females of this world to exercise a judgement at an age of 16. And my present disposition is to say that both in logic and in reason that the age of 16 offensive though it must be to a great many members of this chamber, is the proper age. That is a view that I would reserve to be dispelled upon evidence before a select committee if such evidence were of the view and the overwhelming nature of [00:24:30] it was that that had to be a compromise with a later age. Now, sir, the report in Britain was a result not of anti establishment forces, not as a result of people of licentious behaviour. But I say to the members in this house who oppose this law or this introduction that in fact, it was a result of a movement largely by the churches themselves [00:25:00] that thought that in the interpretation of the law of God as they practised it, the judgmental attitudes were not something that the New Testament desired and which they were prepared to practise And that that indeed it was the bishops who finally got the wolfenden report before the House of Britain and that in Britain the law not under a conservative government but under a vote of conscience finally relaxed the [00:25:30] criminal acts that were then in vogue, Sir. And I may say that in the old days it was even a capital offence for which you were burnt at the stake. I see the member for Invercargill scratching his head. Well, might he be so because we burn in hell eventually, I might say to him, no matter what our judgement is No sir, not a flea just in the air. As I say to the member of Invercargill. Now I am saying to the house that if it's in England, it is no longer an offence in Denmark, it is no longer a offence, and many of the states [00:26:00] of the United States it is no longer an offence. This chamber in which we are present debating once took pride of the fact that it instituted laws that were followed all around the world and as a forerunner. Yet it is. It did that with the women's vote. It did that with much of our social welfare legislation. But historically it has always lagged behind the mos of the community when it has come to the boldness of attacking this matter of conscience. [00:26:30] I know, too, that it is the fear many men, that if they say all right, we believe that the law should be remedied. Mr Speaker, automatically, people in our own constituencies will say, Oh, he's one of those or he's something up and I've already worn my own wife. At least the telephone starts to run, as I knew it did when the member for wait to in his courageous fashion suffered at the bar of public opinion when he moved the same bill in 10 years' time. But I ask all people in this chamber to have at [00:27:00] least the courage of reason rational and conviction that how can they support Sir a criminal law which at one time makes it an offence in a male, but not for a female. I don't want to take up much more of the time, sir, because I can see that the member for Inter Cargill, Mr Nor Jones, is champing at the bit, and I would say this, sir, that if we are to get this matter before a select committee, then it must be that the evidence comes from all people, [00:27:30] bold and fearless on both sides. And I ask the community listening. I'm quite sure we'll get this before a select committee. I think the member for Wallington Central has a majority on introduction that when those submissions are made, I am hating people from all walks of life to come forward fearlessly before that committee to hear the evidence and to make their submissions in the best rational, legal, unemotional manner rather than to have what is a matter of law and of the present mors of the community [00:28:00] clouded too much by emotion, without reason. Mr. Norman Jones, the member for Palmerston North, wasn't being funny when he said Mr Normal Jones was having a bit get up sometimes. Mr Speaker, when I look around this chamber, I begin to wonder whether in fact I am normal or abnormal because, quite frankly, I am not with it as far as most of the members of this chamber concerned on certain issues and this would have to be one [00:28:30] of them and I don't go along with the with with what the new The new subculture says today that if you're not gay and that would be the worst travesty of a decent word that passed on ever in the language to call people that are homosexual gay, it used to mean something as significant as a date. It's a date. It's got the connotation of being homosexual. And as far as I'm concerned, all I know is that I am a perfectly normal person now from eight kids got six of my own. And as far as I'm concerned, [00:29:00] what I'm talking about and what this bill about is abnormal sex between males. It's it's about sodomy. And I'm not going to quote the Scriptures like the member for Wellington Central or the member for Palmerston North. I am just a poor Presbyterian that doesn't go to church only about once every two years. My wife is now the church. I don't care about those things. I'm not an atheist. All I know is, if the Good Lord wanted us to procreate the race through the rear, he had to put [00:29:30] the womb down there somewhere. That's all I can say and so we're not animals, and all I can say it's a moral issue for the greatest number of people in this country. And when I see these mainly emanate from the opposition. I've got a list here emanated from the member for Wellington Central, who supplied it to the homosexual lobby, saying Where we all? Well, they've got it and they certainly didn't get it from me. And I've got it here, which categorises all the members of Parliament into categories on this bill. Now this is the sickening thing. Mr Speaker and [00:30:00] the leader of the opposition referred to it. We know that private members' bills cannot get into this chamber unless there's a consensus of agreement for them to get in. I the order paper from the respective caucuses and when this country has got crisis after crisis facing it of grave and concerned consequence to people, the whole of their defence and security and God knows what else. Inflation costs them and the Labour Caucus is preoccupied with lobbying. Well, I've got many of them and my own caucus [00:30:30] preoccupied, agonising over whether homosexuals should they be legalised or I can say a moral issue. Yes and a funny thing. I'm not quoting scriptures, but it brief poses the question where I've got dozens and dozens of telegrams and of support, none from church leaders. Where are all these church leaders that were very quick to jump on the nuclear issue as a moral issue and say it's a moral issue facing? They spoke up on that. [00:31:00] I want to see those same church leaders speak up on this moral issue. I know all right. Talking about a nuclear free New Zealand, let them come out and say, Give us an aid free New Zealand. We want an aid free New Zealand. And as far as I'm concerned, the member for Palmerston North said, where it's been legalised, where it's been legalised is no problem. The whole of that, that aid disease, the homosexual has sprung from the communities of San Francisco, and places like that come into your own community. And I know [00:31:30] for a fact that the vote to legalise homosexuality at 60 years of age will be voting to legalise the spread of AIDS throughout this New Zealand community. No doubt at all in my mind about that, I don't believe this serious argument put up by the proposal of this bill that it will help to contain it. I don't believe that, and nobody else does. These people have come out in the open. They're in the open, these gay communities now it's sickening. They're in the opening there now. At 16 years of age [00:32:00] that won't stop at 16, it'll get down to 10 and 12. I taught in schools for 27 years. I've seen it. They're down in the low form and people practising it with kids. And there's been case after case. Any country headmaster knows I've had experience of kids at my school being interfered with as far as Mr Jones opposition in. And when this bill gets and I'm afraid there's enough of them in this in this Parliament because according the list that I've got, there'll be enough here to put it through on this on the tradition as they say that [00:32:30] our private members Bill ought to get before a select committee. Look, I'm no moralizer, but we cannot we interfere in film censorship. It's a literate censorship. I do believe I don't go along with the MPs that will say Well, give it a go Let the public has said those same MPs will go in there and turn around like Pontius Pilot, wash the hands of it and say, Look, it's not for MPs to interfere with what goes on in the bedroom. It's not going on in the bedroom. It's going [00:33:00] on in the schools, in the streets, in the community and it's spreading. It's spreading a disease, which there's no there's no no answer to. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't go on to these people that say we've washed our hands of this Parliament church I believe I do believe that it's the duty of Parliament to make some man made laws and standards and this would have to be one of them. And as far as I'm concerned, I intend to vote against this bill because all the euphemistic talk and rubbish about it, as far as I'm concerned, is not [00:33:30] going to stop the spread of it. The only thing that will stop the spread of homosexuality is the fact that the bulk of the public are against it. It's an they'll express their concern against it to select committee, and this parliament will sooner or later, somewhere along the line have to face up where they're going to legalise it. Now. All I can say is all I can say about all in mitigation of anything that's built. We are all concerned. No. When people start talking about sexual orientation [00:34:00] and all this sort of thing that's in the community and it's there, we know it's there. But to pass an act, to legalise it and to think that by passing that act and 16 or 20 whatever it is is going to is going to bring it out in the open and allow it to be acceptable. Yes, it will. It will make it so acceptable that it'll be apparent everywhere. It's difficult enough now in the school. It's different enough now in the home to try and teach some sort of status [00:34:30] to your kids. You can only do it by example. And where do you think the parents are going? They're looking for this. They're looking to the legislators here not to wash the hands of it and say some moral issues are conscience issues. I know that, and I'm not asking everybody to search their conscience. They can do it. There's a number of issues. You have to do it on, say, what is the best thing for a country I know. And I know with a gut feeling I don't have to be Scriptures. I don't have to moralise. I know with a gut feeling. This is wrong. It's wrong. It's wrong As far as the human [00:35:00] race is concerned, it's this greater moral issue, this sodomy and homosexuality and all this way out sexual orientation stuff. We're getting all this spurious talk about human rights and quoting Christian scriptures and all this rubbish all I know. And I say it again, that basically it's an to most human beings and where, in fact, the communities that have allowed it to exist and I can quote back into history about the Greeks and the Romans [00:35:30] and everybody else where it happened. Those civilizations have gone down the tube and they've gone down the tube because all this so called keeping up with the subculture trying to be on this one, you've got to stand up and be counted one way or the other. There are no halfway houses on this issue. You're either it or against it. Now I can know that intellectually, you can argue the logic of it. As far as I'm concerned, that is not our. This is to me is a bigger moral issue, and [00:36:00] I'll say there's more likelihood to have more new If this bill is passed, there will be more New Zealanders dying of AIDS in the next 10 years this country than whoever. None of them will be dying of a nuclear explosion that I'm as sure of that as I'm as sure of anything before I call the next member. Could I just draw the attention of those folk who are occupying the public gallery today to the fact that they are, of course not part of the debate, which is which is taking place here. And though [00:36:30] they may feel strongly and wish to register one way or the other or other the strength of their feelings, they must restrain themselves from doing so. Mr. Uh, Mr Speaker, the question of this being the greatest moral issue we've got in our time, I disagree with it entirely. As far as I'm concerned, the greatest immorality and obscenity is the nuclear weapon [00:37:00] and those who favour the nuclear issue in regard to the question of the morality of a recognition that there is a practise of homosexuality. And what is the attitude of this house and what is the attitude of Parliament? I stand here supporting the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Wellington Central. And I do so fully conscious of the fact that we are debating an issue that, to the vast majority of our people, I would say is considered undesirable [00:37:30] but perfectly understandable. But, uh, we also know that there are other aspects of human activity within the heterosexual form of activity that is considered by very many people undesirable that most probably the manuals consider quite acceptable. And I would say that people would be out of their mind to try and have made some form of criminal [00:38:00] activity. My speech is not going to be a long one. All I'm going to say, Mr Speaker, is this so I think that this house must have progressed in this year of 1985 to the extent that we must consider whether we're going to still hound people who have a different sexual orientation, whether we're going to still helm them with the law the police, [00:38:30] the court, the prison cell, the public shame and everything else that goes with the law as it stands today. Or whether this house is going to progress to a viewpoint that was once stated by Pierre Trudeau in the same context that we should keep politics outside of the bedrooms of the nations. Now, if we do [00:39:00] have a heterosexual relationship that is based upon one human being relating in a warm, human way to another human being, this is generally applauded because it's a question of relating in a homosexual relationship over the age of consent. It is also possible for one human being to relate in a warm, human way to another human being. Should [00:39:30] this be considered criminal activity. That's the crux of the argument. The crux of this bill and what this bill is endeavouring to do, and it's something I support is to remove it being a crime. Surely murder is accepted as a crime. Rape is accepted as a crime. Burgling is accepted as a crime. Peddling [00:40:00] a drug is accepted as a crime. Should a human relationship between people over a certain age be considered some form of outrageous criminal activity. Mr. Speaker, I say people of our age and our period should have a good look at that and consider that it should not be a criminal form of activity. What is the [00:40:30] human torment that has gone on with this particular subject in many homes throughout our nation? What has been the torture that has gone on with very many people in all walks of life? On this very question, will this help perpetuate that human torment? Or will we take an attitude of human compassion and understanding to a different form of sexual orientation to possibly [00:41:00] ourselves? My view, Mr Speaker, is that we have arrived in New Zealand in a sort of coming of age. On this question, I totally support my colleague. I do it in a sense of fairness and justice, and I do it in a sense of human compassion for my fellow beings. I do not wish to hound people. I do not wish to use the thumb, [00:41:30] the rack, the thumbs boo the rack and the whip on people who have a particular form of human relationship that in no way is damaging to my person or my property. And I believe that's what the law is all about. And I think that in this law we must change. We must develop the age of consent. We must allow people to have a form of human relationship that is acceptable for themselves, understandable [00:42:00] in very many ways and in no way hurting other people. Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of this bill, the honourable Mr Speaker. It was 11 years ago since the Crimes Amendment bill was introduced to this house. It was referred to a select committee. The committee sat for almost one year before the bill was reported back and then considered in a second reading by the House [00:42:30] and defeated at that stage. I think it is appropriate that the House should again consider the next question of how far the law is required to intervene into what is the private morality of adults in our society. There is always a great difficulty in determining between [00:43:00] the role of the criminal law and the determinations that result from the moral code that develop in our community, and the member for Wellington Central will find as she handles this bill, she will have the exact identical problem to deal with in arguing for her proposal. I want to say [00:43:30] that a change in the law, or in fact the law itself, that doesn't make a great deal of difference, if any, to the amount of homosexual behaviour in our country. Whatever the law may say, there will always be a strong, a strong social attitude opposed to homosexual behaviour. That is the burden and the lot of the homosexual [00:44:00] in society, and the law cannot change that. But throughout our history as a nation, there has been a strong tradition that the law shall not punish simply because behaviour offends a moral that is accepted by society. Conduct that requires punishment should be of a harmful nature to individuals [00:44:30] or should offend their liberty or make people in our community, particularly the young, vulnerable. Now the law must intervene there, and it must intervene very firmly indeed, and therefore I must tell the member for Wellington Central, I am concerned about the 16 year old age of consent in her bill. [00:45:00] Parliament, having considered this matter some 10 years ago, determined that it should be 20 and I would expect that there will be many submissions to the select committee on this aspect of the legislation and Mr Speaker, Parliament cannot be asked to pass judgement on the rightness or the wrongness of the sexual behaviour [00:45:30] of consenting adults in private. But what it's being asked to do is consider whether a criminal sanction is in fact an inappropriate way of dealing with this matter in this day and age. Now, Mr Speaker, the bill as it returns to this house from the Select Committee if it indeed it is introduced, I would expect to [00:46:00] be quite a different measure from the way we see it Now, whether that is the case or not, time will tell. But what we must recognise, sir, that this problem has been addressed by Parliament across the world, in most of them in the Western nations, the law has been changed are certainly along the lines. That was in the 1974 crimes [00:46:30] amendment Bill. This bill goes far further than that and I echo the words of the leader of the opposition when we proceed with a change in the law in this area, if we do, we should proceed with caution. We should proceed with caution, Mr Speaker. It is appropriate that Parliament again consider this measure and at the towards [00:47:00] the protection of the young and the vulnerable. Mr. Bray Brook, Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the introduction of this bill, which seeks to legalise sodomy and indecent acts between males of 16 years and over. I acknowledge the fact that the member for Wellington Central who has introduced this bill has done so because of her very strong compassionate feelings in this matter. [00:47:30] However, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding this fact, I personally view homosexual activities as unnatural and perverted acts. Changing the law to legalise these acts will not, in my view, make it natural. This bill, Mr Speaker, unfortunately, seeks to give a cloak of respectability to homosexual activities. And my grave fear is that once it becomes known to young and immature people [00:48:00] that adults view homosexual acts as normal, it will intend to influence these young people. The indulgence in homosexual activity acts is, in my view, a threat to society and to family life and should not in any means be encouraged. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to shun homosexuals as a person. Homosexuals require, in my view, both [00:48:30] medical and psychological treatment, they do not require a change in law. I am in my own view, quite convinced that the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want a decent society based on sound experience, tolerance and Christian principles. Unfortunately, this bill fails to meet this criteria. Mr. Speaker, this house has a responsibility to protect and to promote family [00:49:00] life. My grave concern is that the next step with the militant gay rights movement. If this bill succeeds, will it be to press for acknowledgement of so-called gay marriages between consenting adults and also, of course, the adoption of Children? We have seen this happen overseas. I find this absolutely repugnant. [00:49:30] I, like other members of this house, have been lobbied by the gay rights homosexuals. They have attempted to present a bold and sometimes very defiant front and in spite of their endeavours to create an atmosphere of happy comradeship. I know. And I strongly suspect I should say that this is not so. In fact, Mr Speaker, if I'm perfectly honest with [00:50:00] myself, I am convinced that they and members of this house know in their heart of hearts that their actions are both evil and perverted. Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the militants in the gay rights movement. I think that they are a minority. I acknowledge that. But and even as close as this morning, my own family, my daughter and my wife have been subject [00:50:30] to insulting, abusive and threatening telephone calls. I find that action repugnant. I am also concerned of what will happen to the armed forces if this bill becomes law. I spent 20 years in the armed forces and I know that the actions of homosexuals indeed cause grave crisis in the attempts to maintain discipline. We are opening a Pandora's [00:51:00] box with this bill. What I have seen so far is that we are attempting to apply what I call academic debating logic to a moral issue, and people are pressing that type of point of view to introduce it. I believe that introducing the age of 16 is merely a sprat to catch a mackerel I learned many years ago, if you really want something else for double and accept half. [00:51:30] I do not accept consulting acts of sodomy between consenting adults at any age, and although I sympathise with their medical problem, I will not condemn their perversion and sodomy and can I conclude, Mr Speaker, by saying that I give notice to this house that should in the long course ahead, this house decide in its wisdom and against my [00:52:00] better judgement that it will enact this bill. I When the rules of the house permit, it will introduce a private members bill to facilitate a referendum throughout this nation. Because this act, if it is Condoned, affects every citizen. It affects the very basis of a Christian nation which we purport to be. And I give notice that that is what I will do. I oppose the bill. I urge all decent members [00:52:30] also to oppose this bill. Mr. Lee. Mr. Speaker, this is a repugnant bill, defends against God and man and should not be introduced to this house. I don't condemn the homosexual person people in that community that I count as genuine friends. And I have counsel with people in the homosexual community, [00:53:00] people with weaknesses and strengths, just like any one of us. But what I do is condemn the homosexual behaviour and there's a big difference. And we have heard a number of speeches with what I also class as debating phraseology, talking about compassion. People are what this place is all about, and that is not certainly removed in my contribution today to this [00:53:30] matter. What I condemn is the homosexual behaviour. This bill now seeks to change an existing law which is classed in Section 1 40 the Crimes Act 61 as an indecency between males. And we are asked here as legislators today to say yes to what is now an indecency to be called a decent [00:54:00] act, what is now in the law and abnormity to become normal. And the dictionary clarifies the point of indecency as an offensive standard of sexual behaviour and an abnormal means of obtaining sexual satisfaction. Therefore, I say to the house, Mr Speaker, that the question of the age has no real relevance in this debate. [00:54:30] There's no way then that the age can bear with any consequence on this matter. The question really is the basis of whether we are going to say yes to a matter that is classed as indecent as becoming suddenly decent. There is also the comment being made by several speeches, speakers about the fact that this bill will not facilitate the proliferation of the spread of [00:55:00] the homosexual community. Let the house know that there is no scientific evidence from a great period of time that supports that homosexuals are born, which is the same thing genetically, hormonally or biologically. There is no evidence to say that that is the way it happens. But indeed, there is considerable evidence and weighty evidence to say that in fact, homosexuality is a learned [00:55:30] is a learned behaviour. Now, Mr Speaker, the promo of the bill is asking us to accept her arguments as adequate for a change of law in this matter. And I just say to the house again, apart from the absurdity of of the inadequacy of the argument that she advances, that surely in the importance of this particular matter [00:56:00] and as legislated, we should not be moved until we are totally convinced, overwhelmingly convinced that this is the right thing. It shouldn't just stand up to scrutiny or be an argument of the day. I think the word was used, the coming of age situation, but we should only in the context of important this matter move when there is overwhelming evidence and it is just not there, just not present at all. The point of age [00:56:30] being overcome or ostensibly controlled by this measure is totally fallacious. It's without fact at all, and indeed, when we need to look to the Californian state and indeed other states where this has been introduced to know that with the explosion of homosexuality resulting from the decriminalisation aid has also commensurately increased. And in that particular area, 8132 people, [00:57:00] sufferers of that dread evil scourge. And no one of us doesn't feel deeply concerned about that. That terrible disease of AIDS, which destroys the leucocytes in the body and makes even a common cold a fatal encounter. But the fact is that over there it has exploded and even 500 women are infected, which ought to be a point of ponder. So the facts around the world are [00:57:30] aware that this has been decriminalised. In fact, aid has not been controlled. It's been quite the reverse, quite the reverse Mr Lee opposition that the promoter of the bill said, in terms of of I think removing any religious experiences being qualified in this matter and using the words of the Lord Jesus to say that he, or rather to say that he did not, in fact, directly [00:58:00] condemn homosexuality, and she's right in the context of that. But what she must face up to and accept is that the whole the whole canon of Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, the Old Testament very explicitly talks about the abolition of this particular behaviour. And the New Testament says equally clearly in many passages, those people without natural affection have got [00:58:30] no place in the standards that God would set. And let me just say to the house that if we believe that that is out of the modernity of our legislative age, then that's part of the fact that we subscribe to Westminster's system, which is built and founded on the judeo-christian ethic. And if we want to be consistent in anything, we must say that that ethic governs this house, and therefore we must be concerned and cognizant [00:59:00] of the biblical teaching in this matter. And I have had letters from people to say, How can you stand up holding strong religious beliefs and speak in this manner? It's a total absurdity not to do so, Mr Speaker. The question is, what do the New Zealanders want from this matter and I want to say to that we don't have any evidence from anywhere at this time to say that the public of New Zealand wants a change of law in this context. Who can tell me who can stand up [00:59:30] here and say that the public of New Zealand wants the law changed? I raised it in the middle of last week simply because I sensed that this may happen in the rapidity it has. And I want to know why in actual pack, why the scheme to bring it in with such rapidity? Why was it possible for the public to have the chance to say something? But I don't believe even with that chance, which would could have been and should have been afforded to them that there would have been a response other than to confirm [01:00:00] that there is no reason for a change. There is only four or 5%. Some claim 10% of the population within the homosexual community. And I believe with the telegrams I've got which are saying to me time and time again, the many scores of telegrams that we want this house to stay firm on the matter to stay firm on the matter, and I believe that can't be refuted in this house today. I'm concerned about the question of where this is leading to. [01:00:30] I don't know that I understand fully the context of Bill and so far that it refers to the question of the brothel. But I do understand and see the very strong thread of morality proliferating and whether it just be a member of the government or the member of the government, the whole I want to say this house. There is a moral madness that seems to be occupying the legislation these days. How many other acts have been passed in recent time with strong humanist overtones? [01:01:00] Where is the next move? Where is the next law? Moral benchmark? If there is a law moral benchmark in this matter, well, it could be a Bush on demand, and I think we have good reason to expect that. That would be a move coming from at least a member of government. Mr. Speaker, I think that, uh, we Although there's a free debate across the house on this, members are still restricted to standing orders. Now this bill does not relate to anything else but homosexuality. [01:01:30] And, uh, there's no, uh I'm not taking, uh, allowing any member to throw another accusation across the floor that somebody else is going to introduce another. Another matter on a some sort of a, uh, what might be called another moral issue. I'd asked the member to come back. He's been until now at the point where I interrupted. He's been speaking very, uh, properly under standing orders of the bill and I asked to keep to Mr Lee. Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, II. I feel angry. [01:02:00] I feel angry about this matter. Well, I just put in conclusion the scenario from the situation that affects our families and our home fronts. How can this house, in passing this bill, believe any longer that the family unit is the fundamental cornerstone of the society? How both of us as parties can subscribe to that and still be party to passing a bill today? If that is the ultimate outcome, it makes a mockery, a lie of that situation. And [01:02:30] what about the family unit and those of us who are parents here today and who have teenagers? Are you satisfied that your child or your young son at the age of 16 who can then be approached and recruited by the home of community. Is that what you really want? Can you tell me and stand up to say that that is entirely a matter that you would face and be relaxed in and comfortable in that knowledge? What about the classrooms of our nation? Are you satisfied again as parents that what will happen across [01:03:00] the nation historically proven from overseas, particularly in California, the proliferation influence which will result? Are you happy about that? The answer can only be surely negative. Uh, doctor, it's very difficult in a situation as highly charged as this whole field of sexual relations to get any logical approach to a problem such as this. [01:03:30] But I think we'll serve this country ill if we do not attempt to do some very hard thinking about it. And the first issue I would take is whether it is logical to threaten because we've got to face the reality. This has been very little done in practise in the last 20 odd years, and I believe almost not at all in the last 10, but that we should in practise take people who have been involved in [01:04:00] homosexual acts, put them in jail amongst their own sects and hold them there. An environment which in which one of the greatest problems has been and as far as prisons as long as prisons have existed, has been homosexual activity, which is going on in all prisons. Now the logic of that absolutely defeats me [01:04:30] that we should try and stamp out a particular type of behaviour by putting people in an environment where they are most prone to be involved in this behaviour. So for that reason, I will strongly support its introduction. But I cannot go along with the subject, which I don't think is biologically or socially [01:05:00] well based, that there should be an equality of age, chronological age between males and females, and judging whether they are emotionally secure enough and old enough to make a free adult decision concerning their sexual acts. Now everyone who has brought up a family that makes sense has been educated by the Children themselves in the fact [01:05:30] that the chronological age is almost as irrelevant in the development of both security and maturity in those Children as their height is. But by and large, boys tend to be round about 2 to 3 years, slow in achieving maturity in their tee or such maturity as they get in their teens than girls do, so that I am totally [01:06:00] at a loss to understand the logic of placing the cut off point as a simple chronological level for both sexes. That, to me, is not facing reality any more than the decision to put people into jail for homosexual acts. Both of those attitudes we are a logic. The other matter, which [01:06:30] will naturally concern the House, is the provision for very wide sweeping provisions in the Human Rights Act to be invoked to prevent discrimination on people on the grounds of their homosexuality. I have no doubt that this subject will be explored at length in the committee and at the second reading stages, and quite rightly so. Its implications to me are [01:07:00] very much more of social concern than some of the other two implications in this bill. But in the present environment, it's impossible, I think, to divorce, divorce, the consideration of this bill from the very great public concern which we in this house share. If the spread of the disease. AIDS now [01:07:30] optimistic noises have been made from medical and medical administrative circles about steps being taken to control this disorder. DR Wa government. The people are whom I consult on this, the less they confirm that optimism but that we have been a programme has been announced. It's been instituted amongst [01:08:00] the community most likely to be affected to help control this. But the simplicity of the programme has not been made public. My understanding of it is, but it is a three pronged programme and I think this is well. Cons would be well considered here by members when they're thinking of this legislation. The first and most effective method [01:08:30] of control is to abolish or a strict from security amongst homosexuals that is absolute. The main trust and seen were that achievable then the threat of AIDS would be greatly diminished. The second is that in the inability to achieve that result, [01:09:00] they recommend the use of a sheath to act as a physical barrier to prevent the transference of of the infected cells. And the third approach is the other great group who are at risk the those illegally and improperly using drugs to inject intravenously. Now it disagreed. But all of those groups are notoriously resistant [01:09:30] to advice and guidance from those who may see as outside their peer group and, uh, preaching at them so that the prospect of control at present looks remote. The authorities are hopeless, hoping, and that's their belief in this could be brought no stronger [01:10:00] than that. That was the passage of this legislation and the decriminalisation of the act that more people may make themselves available to counselling. Now that is the only hope that is seen. And I doubt if overseas experience bears that out. The prospect of the development of a cure or a prophylactic vaccine to [01:10:30] AIDS at present appears remote. One cannot say in any field of medical endeavour, and particularly in this particularly abstruse scientific field, that a breakthrough will not occur. But it's just one of a wide group of viruses retroviruses in which, because of the very nature of the virus and the nature of its uh infestation in the body makes this particularly [01:11:00] technically difficult so that an early positive result in this is not in the state of present knowledge to be expected now, it's in that background. But we are considering this measure that doesn't make it easier. And it makes the prospect of a strictly logical approach to it, taking into consideration the realities of the circumstances more difficult than it normally [01:11:30] would be. In this most contentious matter, I would support its introduction, and I would hope that the House would examine it very carefully at all stages. Because whilst some of the matters in it are, I think without a doubt and advance on our present legal system, there are others in it that are fraught with very great change. Mr. Wellington. Mr. Speaker, I've listened to the member for [01:12:00] it's great and just because I have respect for his views on these matters and others associated with it, however, Mr Speaker, on this occasion I cannot agree with this proposition that this bill be introduced. Mr. Speaker, many of the reasons for those of us who are opposed to the measure have been well canvassed and in some instances, eloquently so. I think an elected assembly of this type [01:12:30] needs to ask of a measure of this nature. What good does it do? How will the community benefit how will the well-being and good of the community be enhanced? And I agree with some earlier speakers, Mr Speaker, when they noted that there is no compelling [01:13:00] or novel or dramatic evidence of a recent nature to suggest that the customs norms and conventions that have served us so well for so long and this and other areas should be changed. It's common and natural to allude to the experience or experiences in other countries. This is New Zealand, We are New Zealanders. And I believe, [01:13:30] sir, we should trust our own judgement in these matters. Second thing. And it's an obvious thing to say. Is it naturally given a free vote on an issue of this type? A member's own attitudes bear heavily on his or her response or reaction. Mr. Speaker, my thinking on the matter is to a large degree, governed by the fact that for many years I served [01:14:00] as a secondary school teacher, indeed, went at the age of 12 to a boarding school at which I remained for five years and as the house know, served for nearly six years as minister of education, I would simply say to the member for Wellington Central who has introduced this bill. That is a result of my experience. And if I may say so, knowledge is a result of a very [01:14:30] close and intimate association with the teaching and training of young people over a lengthy period of time. But that which he has brought to the House this morning would bring untold misery, dissatisfaction, dissension and discord into these schools and obviously particularly the secondary schools of New Zealand. And so I go back to where I started. [01:15:00] Given that, what good does it do? How is the climate of the nation enhanced? How are the training platforms, uh, of our young people? Better by this sort of proposition. Finally, Mr and I know the member Roger is anxious to get in. Finally, you're hurrying me along. Finally, Mr Mr Speaker and I would ask [01:15:30] the member for Wellington Central to bear that sort of thing in mind. I believe the member for Invercargill was absolutely right when he said The people outside of this assembly, I am sure will be surprised at a time of difficulty for New Zealand in so many ways that we are devoting time to this particular matter at this particular time of the year. [01:16:00] Can I also just throw into the debate? And no animosity is intended that the author of the Bill and I take the word of her own colleague that her motives are genuine is nevertheless a government whip. Is this some attempt to divert Parliament and the country from the the weighty measures that are and should [01:16:30] be properly before us at this particular time? Mr. Speaker, I must make it absolutely clear you'll have seen. I've been sitting here throughout this debate that this is in no way a government measure. This is a private member's bill, and it was merely notified to the government caucus. As a matter of courtesy, you're speaking to the No Mr Chairman. I did not suggest it was a government measure. I've been [01:17:00] in the house long enough to understand what is a private member's bill and what is not, I simply said, and I repeat, I throw into the discussion. I think that, in fact, that the measure has been proposed by a government whip, but I think we want to make progress. There's nothing really I can rule on here. The question was asked, uh of the whether there because of the uh, it's it's It's a question which could be asked and I think it's been adequately answered. Yes, thank you, Mr Mr [01:17:30] Speaker, In conclusion to an issue of this time, I believe two questions need to be applied. Is it essential or desirable or neither Is it right or is it wrong? Mr. Speaker, this measure is neither essential nor desirable, and it is certainly not right. Helen Clark, Speaker. I would like to begin [01:18:00] by commending the member for Wellington central to this house for her courage in bringing forward this measure. It is always easier not to take a position on issues of this kind, and in this case it is always easier to leave. It left S firmly swept under the carpet. It's easier to ignore the very real human rights issues which are involved in denying a minority of the population their civil rights. And I believe it is to the credit of the [01:18:30] member for Wellington Central that she has not ducked this question, that she has been prepared to stand up for the human and civil rights of a minority of the people of this country. I see the bill as very much a human rights issue. It poses one simple question to us as members of this house. And that is this. Should consenting adult males be regarded as criminals in the eyes of the law because of their sexual preferences [01:19:00] and practises? Should they be regarded as criminals in the eyes of the law because of their sexual preferences and practises? So this bill challenges us to put side our prejudices, our predispositions, and it appeals to the rational side of each of us for some tolerance and acceptance of the sexual orientation of and practises of others. I myself take the view that what consenting adults do [01:19:30] in private is none of my business, and it is not the business of the law of this land. Accordingly, sir, I support the introduction of the bill. I agree with the member for Wellington Central when she said this that basic social justice demands that we now pass this bill. It is unjust and unjustifiable to continue to oppress a large section of the population because of their sexual preference. When considering [01:20:00] whether or not to decriminalise sir, I think we should bear in mind that among Western countries with whom we generally compare ourselves. New Zealand shares with Ireland the rather dubious distinction of being the only country to apply blanket criminal sanctions to homosexuality. There is a book out called The World Human Rights Guide, which gives New Zealand the top rating of any country in the world on human rights issues. [01:20:30] Together with Denmark and Finland, we score 96% in terms of compliance with generally, uh, generally recognised human rights matters. The only blot that the authors of that guide could find on the human rights record of New Zealand was our denial of civil rights to male homosexuals. And I say, sir, that in this country we could be proud of having a human [01:21:00] rights record of pretty close to 100% if we pass this bill because that is the only outstanding blot on our record in the world community. If we look at the clauses of the bill, it in no way promotes homosexuality. It simply removes the criminal sanctions against it. It removes criminal sanctions against consensual homosexual contact between [01:21:30] people who consent to such activity. The bill ensures that the same protection will be given to adolescent men and boys from homosexual activity, as is given to adolescent women and girls from heterosexual activity. In both cases. Under this bill, sexual assault of under 12 year olds, whether girls or boys, will attract a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. Sexual assaults [01:22:00] against boys as against girls elsewhere in the law aged between 12 and 16 will attract a term of imprisonment of up to seven years. That constitutes, in my view, adequate legal protection for male and female Children and adolescents from predatory adults. And unfortunately, they are about practical protection from predatory adults, of course, depends on greater public awareness of the problem of sexual abuse [01:22:30] in New Zealand. And it is one of the more unfortunate myths, which is sometimes propounded about homosexuality that somehow child molestation is connected with it. In fact, all the research evidence suggests that it is overwhelmingly adult heterosexuals who offend in the area of child molestation. And it is certainly no argument against this bill to link child molestation to homosexuality. That is not a fair [01:23:00] link at all. Helen Clark, governments in other areas, too, in the area of indecent assault men indecently assaulted by other men will be treated with the same severe men who assault. Other men will be treated with the same severity as men who assault women. That is, with a maximum term of seven years imprisonment and the keeping of brothels. Again. The law is brought into line so that keeping a brothel for either male or female [01:23:30] prostitution is treated with equal severity in the eyes of the law. I mentioned sir unfortunate myths about homosexuality. There are many prevalent in this community, and they prevent some people considering the question of decriminalisation of homosexual activity in a rational fashion. One myth is that homosexuality is somehow an or abnormal practise. Nothing could be further from [01:24:00] the truth. Homosexuality is part of the normal range of human sexual responses. Kinsey's research in the United States 40 years ago bears that out, and I want to remind members of the house what that research found 40 years ago. It found that 37% of all white males have some overt homosexual experience. Between 16 and 55 25% have more than incidental homosexual [01:24:30] experience for at least three years. During that age span, 18% have at least as much homosexual as heterosexual experience for at least three years of their lives. 13% have more homosexual and heterosexual experience for at least three years. 10% are more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years. 8% are exclusively homosexual. For at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55 [01:25:00] 4% are exclusively homosexual for at least three years, for 4% are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence. Now I find nothing threatening about those findings. Nothing threatening about the incidence of homosexuality in the community. And I believe that what that research shows is that there has been widespread homosexual practise for [01:25:30] many, many years in the international community forever, in fact, and that is evidence of its normality as one of a range of human experiences. In the end, exclusive homosexual preference is a minority taste, but that is no reason for the minority, which prefers that taste to be persecuted. Our societies and others which repress homosexual expression do very great psychological damage to those individual [01:26:00] human beings who are oriented to homosexuality, and one can well imagine the trauma which is inflicted on people who are told throughout their lives that their behaviour is disgusting or filthy, or when words of that kind are used. It is very important that we remove that stigma. Another myth often propounded, is that homosexuality somehow equates with promiscuity. The truth is, of course, that when you have a law like the one we [01:26:30] have, it tends to promote promiscuity rather than do the opposite, because a law such as we have at the moment works against the formation of stable relationships, because stable homosexual relationships attract more attention from the snooping neighbour who may alert the authority. And I would hope, sir, that with decriminalisation, we see homosexuals in this community able to form stable relationships with the sanction [01:27:00] of the law in saying that one is in no way promoting homosexuality but recognising that it exists in the community and saying it should not be an unlawful activity. In conclusion, sir, I want to say that the bill is, of course, a conscience vote. It is not a government bill, and individual members will have to make up their own minds on how to vote without the direction from their party whips. I would ask all members to think very carefully [01:27:30] before exercising their conscience on the bill because the human and civil rights of other people are in your hands. Our members are prepared to allow their conscience to stand in the way of human rights fulfilment for others, I rec recommend that those whose initial predisposition is not to support the measure to give it the right to an introduction and consider the evidence at a later stage. Paul East, Mr Speaker Many [01:28:00] parliamentary observers would hold the view that the best debates that take place in this chamber are those that surround these difficult conscience issues. And I have to say that although I disagree with many of the people who have spoken in this debate, I would not question their sincerity or their compassion, and it's difficult for members when we don't have the comfort of our caucuses to try and reach a resolution on these problems, we have to grapple with our own [01:28:30] conscience before we can finally decide how we will vote. I start at the point and I I disagree with the member for Mount Albert because I start at the point that homosexual behaviour is unnatural, something most of us find abhorrent and should in no way be encouraged. And I believe that if it is made lawful, there is a risk that it will be more visible, more open and perhaps younger [01:29:00] people will accept it as a normal way of life. Now that shouldn't happen. But on the other hand, little is achieved by persecuting those who have taken up a homosexual way of life, particularly if this life is carried out in a private manner without offending the moral standards of the vast majority of the population. And as a practising lawyer, I share the thoughts of the member for Palmerston [01:29:30] North, and I have also seen something of the agony that's been caused by our existing legislation. Given that situation, Mr Speaker, I will vote for the first reading of this bill. But I do so with considerable reluctance because, in my view, the bill has many defects, and I must say that I am unlikely to support this bill in its present form beyond the first reading. And I believe that those sentiments are [01:30:00] shared by many of my colleagues that I have discussed this matter with on an informal basis who will also be voting for the first reading. But this is a serious matter that Parliament should study. It's a serious matter that a select committee should investigate tear evidence upon and then report back to this chamber. But I wish to make my position clear that I although I will vote for this first reading, I would [01:30:30] not support this bill in its present form. Beyond that, I cannot countenance the legalisation of homosexuality for those under the age of 20 years. We all know that teenagers are young and impressionable. 16 and 17 year olds are passing through an emotional transitional period of life. And for my part, the age limit in this legislation should [01:31:00] be 20 years of age. Similarly, I have concern about the human rights amendments in this legislation because what that part of the bill is endeavouring to do is to establish that a homosexual lifestyle is no different from a heterosexual one. And at that point I depart from the thinking of the author of the bill. I also believe that the argument of AIDS that has [01:31:30] been put forward by proponents of this legislation is specious. No doctor or any authority would do anything that would discourage a homosexual person from seeking help. And I don't believe the law, as it is at the present time, can be shown to have discouraged homosexuals who believe they may suffer from AIDS from seeking such assistance. So while I state I will vote [01:32:00] for the first reading of the bill, there is much that I oppose. And I believe I speak for many members of the house who will also be voting for the first reading but hold similar reservations. Mr War Bank, My words are few and my message abundantly clear. I have a deep, sincere belief that what is written in the Bible is the right and proper [01:32:30] way to conduct and discipline one's life, irrespective of whether you are religious. By inclination or not, Christian teaching is quite explicit on sodomy and personal behaviour. In the New Testament, the general epistle of Jude false teachers verses 16. I quote. These are murmurous complainers [01:33:00] walking after their own lust and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's person in admiration because of advantage. End of quote. Homosexuality is not only an unnatural act, it is now a very dangerous one, with the epidemic like spread of AIDS almost upon us. I [01:33:30] will not be responsible for passing legislation that is going to place my fellow New Zealanders at greater risk for this deadly disease. The people of Gisborne did not elect me to this office to be irresponsible. What I believe is important right now, Mr Speaker, are the basic fundamental needs of our people, the right to a home, a job of work [01:34:00] and a decent standard of living. Those are our priorities. Did that many Christians would now consider me to be a total backslider and probably not without some foundation. So I have looked. I've been able to look upon this whole area of legislation from many angles. I I have many homosexual friends who I consider and hold in the highest esteem. So let me say at the outset I seek [01:34:30] no retribution for the for anybody else nor oppression for any other people who have any other difference. Different preference than I have. And people will always be different and they always have been, uh and I seek to see nobody put in a situation which compromises their civil rights over others. But it is a complicated question, Mr Speaker. And the first question I must ask, Is it the purpose of this house to be concerned with [01:35:00] the nation's morals? Well, of course, the answer has to be Yes, you do not allow me to go home and have intercourse with my daughter and for very good reason, because the the product of that connection would be a mutation. It is the job of this house, Mr Speaker, to consider the morals of a nation when it comes to censorship. Without a doubt, this house is concerned [01:35:30] with morals and moral standards and moral guidelines. Your next question is, Do I represent my electorate? Now? I have been asked, Have I done a referendum in my electorate? It is hardly my fault if we had the crudest form of democracy in the world, and I certainly do not expect to go to my expense to have to make this democratic system work in this country to do a referendum in my electorate. I haven't done a referendum, and I believe [01:36:00] on issues such as this. It is important that I, as a member representing my electorate, make my clear views clear and unquestionable. The second question, I must ask, Uh, Mr Speaker is the one of civilization. Is civilization something without beginning and end? Is it just a mutant that evolves along or or is it the order of man and woman and a destiny that we have control, which demands [01:36:30] a purpose? I believe we are here for a purpose. The purpose of human life and the purpose of human betterment. And if it is, if we are here for a purpose, then it is incumbent upon us as legislators to to provide reasonable guidelines as to how that society should evolve. If we are here without purpose, no beginning, no end. Why do we dissipate so much time talking about the nuclear war? We might as well evolve into dust because nothing was ever [01:37:00] gained from us being here and nothing will be lost. I believe it is in the purpose of man to decide on the destiny, his destiny. And for that reason, I am speaking on this bill For that reason, I oppose the nuclear armaments race For those people who would, uh, pull quotes from the Bible, I must say it is a grand book, a grand book, and The quote that always impresses me is that he who is without sin [01:37:30] cast the first stone and perhaps Mr Speaker. That's why we don't see many broken windows. Now, Mr Speaker, I have seen the list which is going around of who are the good, uh, supporters and who aren't. And I notice, Mr Speaker that I am on the list of the bad people. I don't consider myself bad further to that, Mr Speaker, I don't consider others bad either, but I do consider it is the job of this house to set [01:38:00] some guideline which the nation should follow. I have three simple questions in conclusion, Mr Speaker. Is homosexuality in the natural order of things? I think not. Does it have purpose for an ongoing civilization? I think not. Is it productive for the future of our civilization? I think not. For those reasons, Mr Speaker, I will vote against the first reading, [01:38:30] Richard nor Mr Speaker. I must say that I am in strongly in support of this bill and that I congratulate the member for Wellington Central for introducing it. My commitment to this change goes back a very long time. Been a member of the Homosexual Law Reform Society since the middle 19 sixties. In my first speech as a candidate for election to this this [01:39:00] parliament, I stated my commitment to bring in this reform, and in my first speech in this house, I also committed myself to it as a member for Eden. I think it is important to state that the issue was raised in the previous election campaign in that electorate and that it is important that that should not be an issue in the future, that this change can enable equal [01:39:30] access to power and responsibility to all persons, and that this bill will help to bring this about. I don't agree with those who say that we shouldn't be considering this matter at this time. There are other, more urgent matters. I consider it a vital and urgent matter for significant group in the community, are denied their rights to equality and to human decency and compassion, as the current law does. [01:40:00] It is fundamentally a question of human rights, both individually and collectively, and that equality of treatment to all and activities which are clearly consenting and knowledgeable is the right of all. I record that This is a private member's bill. It is not, in any sense a government bill, and therefore it is up to us each as individuals to determine our views on it. [01:40:30] I reject the idea, and the evidence is very clear. That homosexual or for that matter, heterosexual preference is developed through corruption by word or deed by others. It is nonsense and that even the sexual act itself, by through oppression, creates and determines sexual orientation and identity. [01:41:00] People's sexual identity is largely determined before the age of 16, and it is not something which is achieved in this sort of oppressive way. In that sense, women who are just above the age of 16 must be considered to be in just as much danger from older men as [01:41:30] young men are from older men. In that sense, we should look at this in an equal sense, and I think at the with the current law operating as it is, those people in their late teens and early twenties for whom there may be some questions of ensuring their sexual identity and in fact, dealing with sexual problems that in fact, while [01:42:00] particular acts are illegal, there is the difficulty in obtaining the counselling and advice that is necessary for them to seek an order to determine this. In particular, the lack of access to knowledge and information on this matter is something which intensifies feelings of sexual oppression and inadequacy and must be changed both within the schools and elsewhere, and in particular, [01:42:30] as has been raised before the question of sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS. It is vital that people can seek the information that they need, that it is openly available. It is not just a matter of being able to go to their doctor or to a clinic if they feel that they have a disease that is a matter of the matter. Being out in the open and being able to obtain the information that they need in a clear and determined [01:43:00] way and that being available in the community at large, I reject utterly the view that homosexuals are predominantly child molesters. In fact, as others have said in this debate, that is a problem that arises with both homosexual and heterosexual activity, and it is predominantly a problem with heterosexual men with respect to young women. We [01:43:30] must deal with this equally and in particular. It's quite clear in the bill that the current levels of penalty and social and other action against those who have sexual activity with minors or people, um, of, uh, inferior intellectual ability remain in the law, and that is quite clear. So that is not an issue. The fact that has been [01:44:00] raised that homosexual acts cannot be procreative acts and yet surely for all of us in this house and outside our seeking of affection, physical affection is very rarely carried out for that purpose, and to deny the expression of physical affection to a significant section of the community because of that is quite ludicrous, Richard, [01:44:30] he said. Where are the government sending us telegrams asking us to oppose this change? Most of the church leaders in the country support the change. The conferences of most of the major churches have endorsed the need for change. On many occasions. The Methodists, Presbyterians and others come readily to mind those people who deal with the Catholic Church, those people who work with in the areas of, um, sexual questions [01:45:00] the psychiatrists, the social workers, these people have come out for the need for change in this area. It is a question I respect that people find it abhorrent to contemplate acts that are contrary to their own personal sexual identity. It is crucial in one one's own development that one sets boundaries for oneself and that other types [01:45:30] of activity therefore seem particularly abhorrent and unpleasant. But that fact should not get us in parliament to legislate, to make our particular standards of sexual behaviour and orientation to be enforced on others for whom heterosexual activities for them seem just as unnatural and abhorrent. And the idea that it is unnatural when it has been a consistent, [01:46:00] uh, activity by a substantial minority in our community, in all societies, in all ages. Whatever the law has been in, those societies clearly shows that it is a natural as natural as left handedness or other forms of, uh, activity and personal characteristics, which are in a minority. And as the Kinsey report says, more than a third of males have [01:46:30] had sexual activity to the point of orgasm. At some stage in their life, it is normal, and it is a question of removing the myths and and the and restoring the question of basic human rights, basic decency and equality. I support the change required in the Human Rights Act to protect the rights of homosexuals in employment. I say that the referendum has been carried out in debate [01:47:00] in the public and that every recent public opinion poll quite clearly shows that a majority of people now clearly support this change. It is what the people, I'm sure in my electorate as and others want it is something that I have committed myself to, and the messages of support have been overwhelmingly in favour. I've only had two messages against. [01:47:30] I think that members should take their courage and get rid of this overdue, oppressive legislation and enable the the questions to be to to get rid of the suppression and to give people their rights as human beings, which is long overdue. Mr. Peters, I say that the introduction of a private member's bill is, of course, the right of all members of Parliament. But there has been [01:48:00] a longstanding convention in this house that those who are in cabinet or undersecretaries or whips will in such events serve, give the bill over to somebody on the backbench. A long standing decade old, decades old convention. And I want to say to the mover of this bill that she does her colleagues harm because out in the public, the perception will be that this is the Labour Party bill. Make no mistake. And, sir, this is the second time this member has done that. And I want to say to [01:48:30] her if she wants to have this sort of what she calls reform brought before Parliament, then she should do her colleagues a service and hand it over to a backbench member to do it without the constraints of past convention. Now, Mr Speaker, I'm sorry to interrupt the Honourable member at this point, but, uh, the time has come for me to call on the, uh, honourable member for, uh, Wellington Central in reply. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like to thank all the members of this house who have contributed [01:49:00] to this debate. Um, I think on the whole it has been a serious and constructive debate, and perhaps it's a pity that we can't as one of the members suggested to have more debates that are taken as seriously as this. Um, I would in particular like to thank those who have spoken in favour of the bill. It is an issue which will not necessarily, um, always earn them votes in their electorates. And I appreciate the fact that apart from voting for it, they've been prepared to stand [01:49:30] up and speak their minds on it. I have a couple of comments to make on, uh, some of the things that have been said, Um, some people have expressed what they say is concern and compassion for homosexuals, but said that although they feel that they feel that homosexual activity itself is wrong, I would suggest to them then that they should consider voting for the bill, at least at this stage. Because [01:50:00] the second part of the bill left concerning the Human Rights Commission deals in fact, with discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, nothing to do with homosexual activity. And if they are to transfer that concern and the compassion that they say they have, through, um to reality, then at least that part of the bill should gain their support. I'd like to comment on some other remarks that remarks that were made, uh, the member for said that the evidence [01:50:30] to support the introduction of the bill was just not there. He is absolutely wrong. All reputable social and medical research points to the fact that sexual orientation is established at a very, very early age, and you don't change that by having a law which bans homosexual activity for adults. The member for hierarchy also asked why such rapidity, as he called it in the introduction of the bill. Well, all I can say to that is there was no rapidity. [01:51:00] I just didn't feel it was terrible necessary for me to send information, Um, on my intentions to people who I knew were about to organise a campaign against the bill. There has been much public discussion on this issue. There has been much since I have been in Parliament. There's been much discussion amongst members on this issue, and I'm quite sure that nobody was under any illusion that that there would not be some at some stage a bill on this issue. The member [01:51:30] for also talked about moral laxity and in the next breath wondered aloud about the direction of government policy. And I just want to say again and for the benefit of the member for hierarchy and the benefit of the member. For Invercargill, who talked about the necessity for a private member's bill to be given a space on the order paper by the government, this is not a government measure, and it's no use the member for Paara and hierarchy Invercargill trying to make it one. It is not. [01:52:00] Of course it is correct that there must be a space given on the order paper by the government. And I'm very pleased, and I'd like to thank my colleagues for giving me the space which a private member needs to be able to introduce private business. I would like to thank them. I did my caucus colleagues the courtesy of telling them yesterday that I intended to seek leave to introduce the bill. They did me the courtesy yesterday of saying yes, they they would allow a space on the order [01:52:30] paper. It has never before been discussed in the government caucus. Mr. Speaker, the member for Invercargill, has mentioned a list, and I'd just like to make a few comments on that. I have not at any time issued any list of MP S to anyone. Any list that the member for Invercargill holds was not compiled by me and if he gives it to the Sunday as I have been told, he is going to and I certainly haven't seen it then he cannot say [01:53:00] that that list was compiled by the member for Wellington Central because it was not Mr Speaker. I want to just mention one more issue. That was commented on by the leader of the opposition, who said in relation to the AIDS issue that the state of the law would not affect the treatment of any disease. That is not the issue I know. And I have great faith in the fact that our New Zealand doctors will treat people when they need treatment. [01:53:30] But it is not treatment I am concerned about. It is prevention. A public education campaign requires cooperation from the groups at risk. At the moment, the prime group at risk are homosexuals who are at present, defined as criminal under the law. That is, I think, as I said, one of the compelling reasons for change. But the major reason Mr Mr Speaker, is that the current law on the statute book a law which [01:54:00] the member for Palmerston North, um, has showed, um is is actually almost an historical accident is no longer relevant to what people in our society now think it is wrong and it should be repealed. That is why I am moving this bill. I believe that there must be very strong protection for Children. And I have set in the bill an age of consent for 16. I feel that is a rational approach [01:54:30] because that is the age for heterosexual activity. I would ask all members to vote for the bill. And I, um, will be moving if it gets introduced, that it go to a select committee and that will be the stage when the arguments can be examined. I'd like to thank the house for giving me this time. The question is that they be given to bring in the homosexual law reform bill. Those who are in favour will say I those who [01:55:00] have the contrary opinion will say no. The eyes have it. No, have it division called for. Ring the bells. The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Tell us for the eyes. Are Trevor Mallard and Catherine O'Regan. Tell us for the nose are Mr Jones and Mr Bray Brook. Thank you, guys. [01:55:30] 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 proceedings resume. Until then, an interlude of music order. The question is that need be given to bring in the homosexual law reform bill. The eyes are [01:56:00] 51. The nose are 24. Leave will be given. Unlock the doors. The Homosexual Law Reform bill First reading. Mr. Speaker, I move that the homosexual law reform bill be referred to the Statutes Revision Committee The proceedings of the committee during the hearing of evidence on the bill to be open to accredited representatives of the news media. The question is that this bill be referred to the statutes revision [01:56:30] commit committee with the usual proviso concerning the news media. Those who are in favour will say I those with the contrary opinion will say no. The eyes have it.

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.