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.
It shall be announced before the amendment is moved. Now, I raise that, Mr Chairman because of message received or information received by the committee earlier today from the Human Rights Commission. And, um, Mr Chairman, that that does state on page two as follows If part two of the bill is passed by Parliament pursuant and that means initially in the committee to a democratic majority yes, [00:00:30] it Yes, it is. It is a standing order and it's 392 and it involves. It involves the governor General now, Mr Chairman, if if you would be good enough to have a look at the standing orders, I believe you are. The Human Rights Commission later says If part two of the bill is passed by Parliament pursuant to a democratic majority and people actively challenge the new law, then there could indeed be an increased work LA with increased cost factors Quite simply, Mr Chairman, under standing order 392 [00:01:00] it is not competent for a private member to move or have passed a measure which would increase the public appropriation or the cost on the public. And my authority for that is speaker's ruling 1, 381 which doesn't only just say that. It says, if there's any doubt, you can't keep going and I repeat it. A private member's bill, clauses of which may involve an extra charge on the people [00:01:30] in the way of rates payable into the public account, requires the recommendation of the crown. Now, that's where speakers um, standing order 392 comes in, and if you haven't got it, it is out of order. It is therefore out of order. Speaker's ruling. 1 381 1929. Volume 221, page 828. Speaker Statum. Now, Mr Chairman, you can't accept the closure because the bill before the committee [00:02:00] is out of order. Simple as that. I. I think I you want to bring the government, You think that I can rule on this matter and I? I think that the member has, uh, previously raised the point. I wouldn't uh, if, um if the member wishes me to rule, I'm happy to do so. Uh, but the member has raised the point previously and it would be out of order for me. I think to, uh, rule in a way, which was any in any form inconsistent with the ruling, which has been [00:02:30] given by Speaker Wall on this matter. So we are awaiting, uh, waiting a ruling from him on the point. Mr Lee. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Want to welcome the Prime Minister back after total absence in this debate, sir, I want to challenge him to stand up and to tell this house where he stands on this bill. If he will the member give way. He [00:03:00] wants me to answer a simple question. If he wants it, genuinely, he'll give away. You can take your full. I am for this bill. I have said so for a year. The member knows. Take the time. You know what the rules are, Mr Lee? I just simply said, sir, it is time he did stand up and speak out and tell the 837,000 people who rejected his bill why he can support it. Why he can support this obnoxious, reprehensible bill. What arguments [00:03:30] he can advance as prime minister for this country. I'm addressing part two and saying that that part of the bill is that part of the bill is not only totally reprehensible, it will, sir, do great damage to this country, and that section of the bill cannot be justified. It cannot be tolerated. It cannot be passed tonight, sir. The [00:04:00] members of this House should know that the second part of this bill closed down in particular, has been drafted by lawyers from the international homosexual community. And that's why this particular section is confusing, complex and says it's designed to be that way. And that's why the implications of this section is not understood, and it's clear it's not fully understood. But the results would be dang, as far as this country is concerned and [00:04:30] they're out working. Let me just explain further that in the terminology of sexual orientation, we have a replacement phrase, one that has followed the word a fictional preference. The fictional preference was first used in this particular human rights section around the world, but in fact denotes and implies a choice in behaviour. So that's why it's been changed to sexual orientation because [00:05:00] that implies that which might have been from birth or that which a person has been born with. And so you have this phraseology sexual orientation. But, sir, it is completely confusing. But it's very clear in the sense of the damage it would do if that section goes through in the present construction in this prison construction, it would allow such things to happen at paedophilia because [00:05:30] the sexual orientation you haven't read the bill. Do you understand this point? The sexual or a point of order? The honourable Mr Wellington. It is quite improper for the member in charge of the bill, whether he or she be a private member or a minister to use the microphone in front of him or her to interject constantly. Mr No, it is. It is covered, indeed, under standing orders. [00:06:00] Now the the member in charge of the bill, the member for Wellington Central called out, I think, which has another ring thrice, Uh uh, thrice and then said, Tell the truth. Now, Mr Chairman, I suggest that she, the member for Wellington Central in charge of the homosexual law reform bill, should be restrained from the privileged position she occupies. Well, I think that generally the point is well made. That interjection should be rare and reasonable. [00:06:30] Uh, I think that, uh I'm probably more aware than anybody else is in the house. That, uh, members to my right in charge of bills use the proximity of a microphone to to interject the member might be reassured to know that I have a button here which mutes that microphone, and I use it quite frequently. Have done the Lee. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I repeat that sexual orientation not only covers heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, but [00:07:00] it in fact covers in its totality any other preference, leaning or persuasion, and that indeed could cover paedophilia. It could and does allow the question of sodomy bracket incest to happen on the basis that that would in fact, be lawful under the context of this bill. Point of order, Mr Chairman. Point of order, Mr. I call you to rule [00:07:30] on what I believe is disorderly language language in this chamber, which will lead to disorderly behaviour by the member for Hamilton West. I think it, uh I think it would be helpful. Objection has been taken for for whatever reason, the member feels that he's being in. I think it would be helpful therefore, for the member to withdraw the chairman the strength of concern as expressed. I think the member should be given the opportunity. Mr. Lee [00:08:00] Chairman. The concern is adequately expressed by the nine amendments which are before the house in which we should shortly voted upon. Those men seek to exclude the principal areas of concern the armed services, education, the church, life, youth activities, et cetera. Now, sir, I indicate however, that the the point I'm making in this particular speech as to the complexity. Because in those amendments, the word sexual orientation [00:08:30] does allow sir for discrimination against not only homosexuality, bisexuality, but also heterosexuality. So, sir, I am tabling amendments which I would offer to those movers of the amendments currently before the House and which I would ask them to address my amendments. And they effectively change [00:09:00] the word sexual orientation in those respective nine amendments to allow, which I believe is the intention of the movers. And how do we deal with that? Now that the that the discrimination be that against homosexuals or bisexuals? And it is not the intention are the move the movers? I believe those amendments to in fact allow discrimination on Hess, Sir, those are Wild Chairman, The speech [00:09:30] We've just heard. And the claims that have just been made by the member for are a complete perversion. And I think a disgusting perversion not only of the intent of the actually stated in the bill and the member for how he knows that. And night after night in this house. For the last year, he has come in every Wednesday night. He and his his friends and they have used that sort of emotional diatribe, that of emotional [00:10:00] clap tram to frighten members of this house into voting against the bill and night after night. They have raised the issue of incest and paedophilia, and they haven't bothered to look at the truth, to look at the what the bill really does. That, I think, is plain disgusting. They're the ones who revel in rolling the word sodomy and anal intercourse off their lips. Night after night, we wallow in the squalid, revolting [00:10:30] terminology that these members who are opposing the bill are so fond of saying. And I think, Mr Chairman, it says a hell of a lot more about their state of mind than it does about what this bill actually will do. And I would ask that they stick to the truth when they are discussing the bill and that they move their disgusting, perverted version of the bill right out of this house and into the gutter where it belongs, and try [00:11:00] discussing the legislation that's before them. The honourable Mr Wellington. Mr. Chairman, about a week ago, the member in charge of the bill who has just, um, sat down um that, of course, as the member for Wellington Central said that voluntary organisations were exempt from the provisions of Part two of the measure. Now, before I continue, would the the member in charge of the bill, the member from Wellington Central, confirm or otherwise? What she said a week [00:11:30] ago? Yes, precisely precisely now if I might take. And she then went on to talk about some perversion and and looking at the truth and so on. But I might Mr Chairman, pick up what she has just said. She talked about voluntary workers and voluntary organisations. Is that correct? Does the member agree or disagree? I mean, well, she holds her head [00:12:00] as well as she might. She, of course, said a week ago. 168 hours, 24 multiplied by seven to be precise, that voluntary organisations were exempt from Part two The part two provisions of this bill Now she shakes her head Now she shakes her head are voluntary organisations in her out she scratches her head What an extraordinary sight She has nodded She has shaken [00:12:30] her head in the space of less than 60 seconds and she has shaken her head and she has scratched it. And now she's tried to interject through the microphone a point of order Trevor Mallard The these clauses are relatively narrow and I ask you to ask the member to come back debating them and not the position of the person sitting in the chair. Oh well, I've got no I. I think that the, uh, the member on his feet uh, was in the process [00:13:00] of seeking answers. I think that's, uh well, well, indeed I am. We're going to be doing at this, uh, stage of the bill. I think that I must repeat what I've said. Uh, previously in the debate It's it's advisable. Uh, when tempers are high for members not to be too personal Mr. Wellington, the honourable don't tempt me another another matter I should bring to your attention. It's been brought to your attention earlier, but I have [00:13:30] listened to the broadcast of this debate on a number of house times outside of the house, and the member in charge of the bill is frequently interjecting herself. Now I make the point that if she's been asked questions by a member of the house, then she has the opportunity to get to her feet and take the call. And when I didn't reply, he said, Come on, tell us, why don't you reply? I'm in a no win situation with that member and I back up [00:14:00] Mr Wellington, speaking to the point of up, up to a point, I accept what the member for Wellington Central has just said. She is quite right. I have complained not often, but as I thought, appropriate of her interjections into the microphone. Now leave it at that because you have ruled. Now I come to the point. A week ago, she claimed from the seat. Oh, she's going No, I think perhaps, [00:14:30] I mean, she's seeking advice. She's on her knees. After that, she claimed that voluntary organisations were exempt from Part two of the bill Now I'm prepared to give way if she would get up and use the mic and say one of two things. It's either or are voluntary organisations exempt from the provision of [00:15:00] And I said provision singular of part two comma or not now would now would the member for Wellington Central indicate whether they are or not? You Mr Chair, Mr Chairman, since the member for papakura is finding this concept a little difficult to grasp even though the bill has been before the House for a year, I should explain to him very patiently again what the bill [00:15:30] says. It says in terms of work that it applies to people in paid employment. And that means people in a voluntary capacity such as scout masters, which was the issue that arose last week, are not in fact covered by the bill. They are exempt. Thank you. Well, my understanding a week ago and therefore could I ask the chairman I'm sorry. The member in charge of the bill, this question and in so doing give her [00:16:00] a little bit of background. She is talking about voluntary organisations, and she is saying that she's shaking head she is saying that the volunteers are exempt. That's fine except that in New Zealand, many very fine volunteer in inverted commerce organisations have paid administrators at their very top. Now let me let me give an example. Let me give no not exempt. Let me give an example. The New Zealand Red Cross Society has at its [00:16:30] head as secretary General and he is subject to the member for Wellington Central's changes. If this measure is passed, that means that he shall remain subject to police investigation as to whether he is a fit and appropriate person. That is correct and all the volunteers are exempt. What about apart from the Secretary general of the New Zealand Red Cross Society, [00:17:00] other persons in the paid employed? Mr Chairman, I take exception to what the member for Wellington Central is doing. She has said that volunteers are exempt is not as simple as that. There are people in New Zealand's volunteer organisations and inverted commerce volunteer who are in fact paid. I've mentioned one the New Zealand Red Cross Society and I shall tell I shall tell the member in charge of this bill [00:17:30] it would be impossible. It would be impossible for such a person to secure employment so as to organise, assist, encourage the volunteers. It would be impossible unless those persons in paid employment in a voluntary organisation were cleared by the police. Now I know Mr Chairman. Mr. Chairman Fran Chair. I'm not quite sure [00:18:00] whether the member for dreams up these amazing ideas, but there is nothing in this bill that says that anyone should be subject to police investigation because they want to get a job. I'm not I. I can't actually follow his line of reasoning if it can be graced with the name of reasoning, which I don't think it can. The fact is that the administrator, the paid person running the Red Cross would in fact be that the Red Cross would be subject to this bill in terms of its paid employees. And so [00:18:30] it should be. And I, for one, can't imagine how that would concern the Red Cross in any way, because I know that despite the fact that the member for Papakura used to work for them, they're actually on the whole, a fairly decent and broad minded outfit, and I heartily and totally personally support them I always give to their appeal, and I support them in every way I can. And, Mr Chairman, they will be so in terms of their paid employees. But as I have stated to the house on many, many occasions, where the member for obviously has been not listening, there are any [00:19:00] volunteers in any group whatsoever. And I must admit the Red Cross is the first one that's been raised. Um, here. Normally, it's the scouts would in fact not be covered by this and, uh, because that has nothing to do with their livelihood. Uh, the, uh, the honour was D. Well, you see, Mr Chairman, that's the great difficulty Parliament gets itself in. Now let me take the Red Cross Society and I. I chose it advisedly for two reasons. In the early 19 seventies, [00:19:30] I was a paid employee of the New Zealand Red Cross Society in charge of organising the voluntary activities of thousands of New Zealanders. Now, is the member in charge of the bill gossiping with the clerk of the house hiding behind the microphone? Or is it in fact, a technical discussion Now, Mr Chairman, I asked you to, uh indicate which one of the two, the the, uh the the the member in charge of the bill was simply having a few [00:20:00] words of a technical nature with the I accept what you say. And Mr Chairman, as there is the member for Hamilton West. A political if ever I saw one. I have political lout. Chair of the select Committee on this measure. Sits here like a making sure the member for Wellington Central starts to get away. But he hasn't talked to the prime minister who hasn't spoken on [00:20:30] in the committee stages. He hasn't spoken to the deputy prime minister who hasn't spoken in the committee stages on the money implications of this bill. But that's another matter. You see, Mr Chairman, I come back to where we were a minute ago. The member for Wellington Central can't have it both ways in this manner, the paid permanent head, if you like. Of the New Zealand Red Cross Society, who is by designation, the Secretary General is subject is [00:21:00] subject to the old law. But the president, the elected head of the society who is a volunteer, is not now what sort of division and confusion, what sort of division and confusion, and the president of the New Zealand Red Cross Society in my time was in the first instance, a notable public accountant in and in the second instance, a notable surgeon [00:21:30] indeed is at this moment chairman of the Wellington College Board of Governance. Now how how do we get on if the President the elected head, is subject to a different law compared with or in relation to the permanent head? You see, it doesn't make sense. And I thought that is what the member for Wellington Central said. 100 and 68 hours ago flip into me. But of course, voluntary organisations are exempt life [00:22:00] even in voluntary organisations where people try to do what is right and she shakes her head, she shakes her head. Of course she is wrong and she is starting to realise life isn't that simple. Life isn't that simple and I suggest Mr Chairman, before I get on to other matters. The member for the member for Wellington Central suggest how the committee with voluntary organisations only [00:22:30] as its focus at this moment, gets out of the difficulty of having one law for the president of a voluntary organisation and another law for the paid official or permanent head of the same uh, Mr, uh, Jim Sutton. Mr. Chairman, I move that the question be Now, put the question Is that the question be now, put those in favours. Those [00:23:00] in favour of water water. Put it, Mr. Chairman, I'm interested in what you're saying. Are you suggesting now that you're going to put the question? Is that Is that what you're saying? I mean, you haven't answered, uh, this man here and I've taken the call. Um, are you going to put the question? Because, um and I want to ask some questions about the number of questions you're going to be put. And how are you gonna put them? I think that's a very important, uh, question that the member has raised. Um, I'd be very happy to do that, um, at the stage where we're [00:23:30] moving through the amendments because otherwise I'm sure that members are going to be a bit, uh, a bit lost who haven't taken, uh, taken, uh, close attention to what's happened. The question then, is that the question being output? Those in favour will say I am those with the opinion will say no. The eyes have it. A a further point of order. Mr Wellington? Yes. Point of order, Mr Chairman. I beg your pardon, Mr Wellington. Point of all, there are members in the aisles. They be seated. There was one clearing out. Uh, firstly, please, [00:24:00] Mr Chairman, when we discussed at the beginning of the committee stages the procedural and I acknowledge the lady member of Southern Mari When when the committee considered the procedures the chair served indicated by inference that any member who wished to speak would have four times five entitled to five minutes four times. Now, Mr Chairman, [00:24:30] I have not had that I might have had 10. 12. Now the journals of the House will testify to that. And I think, and there are other members I mean, the member for Moana and others are anxious, sir, to put new material. Now I submit to you that the material I put a minute ago on voluntary organisations Oh, there goes the name of Well, I think he can He can't interrupt the point of point of Hellen your ruling. [00:25:00] I think the I think you have been I think you've been very fair. But, Mr Chairman, I also submit that where fresh material is injected into the debate as I endeavour to do, you're the judge of that is I endeavoured You should hear further argument. I want to hear from the member in charge of the bill. The points I raised, I think the the document. Now that I have the member's point of view, point of order, clearly in my mind, the the the the problem that we now have is [00:25:30] that the closure motion, uh, has been sought. The motion has been put and the motion has been passed. Uh, well, no, no, the the member may not may not may not, in fact, make that imputation. But I, I would like to point out to the member for papakura uh, that the point of order that he raises uh is is worthy is worthy of a reply. I think I mean, he has. He has pointed out that the chair at the time that the question was asked way back at the beginning [00:26:00] of the of the debate did say that members were entitled to 44 or five minute calls. That was of course not taking into account the possibility of a closure. Uh, which, uh, which we now have upon Chairman. Point of order, Mr Chairman? No. Well, I, I think that, uh, members members should be aware that we we have now had the closure motion put before us. And the closure motion has been passed. I have no point of order, Mr Chairman. Point of order, Mr Chairman. Oh, well, if the members [00:26:30] are in some doubt, I'll put it again. Absolutely, In a lot of doubt. A lot of doubt it because we're gonna have a vote on this. We're not just gonna let it go through. Well, that that's that's fair. That's fair. If if members are not not quite clear, I'll put the question a quick again. The question is that the question be now, put those in favour to say a those with the contrary to say no, the eyes have it noes. Have it division called for. Ring the bells. Eyes will go to the right nose, will go to the left. Sutton. Uh, tell [00:27:00] us for the eyes are Mr Williston and Jim Sutton and Mr Jim Sutton. Tell us for the nose. Uh, Mr Lee and, uh, and Mr Bra, the question is that the question be now put. The eyes are 42. The nos are 34. The question will be put. Unlock the doors, unlock the doors. At this point, it might be helpful, uh, if members, if they haven't received [00:27:30] a copy that's been circulated, uh, avail themselves of a list which has been prepared by the clerk's office and is available at the table. Which, um, yes, I'll come to the member's point of order, which sets out the, uh, the the the various amendments that have been proposed and the order in which it is proposed to take them distributed last week. I'll take [00:28:00] the member's point of order in a moment. Graham Graham, Do you want to put yours or not? Are you going to seek to put your [00:28:30] Could I explain further to members now that they have the copy of the sheet that's been supplied by the clerk's office that there are emissions from this sheet which take the form of a two page slip of amendments which were circulated earlier this evening by Mr Lee? Mr. Lee has proposed amendments and amendments to amendments which he gave notice of earlier in the evening and indicated that he would be moving with the permission or with the agreement of the movers of [00:29:00] the amendments to which they apply. Now, we have a point of order from, uh, Mr Wellington. Yes, Mr Chairman, I accept the reading of the, um, teller's lists about the closure. Might I enquire because, uh, one hasn't had the opportunity of examining in which manner the member for Wellington Central voted on the closure motion? I don't think that that's [00:29:30] really a matter of of order now. Um, yes, yes, I'd like I'd like members to come to order. Now, we have quite a complex series of amendments to deal with. Can can Can the members now, um, apply themselves to the amendments before the committee? And the first of these is found on supplementary order paper 72. It's Doctor Bills. Bill Sutton's amendment, And it is an amendment to clause nine which redefines [00:30:00] the term sexual orientation. Are members ready to vote on that point of order? Doctor Bill Sutton. Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to proceed without amend. Thank you. Can we Can we therefore have order? Can We therefore have the leader of the committee for Mr Bill Sutton to withdraw the amendment. Uh, which isn't his name. There does not. [00:30:30] Well, at this stage, I don't believe the amendment has been moved and it's up to the member whether he seeks to move it. Uh, yes, a point of order, Mr Chairman. Order! Order. Can I just Can I just ask members of the house to hear points of order? Sam, would the member for Zuma please have a point of order here, [00:31:00] Mr. Peters, we have to move his amendment. Um, and we will be happy to do it for him. And I believe so. That's what's up, David. You getting nervous? So I move the amendment in the name of Dr Sutton speaking to the point of the member for Hawke's Bay foreshadowed a possible amendment some weeks [00:31:30] ago, the member for uh, Tauranga did not foreshadow that amendment. Uh, if the member for Hawke's Bay chooses not having heard the debate to move his amendment, then no member of the house can force him to do so. Uh, speaking further to the point of order, Mr Peters, Ocean has been the amendment has been foreshadowed thereafter, any person can move it. And the, uh, Blackstone of the Labour Party should know that I'd like I'd [00:32:00] like members order. I'd like members indulgence while I consult with standing orders. Order Can Can we just have a moment or two to consult on this matter without further, I think that the position that we're in is covered in, uh, standing orders. Uh, 190, [00:32:30] uh, standing order 190 subparagraph two, Which is the situation that applies when a motion that the question has now been put has been carried now on the second sentence. Uh, in that standing order Subpar two. It says any proposed amendment that has been properly notified on the supplementary order paper or has been handed to the table prior to the time when the closure motion is accepted and which relates to the matter under consideration [00:33:00] shall be put forth with so that the member is not in a position to withdraw his amendment. The amendment has to be put. What about that? Can we have silence? Please? Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, it is good that the opposition agree that these matters now go to the vote without comment, debate or further points of order. [00:33:30] A further, further raise 18 you properly raised under standing orders 1902. The point that you have just put. But 1903 goes on to say an affirmative vote of not less than 20 members shall be necessary to carry any motion under the standing order. Now, I'm not going to go into that any further, except to say, Mr Chairman, I [00:34:00] believe that the fact that the member for Hawke's Bay chooses not to proceed should be voted upon by the committee in accordance with standing order 1903 you quoted to and that we should proceed in that direction for the That's fine, Thank you. Now the question then, is that Mr Bill Sutton's amendment to Clause nine, which I have summarised four members, uh, as redefining the term sexual orientation. [00:34:30] The question is that that amendment be agreed to those in favour will say I for those who have the current opinion will say no. The amendment is lost. No, the amendment. The amendment is lost. Uh, we now come to order, order, order. When members come to order, we now have a series of amendments proposed by Mr Lee [00:35:00] Order. If members wish to know where we are, it would be helpful for them if they came to order. Mr. Lee's amendments have been circulated on a on a two page slip of amendments, and the first of these is an amendment to the amendment which is proposed by Doctor Bill. Doctor, just repeat that today. No, no. Yeah, that's haven't we? [00:35:30] Yeah, we've lost that. But now we've got an amendment to this one. We got a Can I explain to members what is about to what is about to happen. Doctor Bill Sutton's amendments provide in clause nine A for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in respect of domestic employment and religious orders. That is the that is the amendment and the amendment to the amendment, [00:36:00] which is proposed in Mr Lee's, uh, supplementary order Paper is the substitution of the term sexual with the term heterosexual. I mean, point of order, Mr Lee, has the motion been actually put? Has a sudden amendment actually been the first one has been put and lost? It has been put and lost. Therefore, sir, my amendment, of course, is irrelevant to that is to [00:36:30] point of order that the member for Hawke's Bay actually had two amendments, one of which has been lost, and the other one that Mr Lee wishes to hang on to to amend. He surrendered that battle without a fight. I can't understand it. We're about to order. Can I clarify the matter for the for the for the second Amendment proposed by Mr Sutton, to which Mr [00:37:00] Lee has an amendment has yet to be put. That is the situation. And we are now about to move to put Mr Bill Sutton's Second Amendment. Mr. Mr Chairman, Mr. I'm sure that I can clear up matters for the house. Uh, if I if I simply explain that the amendment which has been lost was an amendment to Clause nine. There are two further amendments standing in my name, which would constitute clauses nine a and nine B. These [00:37:30] are clauses. These amendments Mr Lee has sought to amend Mr Lee's Mr Lee's proposal then is the substitution and Mr Sutton's amendments of the word heterosexual for the word sexual. The question then is that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to. We are now voting on Mr Lee's amendment to the amendment. The question is that the amendment to the amendment be agreed to those in [00:38:00] favour of side. Those of the opinion will say no, the nose have it. The eyes have it division called for. Ring the bells, the eyes of 39 the nose of 40. The amendment to the amendment is not agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. Our members are now are now obliged to vote on the amendment. I remind members that this is on supplementary order. Paper 72 [00:38:30] if if the member could just let me finish that, Um And it belongs to Doctor Bill Sutton and allows discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in respect of domestic employment and religious orders. Mr. Banks, um, I noticed that the last bill was a one minute bill. Uh uh. All the forthcoming bells going to be one minute bells until we just settle down. So I ask you wanted to be heard in silence, Mr. Banks. Settle down, [00:39:00] Mr Chairman. So I note then that all all the forthcoming bells will be one minute bells. Yes, yes, The que The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Those in favour will say Aye, But those with the contrary opinion will say no. The noes have it. Eyes have it division, Call four. Ring the bells. One minute bell eyes will go to the right. Nos will go to the left. [00:39:30] Agree to the eyes are 52. The nos are 26. The amendment is agreed to unlock the doors, Unlock the doors. We proceed Now we proceed. We proceed now to the next of the series of amendments to amendments proposed by Mr Lee. Mr. Lee has a proposal which affects the Honourable Sullivan's amendment. Her amendment [00:40:00] in nine a A and nine BB Both new clauses is to allow discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in respect of positions of authority over the young young persons and in respect of the letting of residential property. Mr Lee's amendments to those amendments propose once again the substitution of the term sexual with the term heterosexual. The question now is members members quite [00:40:30] happy with that all want some clarification. Well, what is what is the, uh, point that perhaps perhaps it would be helpful for Mr Lee if if, uh if if Mr Lee himself spoke just briefly to chairman the Human Rights the Commission Act Section 15 is Provision four, in fact, preference on the basis of sex in certain areas. [00:41:00] Now the confusion, if there is any, is because in the context of the wording of this of this amendment, the change is in line with the Human Rights Commission Act, Section 15. In the other amendments, it is change round. But it is the same purpose for all amendments throughout, just so that members know what the pieces of paper are that they have in front of them. There are two pieces of paper. One contains the amendments, [00:41:30] the other, the other is a two page piece of paper. That sounds strange, but it contains Mr Lee's amendments to the amendments. We're voting on the the, uh, the second of these. The question then is that the men that order the question is that Mr Lee's amendments to the amendment of Mr and O'Sullivan be agreed to Those in favour will say I those of the country opinion will say no nos have it [00:42:00] eyes Have it division called for Ring the bells? Yes. They call the division has been called for. The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Their seats. The question is that Mr Lee's amendment to the Honourable Tira Sullivan's amendment be agreed to. The eyes are 34. The nos are 45. The amendment is not agreed to unlock the doors. Unlock the door, [00:42:30] Mr Lee. Point of order. I'd seek to leave the house to withdraw the subsequent amendments as they affect the further amendments before the House, sir, in the interests of once, once they were well, it it will require members to leave if the committee order. If the committee is a unanimous agreement, [00:43:00] then, uh, Mr Lee's request to withdraw his amendments can be agreed to. Is there any dissent from Mr Lee's proposed course of action? There is now We move on to deal with the Honourable Sullivan's amendments on supplementary order paper. Six members have asked for a quick summary of these. They propose new clauses nine a A and nine a B, and they allow discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and respect of positions of [00:43:30] authority over young persons and in respect of the letting of residential property the question is that the amendments be agreed to in favour to say I the contrary to say no. The eyes have it nos have it division called for, then ring the bells, eyes to the right, nos to the left, one minute bell. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. The eyes are 44. The nos [00:44:00] are 35. The amendment is agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. We now come to a consideration of Mr O Flynn's amendment to Mr Bray Brook's amendment. Mr. Bray Brook's amendment is found on supply Supplementary order paper one. It is a new clause 10. It proposes for the police, armed forces, traffic officers [00:44:30] and prison officers to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in respect of employment in these services, we are dealing first of all with Mr O Flynn's amendment, which provides for discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation only in respect of employment in the armed forces and the police, not in respect of traffic officers and police and prison officers as well. We're putting Mr Lynn's amendment to Mr [00:45:00] Bray Brook's amendment first, a point of order, Mr Bray Brook point of clarification is. My amendment includes also traffic officers and officers employed in penal institutions, prison officers. If I wish to vote for that, um, are you gonna put them separately? You know, one after the other. Or, uh, if Mr O Flynn's amendment is one does mine, then get to go again because it puts the traffic officers and the prison officers in with it. [00:45:30] I'm not quite clear what the member's question is, but the but the order Order, Can we have order, please? The member for Napier is is seeking clarification of the status of his amendment in the event that it is lost. Is that right? What I mean to say is, if members want to vote, that orientation will be grounds for discrimination against the armed forces, police, traffic officers, prison. How [00:46:00] do we get on? Because if I, I want to support Mr O'Flynn, which is almost a copy of mine. Uh, but I also want the prison officers, including it as well. Does it mean that Mr Flynn's one might be defeated to get mine a approved I? I think that I should, uh I should make it clear that the proper course of action for the member and the case that he wanted to retain, uh, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation in all four services that is armed forces, police, prisons and traffic officers, and that in that case, he should vote for both [00:46:30] amendments. And I would take the leave of the house to put my amendment first because it covers all four. And if that is defeated, then go to Mr O Flynn's amendment and I formally move that way and take the pleasure of the house. If if it is the wish of it, if it is the wish of the committee that that that should be the case, we will proceed. In that way, we will now proceed then with Mr Bray Brook's amendment. The question is [00:47:00] that the amendment be agreed to Those in favour will say I those of the country opinion will say no, the I say, Oh, no, have division called four Ring the Bells one and a bill. I will go to the right so we don't put a friend of animal because the question has now been designed. [00:47:30] The question is that Mr Bray Brook's amendment be agreed to. The eyes are 42. The nos are 37. The amendment is agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. Uh, that that leaves the situation where, uh, Mr O Flynn's, uh, amendment has not proceeded with. It's [00:48:00] inconsistent. It's inconsistent. Uh, the question now is, uh, with respect to Mr uh, Bray Brook's amendment. This is one which, uh, appears on the supplementary order paper as clause 11. And it, uh, makes it clear that educational institutions can make and enforce rules about sexual conduct. That is the amendment which members are now invited to deal with. The question is that the amendment [00:48:30] be agreed to Those in favour will say I those of the kind of opinion will say no. The nos have eyes have a division call for Ring the Bells. The question is that Mr Bray Brooks, New Clause 11 be agreed to. The eyes are 45. The nos are 35. The amendment is therefore agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. Uh, we now move to Mr the Honourable Mr O Flynn's proposal [00:49:00] for a new clause. We call this 11 a in substance. The clause allows discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation by vocational training bodies in respect of the training of servicemen or people seeking to enlist. Question then, is that the amendment question is then that the amendment be agreed to favour. Say I contrary. No, the eyes have it. Have [00:49:30] it division call for Ring the bells. One A bill eyes to the right nose to the left. Tell us for the eyes, Mr Lee and Mr Ray Brook. Tell us for the nose. Mr Mallard and Mr Williston. Excuse people training for the armed forces. I'd like you to check those lists because the Prime Minister was here, and I don't know whether he's been able to vote. And it may be through some. I cannot see his name on the voting list. Where [00:50:00] is the bat boy? Thank you, Thank you. We We're just checking the list now. Right. Order [00:50:30] Right now. Speaking to the point of order. Order, order! Order! Points of order should be heard in silence, Mr Wallace, sitting in the immediate proximity of the member [00:51:00] whose vote was called into question and I certainly did not hear him vote on the voice. And I was considerably closer than the member for Oto speaking. I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, I was sitting and watched the prime minister very carefully. Order Order. When when the vote on the voices were called, the prime minister called. Yes, He then left the chamber. Uh, I. I don't [00:51:30] think there's any order Order. I don't think there's anything here that I can, uh that I can rule on, uh, the division's being called, uh, the the list to here. If any honourable member wants to examine the list, uh, to determine who's voted and who hasn't. The question then is that Mr O Flynn's amendment a new clause 11 a, uh, be agreed to the eyes are 44. The nos are 34. The amendment is agreed to unlock the doors, [00:52:00] unlock the door we come to Mr O. Flynn's further new amendment. This is, uh, a new clause 12. It allows discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation by education institutions conducted by the armed forces in respect of servicemen or people seeking to enlist. The question then is that the amendment be agreed to those in favour. Say I those in the country opinion will say no. The eyes have [00:52:30] it no have a division called for the question Now, is that Mr O Flynn's amendment incorporating a new clause 12 8 be agreed to the eyes of 44 the nose of 35. The amendment is agreed to unlock the doors. We now come to the We now come to the main question. Which is that part two as amended. Stand part The question is that the motion be agreed to [00:53:00] Those in favour will say a those of the opinion Say no. The no haven't eyes have division called for? Ring the bells, Eyes will go to the right nose will go to the left. Tell us the eyes, Mr Bray and Mr Lee. I beg your pardon? Tell us for the eyes. Mr Willis and Mr Mallard. Tell us for the nose. Mr Bray [00:53:30] and Pa, The eyes are 36 and 31. 21 36. Don't you know I beg your pardon? The eyes are 31. The nos are 49. Part one And part two will not stand. I will. I will report progress [00:54:00] and ask. Believe to sit again. The door! Open the doors. Unlock the door. The homosexual law reform bill has directed me to report. Progress has also directed me to move to leave to si again. The Chairman committees has reported that the Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform bill has directed [00:54:30] him to report progress and has also directed him to move to seek leave to sit again. The time has come when I must leave the chair and I will return to the chair. Uh, the the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
This page features computer generated text of the source audio. It may contain errors or omissions, so always listen back to the original media to confirm content.
Tags