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.
Of the tea adjournment. I had canvassed the question of the impact of this new disease of AIDS on the wider community and also the responsibility of this parliament to have a moral conscience on doing the right thing in the homosexual law reform bill to ensure that it does not become a plague on our society and having canvassed that and [00:00:30] other issues in relation to the removal of the provisions in the bill on the Human Rights Act, which I see as being premature in that New Zealand is endeavouring to lead the world in this field, I also see a need to raise the age for males beyond 16 years. The member for PATA is reported as having [00:01:00] said in the second reading that he felt that this was I'm sorry that he felt that this was male chauvinism. If we should have a different age for young male adolescents as compared with girls, I suggest there are three very good reasons why we should consider in this house. Raising the age first is that the physical and sexual development of girls is acknowledged to be at least a year [00:01:30] and a half ahead of that of their male counterparts At 16 Mr Speaker, girls have much more at risk in that if they wish to move, move into the world of sexual activity and also with the risk of pregnancy, they have an inbuilt deterrent to consider their position. Conversely, the adolescent male at 16, [00:02:00] he has nothing at risk. He is prepared to experiment. And if there is a propensity towards homosexual activities, something which I do not condone or encourage, then I do not see it as desirable within the provisions of a new law which will be put in place to make that legal. Hence, I will be supporting a proposed amendment by the member for Pendleton [00:02:30] to see the age in the bill raised. I will at this stage be voting against the second reading with the desire to see the human rights leg provision removed. And at this point, Mr Speaker, I could inform the house that there are other members and in particular the member for Tarara, who on these issues holds very parallel views to myself as legislators. [00:03:00] Unfortunately, he is not available. He's away on urgent public business, looking after some of the plights of the farmers and horticulture in this in in, uh, around the country, which this government has put them in in in a very, very difficult position. But as legislators, Mr Speaker, it is very, very easy for us to have a general criticism on a selected group of society. And while from our own particular perspective of morality, [00:03:30] we may disapprove of a principle or disapprove of their activities, I would invite the house to take back the responsibility. Each one of them has to a personal basis, a personal basis as legislators that while it is very easy to be critical of the individual or a group or a minority or an activity, But if you had a situation in your own family or personal contacts, and let me assure the house [00:04:00] that I am not plagued with that problem and I am grateful for it. If we knew of a close contact who has known inherited a problem of strong homosexual tendencies through hormonal or metabolic imposition, which nature has put upon them and it's not always corrected, correctable like many claim it can be, then I think it puts a little different perspective on our attitude, [00:04:30] whether we wish to make them criminals or not, Mr. Speaker, while voting against the second reading of the bill, let me assure this house that I intend to do what I feel is best. And I hope there will be some more evidence come forward on this question of AIDS and the further debate we should have, because it's a very, very important issue for the 33,000 people in my electorate and the 3.3 million in the country. We must, as a parliament, adopt a broad perspective in producing workable [00:05:00] and sensible legislation. And finally, Mr Chairman, if I can just give a short resume of one of the most touching letters I had from the many hundreds that have come to me over the term that this issue has been publicly debated. And it came from a woman in a very quiet corner of my electorate who said the finest man in the world that I ever met was a homosexual. I married him. I endeavoured to work [00:05:30] through a marriage. He has stood by me and done right through his whole life. But due to his orientation, we could never, ever overcome that difficulty, she said. I am now 74. She said don't make a criminal law. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all the members of the house who have so far participated in this debate for myself. I find it one of the most [00:06:00] pleasing aspects of this chamber. That on a debate on a social conscience matter, the quality of the debate usually rises and indeed has and that people can fulfil the democratic and constitutional process that the House of Parliament was originally designed for. And that is for individual expression of a democratic opinion on matters pertaining to the people over which they seek to govern. Can I just say to the member for Kai to whom I have listened, that I would urge him to change on the fact that he [00:06:30] would vote against the second reading of this bill? Because, in my view, the bill should have a second reading. So the very matters that he put before the house tonight could be the subject of committee hearing and and then at the vital stages of the bill Could the individual consciences of the people in this house really find their way into the voting chambers? and that though we will have a better bill, even in whatever shape or form, it eventually passes, because I'm sure some of it [00:07:00] will. We will have a better bill if it passes the second reading. And I'm saying to the member for Kama, for whom I have respect. And indeed, I say, as a member on this side of the government benches, I have respect for all the members of this house, particularly when they are voting on a conscious matter. And I urge him to depart from voting against the second reading of the bill. Now, Sir, I am speaking as a member of parliament but also as a lawyer with some considerable experience of acting for people [00:07:30] that whether God nature or something else designed in a different way or had a different proclivity in life on sexual orientation than perhaps mine or somebody else's. But, sir, I am reminded of the famous passage in the rabbit of over when it was said the nun will answer to let their spike a vessel of most ungainly shape. They sneer at me for leaning all What [00:08:00] did the hand of the potter then shake? I am the last person that wishes to be judgmental. I have thought not to speak in this debate, but I'm saying now that I am because I would have otherwise avoided what is the necessity that I owe to my constituents and the people of this country that I am forced to exercise a matter that I would rather not be brought before the house in this particular time. But I commend the member for Central for her courage [00:08:30] in putting it and making us exercise the conscience. Now, sir, I want to say to you, and I want to read into the history of the hands out here a little. The history of this this matter that prior, sir, to 9 to 15 33 the felony and the common law of England recognised no matter at all in derogation of what a person male or female wanted to do in a sexual orientation, [00:09:00] it was left to the ecclesiastical court. Later on in this speech, I am going to say that that's basically where we still are. But to the lawyers of the House and anybody listening tonight, who is a lawyer, I remind them that the law of this country today sprang not only from the historic common law of which the Anglo Saxons were proud, but from basically Henry the eighth's abolition of the religious aspects of the ecclesiastical courts. And so we found [00:09:30] that there was a bill passed in the 16th century that said that the abominable vis had been dealt with exclusively by the ecclesiastical courts. And now that the offence of buggery was to be made a criminal offence under the Law of England. Thus for most of the evolution of mankind, the people that have suffered from the criminal law at present did not suffer until the 16th century, when we brought it out of the roar of God into the law of man. Now [00:10:00] so I repeat to this house that it was only then buggery. You could do what you want between relationships after even that. And so long as it wasn't buggery which was defined as an act with an animal, a woman or a man. It was not an offence, but indeed, sir, following that act, if you did it, then you are entitled to be burnt at the stake and some people will or had been, I hope not well after this, And that's the some of the members that have spoken in this house really get their way, [00:10:30] or that some of the people that have visitors from overseas on the grounds that they represent on a moral point of view would have them do the same, do the same as we did in the 16th century. I am not one of those. The death penalty was finally abolished in 18 61. Consensual homosexual acts other than buggery remain legal. Total prohibition was only in 18 85 and one of the people that suffered from that act was probably one of the greatest literary [00:11:00] geniuses ever to grace the English stage Oscar Wild and in the famous action against the of Queensbury, well known for other pugilistic activities. But in acting for the love of his son Oscar Wilde, who wrote such things as The Picture of Dorian Grey, the Essays on Socialism, one of the great literary greats of our whole heritage, was in fact tried and died in poverty. The only thing I can say about it that if accident of nature and the criminal law can do anything, he wrote the ballad of [00:11:30] reading jail before he died and that itself. I view as one of the great literary masterpieces and heritage of the English language. Now, Sir, those acts came into New Zealand law after we became Dominion status. Frankly speaking, the act against homosexuals had only come in at a late hour of the period of Parliament when she moved an amendment to an act basically designed to stop the prostitution of women and young girls. It came into a law against us as an accidental matter, [00:12:00] aside from buggery and other things. What I'm saying to the members who oppose this bill is this that, fundamentally, the act of criminal homosexuality did not derive from the common law of England that we inherit our marvellous system from it derived from an act and a sin against God as it was seen by the ecclesiastical courts. I have no argument at all with the fact that some members of this [00:12:30] chamber, Mr Speaker and a lot of people in this country should regard it as an act against God. And God can sit in judgement when they have shuffled off this mortal coil. The members of this generally that they render under Caesar. What is Caesar's under God, What is God? And they do not exercise a moral judgement in a criminal sense against their fellow human beings. [00:13:00] I am no stranger to the Bible written in this version of ST James, your former predecessor, sir, in Sir Richard House. And I had tremendous respect for as a speaker of this house if I ever quoted the wrong edition of the Bible. He pulled me up later and said, Trevor, that's not the ST James version. But however, people view this criminal law today. It came into the courts because of an act against God, not against man and the criminal law. And [00:13:30] now, in much of the hula Balloo with which it has been attacked in New Zealand, we find that people regarding themselves as having the word of God on their side, and that, to me, is a very, very onerous burden. Indeed, I am not being jocular, sir, and I take I believe that the members who honestly believe that are to be treated with the greatest respect. I think the people that take that view may be right. I may be wrong, but it is not an onus As a member of this [00:14:00] house that I'm prepared to speak upon. At least I too should end up at the judgmental seat. And someone says to me that the greatest sin upon earth is to assume the burden of God and judge your fellow human beings when that is best left to the maker, when it is a sin against him. Basically speaking, sir, I'm saying that as long as they don't hurt anyone, as long as they leave the kids alone and that's the evidence, I couldn't give a damn what they do as long as they don't scare the [00:14:30] horses. Now, I am not being jocular in that fashion. I'm simply not being morally judgmental on my fellow human beings. Now, sir, if we decriminalise and I shall vote for the decriminalisation of this bill, I shall follow the member for Central through the lobbies. What I'm doing is re is removing from a criminal act of the in this country something that it has historically in all other sense been an offence in ecclesiastical [00:15:00] jurisdiction. Upon that, I offer no opinion. If the people in this chamber that think they're right, then God bless them. There's only one person that can tell them that. And I've had no great advocate coming back from the other side to convince me who was right and who was wrong. But I am saying I'm not with the people that I've known and I've acted for in the past prepared to say that what is right for a woman and was never an offence. And in England in 1921 [00:15:30] a private member's bill was brought before the house to make unnatural acts as it was called. And I'm not again saying what's unnatural. I am not a person saying what is normal. I don't frankly know what is normal or unnatural. I know what I accept within myself as a natural thing. I know what I regard as normal, but I have not the humanity. As other members of this house have to say that the view I take [00:16:00] on morality is necessarily so correct and so accurate that it must have the force of the laws handed down by God to Moses on the Mount. I have not that humanity, the member for Papakura says. What if it does? Then I shall be punished in another place, just as the other people here may be punished in another place, but not before the courts of this country, for an act which is permitted and legalised between women. And if it's good [00:16:30] enough for the girls, In my opinion, it's good enough for the boy. I am a person that believes in equality of the sexes. I know there are some of the women, the great compatriots in this chamber that don't think I display with the vehemence and enthusiasm that some of them do. But I am saying to you that I was brought up by a mother, a Scottish woman. McDonald was a name before she married Willie De Clean, and she drilled me on the fact that not only were women equal, but basically they were [00:17:00] superior. If you fought it out with Old Mary to clean, you survive and which makes me a survivor in this world. But the one thing she taught me and I learned at her knee was all people that walk on two legs and speak in a gut or tongue are human beings. You don't have to drink with them, my old dad said. You don't if you don't like them, have to be with them. But for God's sake and he use that expression, don't judge them. If the Lord is omnipotent [00:17:30] and created all people, then in fact, the Lord must, by definition, for those they created the very people that are attacked by some members in this chamber who is the sinner and who is the symbol, If that be the case, I'm not urging it as a matter. But my logical mind says to me that if the Lord is omnipotent, then he could have fixed all this up in one flash of a pan. Now, leaving that aside, it is not a matter for the criminal law, [00:18:00] I may say the 1921 act that was brought in or tried to be brought in in the United Kingdom, Jurisdiction to alleviate or to say that lesbians should be subject to the criminal law was thrown out on the basis of the Lord's submission that if you let women know about it, they'd be encouraged by it. Goodness gracious, me. Uh, advertisement has occurred in this country up and down. I'm not, in the words of Karen Hay, with whom I debated against Shad, [00:18:30] Bob and Scott and McCormick and in Karen's hay word. Not going to make it compulsory, I say to the member for Napier, who made a brilliant speech and the one I respected in this Napier and Karen Hay's own words again in the debate. I wasn't going to ram this homosexual law reform down my throat. I am merely asking for tolerance, and that brings me to the next point. Have ever I preached any doctrine to the democracy of this country. It is the doctrine of tolerance and respect [00:19:00] for your fellow human beings. The scenes that occurred outside of moral judgement in this house shocked me, turned my mind back to the Nazi members of Nuremberg in 1933 crap, someone says it certainly was, and there were brown shirts out there to prove it on both sides. The fact that people should line up in uniform, sing hymns, fly the flag and say, God's on my side. During the war, God was on the Nazi side. There were Christians there. [00:19:30] God was on the Russian side. God's on everyone's side. You can get out of the Bible. Any argument you can get out of the New Zealand law reports, if you're the advocate for it, but tolerance and mercy, I've always taken from the Bible. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to bring you into this debate, but I know you're a person a Christian. I'm not saying well, I am, but I can say this to you that I read incessantly. The fact that there is a virtue of tolerance preached to us from the word go. And I wish that some of the people that would Bible [00:20:00] Bash would simply look up the other quotations that can be got in differing ways. I find the fact that some fellow called Pastor Sheldon or something was he came out here, got his photograph on the front of the New Zealand Times, lounging back in leather tall, high knee boots with high heels, telling New Zealand women what they should and shouldn't do about abortion. What homosexual shouldn't shouldn't do about that. My word, Mr Speaker, I'm afraid they reminded me of an extremism [00:20:30] that is anti democratic and an intolerance that I will not have in this country. And if there's anything to be aware of in this debate, it is the fact that it's brought out in New Zealanders, a hidden thing that must have been there all the time. I do not accept the other side at that same debate. People on the other side of the fence had an extremism that in my view, should not exist either. It has brought us into a virtual war of moral opposition. All I'm preaching to this [00:21:00] house tonight and to the people of New Zealand is this that of all the great things in this democracy, it is that of Voltaire. I do not believe what the person says, but I will defend my life, their right to say it equally. I do not believe that the common law of this country or the statutory law of crimes should enter into the bed. What people do there with consent is a matter between adult consenting males for their business. [00:21:30] The fact that someone else should exercise a moral judgement, send a policeman creeping up a private drive to peer through a blind to see what was happening. To get evidence and I've had cases like that is to me simply a waste of time with the police force and anyone that's prepared to do that. I say it's just got a damn dirty mind. Because what I've always worried about in this fact is that the people that protest too much like Shakespeare, me thinks, have a lot to protest about. What particular conscience are they trying to serve in [00:22:00] trying to flatulate people that have a different point of view? Now, I as a lawyer, when I retire from this house or get booted out, whichever is the earlier will go back and defend the people of the ungodly I Joly call them but the people who have sinned against the law. But I do not want to go back as a criminal lawyer and have to defend people in a court that were minding their own goddamn business and their own goddamn house and their own goddamn time to use the Reverend Sheldon's, which [00:22:30] was brought by him at some expense to the people in this country from America. Now, sir, what I'm saying is that the New Zealand nation is better than that. Most countries in the world have decriminalised that I intend to vote for the decriminalisation. I intend to stick with the age of 16, not because I don't bear what the member for Kim, I said with some weight. But because in logic, I can't say what's good enough for the women is necessarily bad for the men. And if 16 has got to be the age of consent and [00:23:00] that may be another matter, then I intend to vote for it. I want to reserve my right and hear more speaking on the question of the human rights matter. But even then, the more I see that extremism and intolerance which has existed in this country, the more I'm driven to the fact that Sir, the only way to squash this matter entirely is to make it decriminalised size 16, and that people that walk as human beings upon this earth have the same human rights as anything anybody else. And sir, while [00:23:30] I'm not saying quite frankly on it, but the more we get into extremism, the more I've been driven with the logic of the legal mind to the fact that if it's not to be criminal, then people have a right to the human dignity of equality with everyone else in this country, Mr Speaker and Rising to speak to the homosexual law reform bill. I wish to commence by emphasising my respect for the sincerity of the arguments presented by both sides of the House. In particular, I draw attention [00:24:00] to the deep and profound sincerity of the concern on the one hand of the member for Haki in his opposition to the bill and on the other hand, the arguments in favour of the bill presented by the MP for CAP. There have been many other equally sincere speeches and I regret the way in which certain members have attempted to personalise and belittle the beliefs that are quite clearly, very sincerely and honestly held by other members. I wish to disassociate myself from the ridicule and contempt that has been reflected [00:24:30] by some for the 800,000 strong petition of those opposed to the bill, regardless of whether or not you agree with the objectives of the petition, The reality is that irrespective of even a substantial number of errors, it is a reflection of deep concern in society, and to that extent it deserves responsible and concerned attention, which it clearly has not had from some of the more radical supporters of the proposed legislation. I do not propose to attempt to [00:25:00] review in any detail the confused and troubled history of this legislation. Rather, I wish to foreshadow my intention to introduce an amendment to the homosexual law reform bill that will raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults from the proposed age of 16 to 20 years of age. This amendment will be supported by a significant number of my colleagues who believe that there is justification for a very [00:25:30] much more limited reform than the radical and over dramatic reform proposed by the member for Wellington Central and supported by many of her colleagues. I invite the member for Palmerston North to listen very carefully as I fear that he has prejudged some of our reasons for purely clinical reasons. We believe it is wrong to legalise sodomy from the age of 16, which would be a direct consequence of the passing of this bill. Regardless of the moral considerations, [00:26:00] sodomy should be strongly discouraged. Sodomy or annual intercourse is a very dangerous act for health reasons, and society has an obligation to attempt to protect the young from a practise that carries very severe health risks. It is clearly shown that the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases is very high for those who engage in sodomy. It certainly appears that the absorption of semen via the rectum could critically suppress [00:26:30] the body's immune system and so account for a particular for the particular phenomena of aid in the homosexual. Certainly it appears that the gay bowel syndrome, which together with the increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases may be central to the AIDS phenomenon, is occurring because of the unbelievably crude acts performed between homosexuals, which the general public appear to be oblivious of. I do not believe it is in any way in the public interest to [00:27:00] allow 16 year old boys or girls to be legally sodomised, even though they may purportedly consent to the act to pass laws requiring people to wear seatbelts, while at the same time allowing 16 and 17 year olds to be solemnised as a sad reflection of society's priorities in respect of health care. Accordingly, I believe that if people wish to solemnise one another, they should be permitted to do so only after they have clearly reached [00:27:30] full maturity and will have had ample opportunity to understand the dramatic health risks that such an activity involves them in Mr Speaker. For this reason, I believe that 20 is an appropriate age for society to accept that it is no longer appropriate for society to protect the individual from himself. By the age of 20 society ceases to be entitled to claim an educative role and must rather let the individual take his place [00:28:00] in society. Subject to all the usual constraints of consent and public decency, I now wish to briefly refer to the philosophic argument. I deeply believe in the rights and freedoms of the individual and respect the right of the of the adults in our society to conduct his or her life with minimum interference from the state. I accept that the state has the right to educate and protect the individual. However, I cannot support the continued imposition [00:28:30] of criminal sanctions against the adult homosexual, as I do not believe it is the role of the state to impose public morality on the community by enshrining it in law. Clearly, Mr Speaker, what people do in the privacy of their own home, however morally and physically obnoxious it may be to the ordinary citizen is their own affair. so long as the participating parties do so in the full knowledge and with the mutual consent of one another. Clearly, I believe society [00:29:00] has an educative role for strictly health reasons because of the uniquely dangerous, dangerous nature of certain homosexual acts until the age of 20 which is the reason for distinguishing homosexuality from heterosexual acts after the age of 20 society must accept the right of the individual to conduct his life according to his own particular personal values. We do not allow Children under the age of 15 to smoke or people under [00:29:30] the age of 18 to go into public baths. Likewise, for public health reasons and for the same reason, we accordingly believe that 16 is too young to allow sodomy to be indulged in. In addition to these reasons, I should also emphasise that I totally reject the argument that the present law should remain as is because it represents a constraint on homosexual activity. I accept that the present law is totally hypocritical in so far as we have criminal sanctions that [00:30:00] are clearly not enforced. I believe it is wrong to ever subscribe to a situation where we allow the law to be perceived as a token discipline. If we acquiesce and abusing the integrity of the law, then ultimately we bring the whole rule of law into disrepute. This may seem to be a rather too purist an argument, but it is another reason why there is a compelling argument for legalising homosexual acts between consenting adult males over the age of 20. [00:30:30] Accordingly, Mr Speaker, I foreshadow my intention with the anticipated support of a significant number of my colleagues to introduce an amendment that will raise the age legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults for the proposed from the proposed age of 16 to 20 years of age, and to further advise that we will not be supporting Part two of the bill. Mr. Speaker, a group of us who will support the second reading do so only to pursue the narrow reform I have [00:31:00] outlined. None of us support the bill as it stands. Judy Keel, Mr Speaker, For me, this is a very difficult speech. I feel that it's a speech which directly relates to my fellow human beings as to whether they are criminals or not. And I know that tonight I'm speaking for people who are personal friends of mine people [00:31:30] in every walk of life, many of them very ordinary working people, other people in the professions lawyers, doctors, policemen and women policemen. But women are involved, of course, in the second part of the bill with the removing the discrimination, teachers, trade union officials. And these people are my personal friends. And I know that for a very, very long time they have wanted this change in the law. [00:32:00] They have wanted a change for homosexual men that the law should be decriminalised. And they have wanted a change in the law. So that no longer will gay people be discriminated against in areas of their housing, their employment and various goods and services. I know that it is very important for them that this bill should be passed. I support this bill in its entirety. [00:32:30] Mr. Speaker and I come to to this position of support from a background, which is, uh, a traditional Christian one. I was brought up in a Presbyterian home. My father, a Presbyterian minister. I am a woman deeply committed to the welfare of the family. And I am a member of parliament who sat through many hours of the parliamentary select committees [00:33:00] which heard the evidence for this bill. In fact, I sat through every single sitting of the Statutes Revision Committee on this bill and three sittings of the Law and Justice Committee, along with the member for Hamilton West and the member for Well, for Wellington Central. I think I would have heard the most submissions and I. I am most impressed by the weight of submissions in favour of decriminalisation. [00:33:30] I believe the bill has had a fair hearing. Nearly 60% of the submissions heard supported the bill and out of the 85 submissions not heard. 63 support the bill and most of those people of Britain saying they're happy for the bill to be reported back and proceed through the house. Mr. Speaker, I believe the criminal law should not punish private consenting behaviour. It should only prescribe behaviour which occa [00:34:00] which occasions positive harm. This bill decriminalises homosexual acts between consenting male adults in private and I do believe that the law has no business to have any any control over what consenting adults do in private. The law should be concerned for protecting people from harm for keeping order in our society, where [00:34:30] people are doing something quietly in the privacy of their home, they are harming no one. This law does not allow the molestation of Children. It does not allow sexual acts in public. It does not allow soliciting. In fact, it strengthens the law against those who should seek to have a sexual relationship with a boy under the age of 16, putting a penalty of 17 to 14 years on that activity. The second part of the bill. [00:35:00] It includes those of homosexual orientation or perceived to be of homosexual orientation amongst those against whom one should not discriminate. It's very important here to emphasise that we're talking about homosexual orientation. We're not talking about homosexual behaviour. I fear that a number of people who have spoken in this debate so far are getting muddled on the actual provisions of the bill. In Part two, [00:35:30] there is nothing here about homosexual behaviour, simply about those of homosexual orientation or perceived to be of homosexual orientation. The bill is exceedingly conservative in this area, and it is strictly specifying the categories of employment, accommodation and provision of goods and services. Judy Keel, Linfield the North Shore and the member for Remuera, who seemed to have a very enlightened [00:36:00] approach to the problem of homosexual people. As far as discrimination was concerned, to look again at this part of the bill and to look at the submission made by the legal faculty of Victoria University that very clearly, I think pointed out what this part of the bill was doing. It is not prescribing attitudes. You can still think what you like as far as, um, as that goes. But it is talking about [00:36:30] discrimination against somebody's homosexual orientation and the provision of good service and services, employment and and their accommodation. And I think that it would be very important to pass this part of the bill so that people have to look again at the way they are discriminating against their fellow human beings. Mr. Speaker, homosexuality is not a disease or an illness, but a valid form of behaviour. The [00:37:00] Health Department, uh, submission, uh, very clearly stated this and I want to read briefly from it. The Health Department said homosexuality is no longer generally considered within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly, it has come to be viewed as a psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. This was given expression when, after 1973 the board of directors of the American [00:37:30] Psychiatric Association removed the classification of homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorders. This manual is increasingly accepted as the standard reference for the clinical classification of mental disorders, and it is not in that in that manual, Mr Speaker, the development of homosexual orientation is not a matter of individual choice. In the committee, we heard no [00:38:00] one cause of homosexual homosexuality, but it was very clear that in any given time or place, there appear to be approximately 5 to 10% of homosexuals. There was research given to the committee from many reputable sources showing this regardless of how homosexuals come to be that way, and regardless of the law, they always appear to be about the same number of them. Obviously, there are some geographic areas where the [00:38:30] the percentage is higher towards the 10% area in the cities in a small provincial town where social attitudes do not accept homosexual behaviour, particularly under the present law, you would not be so likely to get the higher percentage. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Health Foundation, the New Zealand Society and Sexology all gave very strong submissions giving evidence and research on these matters. [00:39:00] It's interesting Mr Speaker, to look at the law in other countries from the way some people have been opposing this bill. You would think that New Zealand was was leading in this matter. But in actual fact, we are following. Most other Western countries of our sort of lifestyle have already decriminalised or some of them have never had a law against homosexual acts at all. Britain decriminalised in 1967 [00:39:30] In Sweden there is the same age 15 for heterosexuals and homosexuals. Norway, 16 for both. France has the same age for both. I'm not sure what it is. Denmark 15 for both. Austria has has decriminalised at 19 federal Federal Republic of Germany. At 18. Italy has never had a law against homosexual acts. Netherlands. It's the same age at 16 for for for both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Belgium. 18 [00:40:00] for homosexual 16 for heterosexuals, Spain. It's the same age. I think it's 12. There are 25 United American states that have decriminalised in Australia. New South Wales has Decriminalised capital Territory 18 for both heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. South Australia 17 for both. It's interesting that South Australia, which decriminalised in 1972 has not had one case of AIDS. [00:40:30] Some prominent countries which have not decriminalised are the Soviet Union, Romania, South Africa, Chile and the Republic of Ireland. I think that speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, I believe that everyone has the need for to give or receive physical affection or to give and receive physical affection. I believe that there are some people who do choose to deny this need and become [00:41:00] celibate. But I do not see why that I do. I think this should be from their personal choice and not out of legal necessity. Homosexual males are members of families, sons or husbands. Mr. Speaker, I want to now address one of the one of the the, um, most common um arguments used against the spill that it will cause the breakdown of the family. Some of the people who brought submissions [00:41:30] to our committee were concerned about tension in a marriage situation where the husband turned out to be homosexual. They gave us, uh, evidence of suicides which had occurred in in difficult marriage relationships or where one of the family had, um the son and the family had, um, being found to be homosexual. But, Mr Speaker, I have to point out that that is under the present law. The very, very sad [00:42:00] thing that we have to face is that while we have a law which says that homosexual acts are criminal, that there will be many, uh, men in our society who will feel socially pressured to enter into a heterosexual relationship Judy many young men in a family situation who will feel that they cannot actually explain to their family how they feel different. And I feel that the member for very, very [00:42:30] um uh, exceedingly well described this problem when she explained the situation that had occurred with a friend of hers and when her son had actually ended up committing suicide because he felt he couldn't explain his lifestyle to his family. I feel that if the law is decriminalised, we are going to remove part of that problem. It won't be a change overnight, but hopefully social attitudes will change there and men will be able to develop stable [00:43:00] homosexual relationships rather than having the tension and the strain and the upset of trying to be heterosexual And it not working out, I have to say again that homosexuals are part of family, so there are many different types of families. I see nothing wrong in two homosexuals living together and setting up their own family life in a stable relationship. Surely that is better than pros, promiscuous relationships and on the and I would [00:43:30] like to say that in in my ideal society, we would actually, uh, be accepting of different cultures, of different races and of different lifestyles. The most frightening thing is to look back at Nazi Germany and to see how so many millions of Jews were killed. And almost, I think, at a conservative estimate a quarter of a million homosexual people were killed [00:44:00] under that regime. And when I hear the sort of arguments that are being made against that bill, I see the same sort of regime being encouraged where people's views are imposed where there is intolerance of people with differing lifestyles. The age is another question and point as far as this bill is concerned. I think it is difficult to sustain an argument [00:44:30] for a higher age of consent in a situation where two individuals are morally responsible for their actions and consenting to their actions. After all, 16 is the age of carnal knowledge for young women, and it is the age at which a young man and a young woman presently are allowed to marry. I believe that if this is the present law that we we should decriminalise homosexual acts at at 16 2 [00:45:00] another. Another thing that many opponents of the bill fear is the spread of AIDS. I have to point out, Mr Speaker, that the spread of AIDS, unfortunately, has very little to do with the processes of the law. You only need to look at two American states which have very high figures. Um, the rate of of, um, of figures for people who have got AIDS. One is California [00:45:30] and the other is Florida. But in California, the law has been decriminalised in Florida. It is still illegal to, uh, take part in homosexual acts. The law really has very little, um, bearing in that situation because, uh, the AIDS had come to that area before there were any changes in the law. However, as I pointed out earlier in South [00:46:00] Australia, where UM, the law was changed relatively recently and education has been able to take place in a more open way, there have been no cases of AIDS and I would like to congratulate the AIDS Foundation in New Zealand on the excellent work that they have done, um, amongst the gay community and educating them about the, uh, the dangers of AIDS and point to the fact that the statistics, um, recent statistics [00:46:30] show a great decrease in the number of sexually transmitted diseases. And I believe if this bill is passed, that education programme will be easier. Mr. Speaker, In the end, all of us must vote according to our conscience. But I would plead with members of this house to give this bill a second reading so that we can further the arguments on some of the areas where some members are [00:47:00] still uncertain. And I would plead with the member for Kaim Mai, particularly to to vote for the second reading so that his constituent, um who does not want her husband any longer to be called a criminal will have, uh, a a further chance for this bill to be passed. Mr. Speaker, how can what two consenting adult males do in the privacy of their own home have any detriment mental effect on society? I'm confident it will not hurt any of the [00:47:30] people I know my, my family, my Children, any of those that I love. I plead with this house to vote for this bill in the interests of humanity and equality. Yes, Mr Garth, Speaker, I, like many others, have carefully considered the evidence and arguments put forward on this bill, and it's my intention to support the bill in its present form. That is not a decision [00:48:00] that I have arrived at suddenly, as has as have others. I have given thought to the issues involved in homosexual law reform over a period of time, which in fact, predates this particular legislation. The issue was raised on occasion in my electorate over two election campaigns. At that point, I made it clear to my electorate that I would support a measure to reform what I regarded [00:48:30] and regard as outdated criminal legislation on homosexuality. This is not an issue on which the vote is taken along party lines. It's a so-called conscience issue on which each MP must exercise his or her own judgement opinion in my own electorate, as all others is divided. Inevitably, there will be people in my [00:49:00] electorate who will not endorse my decision on this particular issue. Unlike other members, I have not taken a formal poll of electorate opinion, I believe, and share this belief with the member for Tamaki that a decision should be based on the merits of the arguments and not simply by counting heads. An MP is elected to exercise his or [00:49:30] her judgement on issues. This does not imply at all that I have ignored or not listened to the views and opinions of all in my electorate. There are those who very sincerely hold an opinion that is different from my own. On this issue, I have answered all correspondence on the on the bill. I have willingly discussed the issue with anyone in my electorate who has sought to raise [00:50:00] it with me. My correspondence, in fact, reflects divided opinion correspondence initially was heavily against the bill quite some time ago. That correspondence has swung to be predominantly in favour of it. My electorate is one that has a reputation for its religious character. However, I must say that the majority opinion of church leaders and regular church [00:50:30] attenders who have spoken to me personally on this issue has overwhelmingly been in favour of reform in reforming the law. It's clear that by now parliament will be following public opinion rather than leading it Ha. Polls have shown consistently that majority support in this country is indeed in favour of reform. The most recent poll suggested 62% in favour [00:51:00] to 33% against, regardless of how the polls read. However, I would repeat the judgement ought to be exercised on the evidence and the logic regarding reform rather than simply on numbers. Fundamentally, the question to be answered by this House is whether personal morality can or should be imposed by law and the threat of criminal sanction. I do not believe [00:51:30] that that is the proper role of the law. I do not believe that the state has any role in prying into the bedrooms of the nation to determine what is acceptable sexual behaviour between consenting adults in private. Each of those words consent, adult and private are important. The bill does not legalise any behaviour which [00:52:00] takes place without consent. Indeed, it imposes strong sanctions against any person forcing their sexual attentions on an unwilling party. It explicitly prohibits and provides penalties for the exploitation of minors and sexual activity with young people under the age of 16. Exactly the same protection is accorded to a minor against homosexual [00:52:30] or heterosexual acts. I believe that protection should be consistently applied. Young men and young women should receive equal protection. Similarly, the bill does not allow explicit sexual behaviour in public. Homosexual and heterosexual acts will equally be governed by the same laws affecting acceptable public behaviour, as is currently the case. Indeed, I strongly [00:53:00] object to receiving through the mail from someone purporting to be a crusader for morality pornographic material regarding homosexuals sent with the suggestion that this is what will inevitably we follow the passing of this bill. That suggestion is inaccurate. I suspect it is dishonest. Nothing in this bill makes legal or acceptable any form of pornography, [00:53:30] whether homosexual or heterosexual. What this bill seeks to remove is a criminal sanction which subjects homosexual behaviour to a penalty of up to 14 years imprisonment. Such a sanction, I believe, is totally inappropriate. And I have heard no member in not even the member for Hauraki even attempt to justify the maintenance of such a sanction [00:54:00] on the statute's books or to have it enforced. World which attempt to enforce such an approach, are countries of the nature of Iran. In this country. That approach is totally out of place. If we as a country were to determine that morality was properly to be imposed by the criminal law, then we should, as they are in Iran, at least [00:54:30] be consistent. Lesbianism, adultery, fornication and any other act deemed to be by some to be immoral should be prescribed. They are not, of course, and nobody seriously suggests that they ought to be. As well as removing criminal sanctions against persons for homosexual behaviour, the bill also seeks to end discrimination against persons on the grounds of their sexual orientation. The orientation [00:55:00] of most people in our society is, of course, heterosexual. For most, homosexuality is not normal for a significant minority. However, a homosexual orientation is normal for those persons. These people have not threatened or harmed society or any other individual in it. To the best of my knowledge, they have nevertheless been persecuted, discriminated against libel, to blackmail [00:55:30] and often subject to physical abuse. There is, regrettably evidence that the emotional wave that is accompanied opposition to this bill has been again to encourage physical violence against homosexuals. Official sanctions against an intolerance of homosexuality has had profound consequences for those whose only offence is that they are homosexual. [00:56:00] People have been forced to live in the shadows. People have been forced to pretend to be other than what they actually are. The result has been unhappiness and misery for thousands of people in this country and for their families. Our society and archaic laws have condemned people to psychological distress. And as we have heard in this house in the course of the debate, sometimes even to suicide, others have been forced [00:56:30] to resort to what I guess has become a stereotype homosexual lifestyle. I do not believe, however, that promiscuity or sexual flamboyance inevitably reflect the aspirations or behaviour of most homosexuals. That may, however, be the lifestyle to which our laws and our society have compelled. Many opponents of the bill fear that acceptance by some by society [00:57:00] that some people have a different sexual orientation will threaten or undermine society. It is further argued by those people that decriminalisation may cause mass conversion of heterosexuals to become homosexuals. Neither point has any basis in logic or in evidence. Most Western Democratic nations have long ago decriminalised homosexual behaviour [00:57:30] between consenting adults in private. Those societies have not been transformed. They have not been damaged by this change. Nor is it true to say that homosexuality inevitably becomes more ostentatious through law reform. I have received warnings from some that New Zealand, if this bill is passed, will become another San Francisco. No evidence exists to [00:58:00] suggest that that city is any more a relevant model for this country than hundreds of other cities in which homosexual behaviour is not a criminal activity. What does stand out, however, is that those countries in which homosexuals are not discriminated against are the same countries whose record of observance of a full range of human rights and tolerance is much higher than [00:58:30] in those nations, often authoritarian, which retain criminal sanctions against homosexual behaviour. On the point about conversion of heterosexuals to homosexuals, I can find no evidence that homosexuality is a choice or even a lifestyle into which one can be seduced. The weight of scientific evidence suggests that sexual orientation is inherent [00:59:00] rather than acquired. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists told the select committee that there was strong evidence that the direction of sexuality in almost all people is determined at a preschool age of adolescence was likely to be a major factor in determining subsequent sexuality was not supported by the evidence. I believe [00:59:30] that no person should be persecuted or discriminated against simply on the basis of their sexual orientation. Clause nine of the bill, as the Law faculty of Victoria University told the Select committee, will not coerce people into accepting behaviour or activities of which they disapprove. The public right to disagree with or criticise homosexual behaviour is unaffected by [01:00:00] this bill. The bill, however, does mean that a person's right to employment to housing or to the provision of essential goods and services should not be affected simply because of their particular sexual orientation. I cannot see that even those opposed to this bill could oppose this particular provision, as many groups told the select committee in in terms of their opposition to the bill, [01:00:30] their opposition was to a person's homosexual behaviour rather than their homosexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, the final issue that I wish to refer to is the question of AIDS. AIDS is undoubtedly a serious threat to health and life, which our community must minimise and must contain. The primary way in which AIDS can be caught is by sexual contact, and [01:01:00] contagion so far is predominantly confined to the homosexual community. Clearly indulging in particular sexual acts and promiscuous behaviour increases the danger of the spread of AIDS. The answer to that problem, however, is not unenforceable criminal sanctions against certain sexual practises. Far more useful has been the education campaign [01:01:30] conducted by the New Zealand AIDS Foundation to warn people against behaving in a way which is unsafe. This campaign, and efforts by the health department to detect and contain AIDS are not enhanced by the current criminal law. There is far more reason to expect that the efforts of the foundation and the Health department will be assisted if the fear [01:02:00] of criminal prosecution is removed. The Department of Health told the select committee that it could not justify on health grounds the present legislative provisions regarding homosexuality. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this bill should be supported by the House in a democratic and pluralistic society such as New Zealand is it is not appropriate for [01:02:30] the criminal law to intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint. It is rather the role of the law to prohibit behaviour which causes identifiable harm to others. People should not be persecuted because of their sexual orientation, which, all the evidence suggests is something that they have been born with rather than voluntarily acquired. I [01:03:00] believe that the passage of this bill will be a mark of the maturity and tolerance which our society has achieved. Stay up, Helen Clark. Mr. Speaker, I have supported this bill from the time it was introduced into this house. And I have done so for reasons very similar to those outlined by the member for Roskill. And those reasons are that I fundamentally [01:03:30] believe that what people do in private by way of consenting sexual behaviour should not be within the reach of the criminal law of our country. I strongly believe that it is no business of mine, nor of anybody else, nor of the law. What people agree to do in private in this country, we have traditionally agreed, enjoyed a very great degree of personal freedom. And that is as [01:04:00] it should be, where the rights of other people are not infringed by our exercise of that freedom. I would never argue for absolute personal freedom to act without regard to the rights of others. No rational person would do so. But the point about the practise of homosexuality is that where it occurs between consenting persons in private, it infringes on the rights of nobody else in this society. Yet [01:04:30] for a long time now, our statutes have treated homosexual consenting activity as if it were such a heinous offence that it warranted the special attention of the law as if it had in some way infringed upon the rights of others who are not so engaged now. While it is true that homosexuality is regarded as an affront to the morality of a section of the community that [01:05:00] can no way logically be turned into an argument that affronts to the morality of some should therefore be deserving of criminal sanction, under the secular law of the land. And I think it is extremely important that when this parliament passes judgement on this bill that it should make a clear distinction on the one hand between what some in the community regard as a sin and on the other what is [01:05:30] a fit subject for the secular law of New Zealand and all that the enforcement of that law entails. Those who believe that homosexuality is a sin are of course, entitled to hold that view, and I personally defend their right to hold it. But what deeply concerns me and has increasingly concerned me throughout the public debate which has followed the introduction of the bill, is that some would seek to have the law enforce [01:06:00] their particular moral viewpoint on into the 21st century, as it has for the last 100 odd years. And I believe that in doing that we carry on a serious injustice. We seriously continue to impair the civil liberties of a minority in our society. We do have a remarkably free society here by world standards. We are free to practise any religion or ethical belief which we [01:06:30] like. We are free to follow any political cause that we like. We have a free press, we often curse it, but we wouldn't be without it. The world human rights guide rates us extremely highly on all the criteria which it uses to judge whether or not a society can be considered free, open and democratic. And along with the countries of Finland and Denmark, we enjoy a 196% rating on that index [01:07:00] of what is a fair, open and democratic society. The fact is that if we pass this bill, that rating goes up to 100% and by passing this bill, we remove what those seriously concerned with human rights regard as the one serious blot on our image. As it stands now, we are alone with Ireland in the Western world in continuing to regard male homosexuality [01:07:30] as a criminal act. The British Act on which our law is based was changed almost 20 years ago following on the acceptance of the Wolfenden report on homosexuality. It is time that we took off our statute books, a law which was passed in the British Parliament 100 years ago, adopted into our law a year later. And yet a law that was never intended to have the effect of [01:08:00] outlawing in total male homosexual activity. It was in fact, intended as an amendment put forward by a member of the British House of Commons at the time to protect young boys from prostitution. But the way in which the bill was drafted poorly without thorough parliamentary scrutiny led to the Commons actually outlawing all male homosexuality. It was a mistake then. I think 100 years is far [01:08:30] too long to have lived with a mistake like that on the statute books and surely, now, 100 years later, on the centennial of that, we can take the step to remove that block from our own statute book, Helen Clark of Mount Albert and in the public arena about the age at which it is appropriate to decriminalise consenting homosexual behaviour. At present, there is no age of sexual [01:09:00] consent for men whatsoever. As regards heterosexual activity, the law at the present time imposes an age of consent only on women, and that age is 16. It's an arbitrary age. Prior to the 18 eighties, the age was 12, the age of consent for girls in New Zealand, it went up to 14 and later to 16 in the 18 nineties. There's nothing preordained about an age of consent. It's an arbitrary judgement. [01:09:30] It's arbitrarily fixed, and it varies widely. Across countries. As other colleagues have commented, the age of consent has no bearing. In my view, on the age at which young people become sexually active, the age at which they become sexually active is more likely to be related to levels of sexual maturity and to peer group and lifestyle pressures. If, however, there is to be an age of consent, then the one [01:10:00] on which we have settled for round about 90 years as appropriate for young women is in logic, the one we should now accept as appropriate for young men. And I can personally see no logic in the argument being advanced by some that boys are more deserving of protection in this respect than our girls. Nor do I see any evidence to suggest that an age of consent of 16 for boys [01:10:30] could lead to their being seduced and oriented to homosexuality against their will and before they have a chance to make up their own minds and I think those who argue that way are poorly informed about the nature of homosexuality. We know that sexual preference and orientation is fixed rather earlier on in life than 16. No one quite knows why or how it is fixed, but it is probably valid [01:11:00] to describe homosexuality as a fundamental tendency in human behaviour, which will show up among a certain section of populations across all cultures. Some people will be exclusively homosexual. Others will be truly bisexual. Many will have at least some or occasional homosexual experience during their lifetime. The majority will probably be exclusively heterosexual. But whatever we turn out to be, we have very [01:11:30] little choice in the matter at all. And our sexual orientation will have been determined early on and well established by the time we are of 16 years of age, which I submit is a fit age at which to establish the age of consent. In this bill, I suggest that even occasional homosexual experience, even seduction, cannot make a blind bit of difference to the fundamental sexual orientation [01:12:00] of young men in our community. We are either predisposed to act in that way or we are not. Some have suggested in the debate, and we have heard the case again tonight that the community is not ready for decriminalisation at the age of 16, but that it might accept a higher age and ages of 18 and 20 have been put forward. I would put it to people who have argued that way that we [01:12:30] have a role as opinion leaders in the broader community, and we have a responsibility to do what is sensible in logic and to persuade others of the reasons why 16 should, in all logic, be seen as the sensible and appropriate age of consent. The Justice Department report on the bill gives some weight to that argument when it says logic and principle would seem to support a uniform age of consent for both heterosexual [01:13:00] and homosexual relations. In the absence of clear evidence that boys need a further period of protection in respect of homosexual acts, there is a logical difficulty in justifying a higher age of consent for homosexual acts, a logical difficulty. Others have suggested in the course of public debate on the bill, that decriminalisation of homosexual acts [01:13:30] may lead to an increase in the numbers of homosexuals in the community. I believe the evidence that I have already alluded to shows that that view could not be supported. People are either predisposed to be homosexual or they are not, and the state of the law on the matter will not make one iota of difference to that. People cannot be recruited or seduced into permanent identification with homosexuality. [01:14:00] But what a change in the law may well do is increase the number of people in the community who are known to be homosexual. It often amuses me when I hear people say, But I've never met a homosexual. Almost certainly they have. But those people have not felt able to express the fact that they are homosexual. Given the present state of the law, which buoys up unfortunate public attitudes towards [01:14:30] homosexuality in this country, many homosexual men and women repress their homosexuality because they are afraid to express it. For men, it is a criminal offence to do so. For women, well, it's seen by a vocal segment of the community as offending against social norms. Many homosexual men and women lead secret and unhappy lives because they feel unable to express [01:15:00] the way that they are some of them came to the select committee the day I sat on it in Auckland and told us what it was like to grow up homosexual in a society where litre legitimate expression of their homosexuality is denied. And we heard submissions orally, like this one from a male homosexual who said, as a teenager my life was confused, sad and frightening. At school, there were no role models presented, which had any relevance for me. My [01:15:30] peers proved Unmerciful at any suggestion that one's behaviour or sexual interest was anything other than that of a pattern determined by macho male role models of a type best exemplified by reference to film star heroes or famous rugby players. The total effect upon myself, he said, over an important formative period in my life, was the development of an extremely negative self image. Any list of adjectives I might have honestly used [01:16:00] to describe myself would have included sinner, abnormal, dirty, wicked and perverted. Such was the influence of my peers, societal mores, the church and the education system. And we heard similar evidence from a female homosexual who told the committee that through lack of information, confusion and social naivety as a teenager when she was brought up in a small country town. She thought she was the only homosexual in New Zealand [01:16:30] and thought that marrying and having a baby would cure her love for women, she told the committee. I do not want another generation with probably 10% of its adult population so utterly miserable. Last week, sir, the member for took exception to my statement in this house that the passing of the bill would help to build a healthier social climate in New Zealand. I stand by that statement now, as I did then. [01:17:00] I believe that our society is far less than healthy when it represses fundamental aspects of the identity of a number of our citizens is not healthy when it sends overt messages to that minority that their behaviour is disgusting, abnormal and indeed so perverse that it should be regarded as criminal. Our society is not healthy when it forces on people secretive and closet lifestyles [01:17:30] because of a fear of their expressing what they really are. I believe that we will be a healthier society when we acknowledge our differences, acknowledge that the preference of a minority is not a fit subject for legal or other persecution against them and accept homosexuals as normal members of our community of any community as they are entitled to be seen. I want finally to come to the second major [01:18:00] section of the bill, which would prevent discrimination against New Zealanders on the basis of their sexual orientation. Some members have told the house that while they accept the case for decriminalisation of homosexual acts, they are still unsure about the second part of the bill and I want to put it to them that, in fact, the second part of the bill dealing with anti discrimination measures follows on naturally from [01:18:30] an acceptance of the case for decriminalisation. If we accept homosexuality as a form of sexual practise, which is normal for a minority and not deserving of criminal sanction, what then is the case for saying that others, presumably of a heterosexual orientation, should be free to discriminate against that minority? The rights of the minority in that case are thereby [01:19:00] very seriously infringed. I suggest that we will have made little progress if, on the one hand, we decriminalise at whatever age and then on the other fail to take steps to discourage discrimination on the grounds of sexual preference believe it would be utterly wrong for this house in any way to imply by failing to pass that second section of the bill that it is [01:19:30] legitimate to discriminate by employers and landlords against people who are homosexual. There will, of course, be among homosexuals, good and bad employees and good and bad tenants. But there is simply no case to be made for blanket persecution and discrimination against homosexuals because they are homosexual and to refuse to employ them on their basis or to refuse to [01:20:00] rent flats to them. On that basis, the experience with anti discrimination legislation in New Zealand has been that over a period of time, it has the effect of lessening prejudice against those likely to have been discriminated against before those laws came into effect. In the case of women, for example, anti discrimination legislation has helped to build a social climate where [01:20:30] it is accepted in the employment field, for example, that girls can do anything that they are fit to be employed across a wide range of occupations. Similarly, we have found that our legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race or national or ethnic origin has helped to bring about a change in attitude and practise towards those minorities. I am personally hopeful that in the same way, [01:21:00] if we can enact anti discrimination provisions to protect gay people, that that will in the longer term lead to a greater acceptance of them and their talents and the useful role which they can play as citizens of our hopefully healthier society. And on that basis I would appeal to those who are still thinking of supporting the first part of the bill for decriminalisation and not supporting the second [01:21:30] to think again. Mr. Speaker, I support the bill in its present form as I believe the evidence before us and simple common logic compels each of us to do Rex Austin, Mr Speaker, every person who holds himself up for parliamentary office and [01:22:00] certainly every member who was elected to this house does so with personal gifts, personal goals, personal aspirations, ambitions and personal morality. Now the member may stand for the party. He may stand on the party platform, and he may espouse the party manifesto, and he may be elected on the party ticket [01:22:30] But as individuals, we bring with us our individualism. That is what distinguishes us one from another. And that is what sets each of us apart. And I believe it is entirely within that parameter, the boundary of indi individualism which will determine how each of us views this matter before us and how each of us shall cast his or her vote. [01:23:00] Now, sir, the nature of this bill, in my view, forces us to square up as individuals. And that is how I want to present my contribution a short contribution entirely as an individual, because I can in no way honestly assess, condemn or for that matter, praise other members. Nor should I make the judgement on them to do so in my [01:23:30] view, would be both presumptuous and wrong. So I stand alone on this issue and I stand against the bill. I intend to vote against every clause and do everything that I can to prevent the advancement of the homosexual law reform bill. I do not wish to be identified and supporting it in any way, and I do not want any [01:24:00] part or persuasion embraced by this proposed legislation. Mr. Speaker to me it is wrong. And if this bill is passed, it is my belief that this country will one day rule and regret the day it ever accepted and passed this bill into legislation. Now there are a certain distinctive [01:24:30] issues contained within the bill, and I believe the most important of them is the issue of human rights. It's to that issue that I want to address my my first remarks, the human right, which is interpreted by many and as I understand it by this bill, that every individual shall have an absolute right to follow each sexual persuasion. That's really the issue. [01:25:00] Now I cannot subscribe to what is an all embracing licence. I cannot subscribe to that. And while I admit that the sexual drive is a powerful, sometimes consuming element of human nature, it is nevertheless human nature and it cannot be disregarded. But I would also submit on this case, Mr Speaker, that boundaries, [01:25:30] rules, limits, judgments, disciplines and responsibilities are equally important, if not more so. And it is the duty, as I see it, of members of this house to set those parameters for our own protection, for our Children's protection for our family's protection for society's protection and indeed, if taken to the ultimate, [01:26:00] the country's and its people's survival. So was once a great writer, Kowski. He had what I thought was a profound comment to make in the foreword of a book he wrote called The Ascent of Man. This is what he said. Man is a singular creature. He has [01:26:30] a set of gifts, which makes him unique amongst animals so that, unlike them, he is not some vague figure in the landscape. Man has the ability to shape that landscape. Now, sir, I'm not going to go with the tide. I have got no intention of joining the Ballad of Convenience, and I don't want to drift. [01:27:00] I want to accept my responsibility for shaping the political landscape of this country. And as I see it, the encouragement of homosexuality forms no part of that landscape. I'm not going to step aside from my duty or acquiesce by default, nor am I going to make the mistake, I believe, of not accepting a moral judgement in this case. I see it as a moral judgement, a duty for each [01:27:30] of us to improve whenever possible, humanity to bring our personal gifts and ideas to make life more comfortable and more acceptable and proper for each person in this country. Now, those views, Mr Speaker, are well understood in my electorate. The people in my electorate know my views and I hope respect me for them. [01:28:00] Otherwise, I do not deserve to be here. I cannot change my mind on this issue. I do not wish to be persuaded against what is my personal, moral and personal conviction. Now, sir, as I see it, there's one other very important issue. The issue of homosexuality itself. The attraction of one sex for members of the same [01:28:30] sex and again as an individual. I am conditioned by my knowledge, my logic, I suppose. The environment I've grown up with both physical and human, my religious persuasions and convictions. The homosexuality tendency is limited, is limited and that that tendency was more or less consistent worldwide at 10%. [01:29:00] It's that 10% figure, which gives credence and authority to the belief that come what may not. More than 10% of New Zealanders will ever find themselves involved in the practise of homosexuality, Mr Speaker, from personal observation and knowledge, I find that figure and [01:29:30] that evidence false. I think it is entirely misleading and not to be relied on. We study the human race and the history of man. We find that among certain Polynesian nations, the incidence of homosexuality was reliably assessed at not more than 2% not more than two per cent. And if we traverse [01:30:00] even today, many countries in the Middle East, in the Middle East, you will find there the practise of homosexuality currently in some communities higher than 50% higher than 50 per cent. And I submit to this house that the incidence of homosexuality can be altered between two and up to 50% [01:30:30] in practise amongst men by the mood of the society, the environment of the society, the the acceptable practises of people, our people, Mr Rex or, for instance, to contemplate the 50% incidence [01:31:00] of homosexuality which is factual amongst certain tribes and races of people, for instance, some of whom practise the religion of Muhammad Um, In those societies, homosexuality is not condemned, it is encouraged, homosexuality [01:31:30] is enjoyed. Homosexuality is a and there are good social and environmental reasons for it. Renters, if you have the money in a Muslim society, a man can take unto himself legally with the approval of the church four wives simultaneously and it therefore follows Mr Speaker. It [01:32:00] therefore follows that the climate, the climate for homosexual practise amongst deprived males, is ripe for exploitation where the practise is approved. Now most of us know that I don't know whether we know the detail, but we're pretty familiar with it. Now. I'd like to go on and do one thing else. Order. If you read about [01:32:30] the Greek, the Roman, the early, uh, empires, you will find that the practise of seducing young boys was widely known and widely undertaken. It is still the practise in many Muslim societies today, and the climate is further enhanced because those young boys are given preferable social status. They win rewards and [01:33:00] they have on them conferred powers. Now this may seem a very extreme example. Widely divorced from the New Zealand scene, the only point I want to make is this Mr Speaker that it is possible to create environments in which the incidence of homosexuality can vastly advance on 10% and in the totally right climate can be as high as 50% [01:33:30] or more. I do not want to be identified with any law that opens the door to that promote possibility. I do not want to leave this house someday knowing that the practise of homosexually homosexuality which will come in abundance and I'm sure of that that I was a party [01:34:00] to it. I want to preserve the elements based on the Christian society in this country which preserve the right of Children, which preserves the right of the home which enhances the family. And I do not believe that this law will enhance any of those things. [01:34:30] It will undermine them and we'll do 11 further thing, Mr Mr Speaker. It will undermine the Christian religion. It will surely undermine the Christian religion. I don't believe in humanism. I do not believe in humanism. I don't believe we live in the world where human practise alone should should rule supreme. I believe that religion is so much a part of man that when he divorces himself from [01:35:00] it, he lowers himself. He exposes himself to practises which some would call evil, but which which for me, Mr Speaker, simply mean that man degrades himself I shall vote against every clause in this bill. I shall support one amendment. I shall support the amendment which offers me the opportunity to raise the age [01:35:30] of consent as high as possible. The reason I propose to do that is this. I think this bill will pass. I think that there are more people in this house who will support it and will vote against it to defeat it. And that is a day I regret very much. When we come to the vote, I shall vote for the highest possible age of consent amongst males because not to do so [01:36:00] not to do so would be to impose on young boys the age of 16 as the age of consent. Seems to me, Mr Speaker, that that is a totally regrettable action. I think there is a difference in the age maturity between males and females. I It does not follow logically to me that what is good for the young goose is good for the young. Ganna males mature more slowly [01:36:30] and if it is possible for me to protect those young boys and that is exactly what I will do. So I want to make a final plea. I do not believe that it is valid that because a thing happens, you need to accept it sooner or later. We all have must make judgments and we cannot, [01:37:00] as individuals divorce ourselves for a moral judgement in this house. I think that's why people put us here. I believe that the bulk of people in society expect us to be moral. I believe that the majority of people in New Zealand expect us to bring that moral judgement into this House. And as an individual, Mr Speaker, that is exactly what I intend to do. No, [01:37:30] Scott, I sincerely respect the integrity of the member. For Awarua, who has just resumed his seat, and the fact that we disagree so fundamentally on this issue is surely testimony to the need for tolerance and rationality of debate. The question of homosexuality as a social issue seems to me has in recent times been matched in the New Zealand public arena only by the Springbok [01:38:00] tour issue. In terms of fervour and division, extreme reactions, bigotry and the large scale absence of calm, reasoned debate, there are some interesting parallels. Each of those issues involved a widespread long standing and, for a large number of New Zealanders, a seemingly unalienable conviction. Firstly, that rugby assumes the place of Paramount right, [01:38:30] and secondly, that male homosexuals are puffs completely to be despised and outcast. I'm not interesting. There is a remarkable coincidence of opinion, which is pro tour and anti homosexual law reform bill among individual New Zealanders. Public opinion on both issues has has undergone large scale recent changes dramatic and [01:39:00] generating powerful lobby groups. The reasons which might explain this are worth looking at briefly. I think that basically it is a reaction to the over reaction from both extremes. I think it is a result of increased public discussion and education, and I think significantly that world opinion has finally expressed its pressure here. Remarkably, there is a totally different argument based presented by these lobbies, and I'd like us to look [01:39:30] very carefully at them. On the one hand, it is claimed that there should be absolute freedom for sports people to follow their favourite interests wherever they wish and with whom they wish. On the other hand, an equally total belief that male adults must be legally prevented from homosexual homosexual acts, even if these are between consenting adults in private. [01:40:00] OK, I have probably drawn the above parallel because it is so close. It so closely mirrors my own opinion development. For some years I shared the common law that rugby is supreme and that books is bad news. My change of opinion in both cases followed a conscious questioning of any reality. When placed against the wider social and international ramifications of the issues themselves. [01:40:30] The answer became to me a clear and irrevocable negative. I therefore stand now to support this bill in its virtuous entirety struggle, as individual MPs might, and those who have the gracelessness to sit in this chamber during such a debate muttering inanities might think a little on this struggle as individual MPs might. This [01:41:00] vote is a direct conscience one if ever they have, as MPs the relief or the cover of referenda, then those decisions will in fact not ever take away the conscience part. Anyway. There is no electorate machinery now, which adequately enables an MP simply to cast a vote, reflecting that majority within the Rio electorate [01:41:30] that I represent. Hundreds of opinions were expressed to and at me directly in approximately equal numbers. There were distinct variations between the rural areas and the urban areas and between the towns at different in different parts of the electorate. I openly acknowledge, and I sincerely do so that hundreds of humane and sincere people express strong emotions and [01:42:00] opinions on both sides and extremes of the issue. I really do respect their opinion and their right to express it. And I will not interrupt other people who speak as the member for Waikato Moana is trying to do to me right now. If they wish to translate their reactions antagonistic, if you ask the member on his feet to correct the assertion made considering myself, I have not interjected once on this member a point of order, [01:42:30] I withdraw. I will apologise to the member. That is so. I'm sorry for that. I think that generally have been tolerant of the members, even if they disagree with them. And I think that generally speaking, that is a that is the tenor which members would wish this debate to have. If members have an, uh, an a desire that they cannot restrain to interject, I suggest that they leave the chamber further point of Order, Mr Trevor Mall. I didn't [01:43:00] interrupt the member who was speaking, but I think it would be worth pointing out to you that the member for Foa Ray hasn't ejected from a seat closer than his own to the speaker. I didn't want to interrupt. I think it is important in a debate like this that tolerance is shown, and at the very minimum, members don't shift closer to do that. I'm aware of moving to the chamber, and I've been watching various members who are inclined more than others to interject as they move around the chamber. I'll say if I named him incorrectly, [01:43:30] allow me to say that in terms of the reaction of people in my electorate, I would accept entirely their right to translate their reaction into an antagonistic ballot box decision. And if they do so, I will not complain. I believe that the major petitioners against the bill have actually, regrettably, discredited their cause. The supposed 800,000 total signatures is an acknowledged question. [01:44:00] The public presentation I found to be a frightening enactment of things anathema to most New Zealanders. Even many who signed the petition have said so to me the inventive and the openly threatening demeanour and statements accompanying it were distinctly unchristian of order. Point of order, Mr Banks, I refer you to page 59 of standing orders in particular. Standing order 178. Offensive or disorderly [01:44:30] words. When any offensive or disorderly words are used, whether by a member who is addressing the chair or by a member who is present, the speaker or chairman should intervene. Mr. Chairman, I put it to you, sir, pursuant to your last ruling about orderly conduct in a debate that is a conscience issue being discussed by this parliament tonight, that if this member persists along using those kind of words strung into sentences against those good people who took those 800,000 signatures [01:45:00] and presented them to Parliament, I will get disorderly. And that's a promise. That's a promise. The member for Whangarei will not threaten the chair in that manner that is disorderly. If the member for wants to threaten disorder, then he will take the consequences of showing the disrespect for the chair, which that implies now, as far as he's gone. I don't believe that the member for Tori uh has, uh, encroached [01:45:30] upon, uh, the rules of the house, the rules of debate and the rules of good behaviour that that are generally required of members in a debate of this kind. Noel. Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's not my intention to do that. Anyway, Most of all, the exercise of the petition, in my opinion, largely ill legitimised many of the human concerns of 10 humane concerns of [01:46:00] tens of thousands of New Zealanders who genuinely wish to debate and present a point of view while constructively tackling an issue making, which requires an issue that requires above all else, rationality and humane decision making. These major petitioners eventually decided many New Zealanders that the threat they the petitioners, in some cases presented was even greater than that represented by homosexual acts. Homosexual [01:46:30] tendencies let me state clearly and irrevocably are a are as genetically inevitable as his genius, intellectual handicap or tendencies to aggressive excessive heterosexuality. Scientific and social research affirms this overwhelmingly. The natural range of sexuality is as total in bread as is that of intelligence. There is more than reasonable proof that the proportional distribution [01:47:00] of reasonably hard core homosexuals and excessively heterosexual males roughly approximate the lower and upper divisions of intelligence question distribution about 10% which is a reasonably normal distribution curve. I believe that society has tended historically to blame the individual for a quality or a feature which many fear or dislike or find themselves without. They'll blame [01:47:30] the victim trick, and you can point to ugliness, alcoholism, mental illness And for a long time in New Zealand, far too long. Homosexuality sections of our society have continued to wish to persecute those who are different to themselves. Homosexuals have been more subject to this than any of the other groups I have mentioned. The very existence of the present punitive law, which this bill seeks to change, proves that point [01:48:00] sexuality. Mr Speaker, is a basic driving human force, emotion and much more passion. That is the heat of this issue. Public expectations and assumptions of what is normal in terms of sexual behaviour are steeped in mythology. Custom religious conviction and straight mumbo jumbo is sexuality most commonly regarded as abnormal male homosexuality. [01:48:30] As our current law operates, acts of male homosexuality, even between consenting adults in private, are a criminal offence. The history of the attempts to protect society and such men, supposedly from each other, has been a sorry one in terms of the law, in terms of social impact and in terms of the social traumas involved in terms of the law. In terms of the law, it is honoured only, and it's being ignored. What possible justification [01:49:00] has such a law in terms of social impact? We have widespread hatred and division, and this very debate has exhibited just how trenchant and harmful these emotions can be in terms of personal traumas. I'd care to suggest, Mr Speaker that every MP's male and every MP's personal experience will have been touched many times by tragic individual examples. The sexual issue involved [01:49:30] is central to, but not the only component by any means of this debate and bill. Unfortunately, for many, the issue does not in any way seem to transcend the banal, the raw, the physical, the see me, the aggressive. They paint pictures and seem to delight in them, said this, because were these people able to view the wider involvements of social dignity and equity and most of all, basic tolerance [01:50:00] and even understanding and acceptance, the issue may then be publicly viewed with that combination of compassion and dispassion essential to calm and rational law. Making love is a much more complex passion and emotion than its mere physical expression. The sexual expression of a relationship is far, far more than the organic component, which gets so much attention in New Zealand right now. If the law is to invade the bedrooms [01:50:30] of the nation to put under scrutiny the whole question of sexual behaviour and act, then let it logically extend its purview to include heterosexual and female homosexual relationships, who is normal? What is normal is anal intercourse in heterosexuals. Acceptable research would indicate that it is apparently widely practised what is depravity to one deviance to another, Bestiality [01:51:00] to another is another's delight. What is normal is sex for procreation only, as some would have you believe. I'd care to suggest that the judges of that might have a little difficulty working out who was held to the law. Adults, I would contend Mr Speaker must decide for themselves what is for each of them normal. If there is infringement of personal standards beyond acceptability in terms of [01:51:30] force, lack of consideration, then let the individuals involved find their own solutions unless, of course, they need help and they need protection to do so, in which case the community must provide the support machinery. And I would suggest that by and large, that is available now. Decriminalising an act whether that act be adultery or blasphemy or act of male homosexuality between consenting adults that [01:52:00] is stating in law that is no longer illegal does not necessarily make that attractive, that act attractive of itself nor acceptable to others, let alone compulsory to hear some of the debate points made. One would expect that when such a law were passed, everybody would be indulging in homosexuality. The law must, as it does [01:52:30] now, continue to educate, to define limits, to apprehend and to adjudicate in order to protect our young. The protection of our young is is of great central significance to every New Zealander. I accept that and I'm certain that that is true of people of whichever sexual orientation there might be, I would contend, Mr Speaker, that far from impeding this vital aspect, [01:53:00] that I believe that decriminalisation of male as well as female homosexual acts between consenting over 16 year olds will allow a more balanced scrutiny of the range of indignities both homosexuals and heterosexuals inflict upon our young in number. Let it get it clear, and it's been made clear many times, but it's worth repeating. The dangers are much more from heterosexuals and that from relatives, [01:53:30] friends and close acquaintances. May I, in seriousness suggest that the attention of the people, such as the many petitioners who signed in great seriousness, this petition that they get directed at the social conditions and attitudes under which far too many of the above activities flourish? Efforts to isolate and deal with such activities must remain a high priority by [01:54:00] the police, by the social agencies and by the families involved, particularly the families involved. I acknowledge that the 16 year age division is controversial. I would contend as well, that so, too, would any other limit be available. No legal age limit will of itself prevent such acts anywhere near. Absolutely, you cannot. Just by passing a law and putting an age [01:54:30] on something, prevent it and make sure that it doesn't occur in terms of what you want. So speaker. The whole question of female homosexuality has been rather amazingly to me and far too conveniently ignored or its effects minimised. It is a question quite central to this legislation, both in terms of decriminalisation and more importantly, the danger posed by acts and threats involving those under 16 years of age and thus specified as being protected. [01:55:00] In this bill I support, after very careful consideration for 16 year old provision because of several reasons, and I must say that the arguments about the equality of sexes is one which counts heavily with me. I think, too, that the experience in New Zealand of the 16 year age of consent for women has worked demonstrably reasonably well. That is, at least there is enough public acceptance of it [01:55:30] not to have excited cries for change, and I suggest that there would have been very large scale and rapid cries. Were there the need? It would remove the unjustified legal expectation that you do not need to know or look after yourself until some later stage in life. The law will protect you. Maybe until you're 18, maybe until you're 20 or as now forever. Are we protected forever now [01:56:00] are we? The human rights question is to me the most straightforward of all. I believe basically that it is inhuman and unacceptable that we have laws which would discriminate, discriminate against any of our citizens on the grounds of age, sex, colour or sexual orientation. The basis of justice in all cases for all people must be whether they threaten or they interfere with others. Or they break the agreements and laws which bind us all. Not [01:56:30] just some A final comment, Mr. Speaker, there has been great fear expressed about homosexual teachers. Let it be clearly understood. There are already a considerable number of men that all actions of teachers or others or others which are dangerous or unprofessional should be dealt with decisively and immediately whatever their sex, whatever their religion or their sexual orientation. There are no justifiable [01:57:00] grounds, in my opinion, for human rights discrimination against homosexuals For that combination of reasons. Mr Speaker, I give this Bill Bill my full support. Thank you.
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