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.
Mr Peters, Speaker the member for To began by using some similar between the Springbok tour question and the question of this bill. He said that those who were opposed as those who support the Springbok tour were strangely opposed to this bill. I want to ask him whether or not he thinks the Converse is true. [00:00:30] And if he does or if he does not, why did he raise that issue tonight in a bill which is a entirely separate matter? The fact is that the overwhelming population of Tonga Rio his electorate, are opposed to this bill. But he's entitled to cast his vote on his conscience because it is the greatest and most fundamental principle of democracy, and I respect him for it. I'm not opposing [00:01:00] him on the grounds that he's out of step with his electorate. The fact of the matter is, he's in step with his conscience, and for that reason, those of us who have a different view are entitled to respect him and should do so. I want to begin tonight with the words of, uh, one Jeffrey Weeks in a magazine called Coming Out where he says, and I quote the law does not create public opinion, but it does shape and reinforce it unquotes. And so I want to pass on [00:01:30] and move on to the comments from the member for Wellington Central, who, when she spoke on the second meeting, said. These words all the Western world has done it and I'm paraphrasing what she said. All the Western world has done it or is doing it and so we should. And so the first thing that came to my mind is, Well, if that's the case, well, why don't we follow the economic policy? Why don't we follow their policy on defence, or is there something peculiar and strange [00:02:00] about this social issue? Which means we must do what they do but when we must not do what they do on issues of more paramount importance to a greater number of humanity, of greater number of humanity to follow the bent, the principle which used to which used to motivate the New Zealand Labour Party and its Socialist supporters. And then, she said basic sexuality is like being left or right handed and made then [00:02:30] the accusation that those who did not support this bill were prejudiced, biassed or homophobic. I have to thank her, though, because she did not repeat the accusations. She's previously repeated that Soloman Gamaa was merely practising a hostility code against all the analogy analysis of history. She made that claim and dropped it on the second reading, and I thank her for it. And then [00:03:00] she did not this time seek to identify famous men who are now dead and claim that they were what they were not. And for that she should. And the House should be grateful, I don't know. But I don't believe in damning people who are not here to defend themselves. And, of course, the member for Waikato, uh, for Hamilton West wouldn't know about that, wouldn't know about that. And then So she [00:03:30] asked MP S. And this is an imputation of the worst kind to look beyond their own vague anxieties. I mean, here we are expected to respect each other's points of view, and she, the promoter of the bill, asked those who do not support her view to look beyond their own vague anxieties, as though they didn't care who were not concerned about those people in their electorate who were supporting this bill. She said that we should [00:04:00] follow and to quote her words, the professionals and the experts. But I want to know. What about the ordinary New Zealander, the ordinary men and women out there? Are they not entitled anymore in our democracy and in our parliament? To a voice? Well, they're not professional and they're not expert. They're just ordinary New Zealanders, the salt of this country, but the people who have made this country and will always be the driving [00:04:30] force in our economic survival, she said. Sir, that research had showed. And this I do not believe because I sat on the select committee as long as she did more days than she did more days than cheated more days than the member who is interjecting now did more days than he did. And, sir, I know at the point of what I can handle him Speaker. Don't worry, I'm not a friend of fire. Any advice from any member, [00:05:00] including the member from Invercargill, the member from Hamilton West, will rise in his seat and withdraw and apologise. Mr Peters. She said that 25% of all men have had significant homosexual experiences and some redeeming feature, she said. Not all, of course, are basically homosexually orientated. The member for Hamilton West, of course, said that 60% [00:05:30] of men have 50% have had homosexual experiences. I wanna say to men and women in this house who are of my age that I believe I have knocked around as many and as more times as any of them. And I don't believe that research and what's more on analysis scientifically, they cannot substantiate such a claim in this house. He and she know that. And if the argument is meritorious, then why [00:06:00] falsify it? Why falsify it? She then went on to quote further further evidence before the select committee and for that reason, sir, because they seek to quote evidence, I want to analyse the history of that select committee because the fact of the matter is that first of all, we had a petition, and the most outrageous claim I heard was that the man of Marsden Point, the men [00:06:30] who have had a strike record of independence against their own union and the FOL in this country unparalleled were being strong armed into signing the petition. That's what she said in May of this year. I am asking this question. If the argument for the bill is so meritorious, why falsify the facts? And here we find that men at Marston Point, according to the member for Central, are being [00:07:00] frog masked into the place where the petition is being held and to silence and then share. The history of this bill before the committee is that in May of this year there was a by-election, and accordingly, because it became politically embarrassing, the committee's hearings were adjourned, postponed and deferred. If the arguments for this bill are so meritorious, [00:07:30] why was the select committee of this house being fiddled with and manipulated? It's for them to answer the question. Not for those of us who have a different view on the bill. It's for them to answer the question. If the arguments for the bill are so cogent, powerful and ever convincing, and the majority of New Zealanders, according to her words, are for it, why then was the committee being manipulated on this bill? And [00:08:00] sir, it does not improve because there's a logic to my argument. I don't care what side of the issue on the logic if you're in support of the homosexual law reform bill and you believe it's meritorious. The logic lies with the facts, not with somebody's human political behaviour. We have the member for Hamilton West on the 18th of September 18th of September, writing to all government MP S No Hamilton West, [00:08:30] 18th of September. Writing to all government MP S He was then the chairman of the Select Committee to hear it and he wrote to a page and a half opposing the petition to come before that committee did ever anybody acted so impartial. Biassed and Predis, the chairman of the committee, I say again that the arguments in support [00:09:00] of this measure are so cogent, powerful and meritorious. Why did people act in such a fashion? Why did they pervert the parliamentary process of this country? The Select Committee Democratic president of this country? If the bell stood on its own mirrors, let them get tonight, Let them answer the allegations. Not me, because I'm motivated for reasons which may not on [00:09:30] the face of it appear apparent to many people. I'll explain before I finish the night. Why? Because to Winston Peters, it holds a matter of my backbone and the need to survive. And then, while the member for Mount Eden might laugh. But I assure him, I assure him that if medical science does not find a remedy for what we face, he will not laugh at two years time. [00:10:00] And if he's got any conscience, he may feel a sense of responsibility. And then, sir, I was on the select committee as the matter came up for consideration. Or rather, should it come for consideration, they saw they sought then, sir, to pervert the parliamentary process. The there was no consideration of the matters before the committee as they should have been. Expert witness [00:10:30] on the final evidence was not called, and the committee was shut down, shut down in respect to a matter that had brought more interest than any other that this country has ever seen. Shut down. And I don't say on a party vote. I didn't make that allegation, not on a party vote. But I say to the member for, uh, Napier that some people have rudely dealt with the support, [00:11:00] uh, and with the background of his party, and that's a fact. Now, sir, the member, the deputy Prime minister when he was on talking about the Select Committee process process, did this on select committees that they that he will give them more power, that they will be able to initiate their own inquiries. These select committees minority reports will be permitted. [00:11:30] And, he said, we also need a real opportunity for select committees that is for the public to participate in the making of public decisions. The deputy prime minister said that the paragon of constitutional virtue from Christchurch said that the man who once used to give lectures about it said that and he's having to sit here tonight knowing that what I'm saying is true know it all happened the way he said it would not happen. [00:12:00] And he's not a mutter, not a murmur, not a word of protest from that man. We need a real opportunity for the public to to participate in the making of public decisions. Well, sir, 800,000 New Zealanders sign a petition. I don't care whether 100,000 are wrong, false or fraud. That petition, sir, warranted due consideration, and it receives a no recommendation [00:12:30] vote. Good girl. Point of order. Trevor Mallard, point of it's my understanding, sir, that the select committee decision on the petition has not been reported to the House. And I asked whether the last comment was there for an order. Well, I think, uh, that the that the point is well taken. Um, the the member, uh, is debating the principles of the legislation. And I think that he tied what he had to say in reference to the petition to [00:13:00] to what, uh, what he perceived as being a principle, Uh, in respect of of the handling of the legislation. Um, I'd have to ask him, though, to confine his remarks to reflections upon the principles and not what's happening in the select committee yet to report back. Mr. Principle, I'm talking about tonight, sir, is survival. It's a principle which has not been addressed by many people in this house. And I don't believe by the looks of things that ever will. But [00:13:30] if I am wrong, I will be very happy. But if I am right, it won't be on my conscience. It won't be on the conscience of people who feel like me tonight, but it will be on the conscience of those who could not face the facts and the issues before them would not, and they serve will live to regret that day. But I hope I'm wrong. You see, sir, I, uh, got a letter from the Lincoln College Student Association, as I did for many others [00:14:00] supporting and total this bill and I wrote back to her a lady called Kirsty Burnett. A woman called Kirsty Burnett. And I asked her, What survey did she do in her university to back up her Her university studentships total endorsement of this bill. And I'm still waiting for a reply. 28th of May. I'm still waiting for a reply. Wellington Victoria University wrote to me and I founded in a survey of 5% of their studentship [00:14:30] still waiting for a reply as to how can they possibly demean the democratic voice of the institution, make claims which are totally false, And we still so for applied as to what the public of this country feel. And I'm still appalled that the Highland poll claims to have done analysis on the in this country of how New Zealanders feel when they know full well and everybody who's ever studied political [00:15:00] science in this country know full well that their analysis was totally unscientifically. Why did they not put before the people in their question the full issue of this bill? Why are they not doing it? Was there somebody who sought to pervert the public voice in favour of this bill? So I am drawn inexorably to that conclusion. No mention in the head and fall of the human rights provision or part two of this bill whatsoever. [00:15:30] And they claim to tell me that the public feel a certain way. I don't say to them simply this. I have got here a survey of the Tauranga electorate, the one that, uh, supports me. It says that the number of people signed the petition total 15,721 and if they are 50% wrong. Not that I am minded, As I said to the member of Rio, how on a conscious issue, the electorate thinks because in the end you must live up with your own conscience. [00:16:00] About 15,721 people signed their petition in my electorate, and a member opposed to me said that I live in some frequent, cranky crack electorate Mr Winston Peters the issues which concern me before I close because it's a brief speech. But sitting on the committee in submission four and six, the leading witness said that he saw nothing wrong with nothing wrong with homosexual marriage nor adoption, [00:16:30] that he would not go along with any laws preventing homosexuals from giving blood. And I was appalled at that and that he would be disturbed if Educationalist promoted heterosexuality. Sex Equality Advisory Committee will cop the group of lesbian and homosexual teachers to present the policy paper at next year's conference. That's the hidden agenda that's a hidden agenda. But [00:17:00] the Australian agenda. For those who think that's a joke, the Australian agenda, which is likewise the agenda here from Tim Tim Mul of the Australian Paedophile Support Group, is quote. The Australian community seems unwilling or unable to make a distinction between paedophilia and child rape. Can we develop a radical course of action to throw off the accusation that gay people are child molesters, fight the problems of rape and [00:17:30] accept paedophilia as a viable sexuality unquote Tim Mult of the Australian Paedophile support group I. I'll have to draw the attention of people in the gallery. They are not, uh, order, order, order. Uh, they're not part of the debate. And, uh, therefore, it's not in order for them to register any form of reaction. [00:18:00] Um, so I would I would I would have to say to them that, uh that what they are doing, um, is not an order. And, uh, they they won't be allowed to stay if that continues, uh, for the member, for order. If the if the member just for the moment, it is not, of course appropriate for any member to address the gallery either. Mr. Peters? Uh, two minutes. If it doesn't stop there. This is the next quote. Childhood is the last bastion of patriarchal capitalism, [00:18:30] and we must take up the struggle. Same group. Childhood is the last bastion of patriarchal capitalism, and we must take up the struggle. So I believe to conclude that we sit on a medical holocaust and it requires a response, an answer and a solution. Long before we address the concerns of this bill. I know that Dr Goldwater, who recently spoke [00:19:00] in respect to an AIDS conference in Atlanta, doesn't agree with me as to the measures But he said that we face in this measure our Holocaust, to match the nuclear Holocaust. The only one that was more paramount was the nuclear Holocaust. I find, sir, that 1000 people have got AIDS in Australia already. Current evidence, The member for London Central said that we must go to San Francisco and see well, people have been so. And I find that increase in [00:19:30] sex in sexual diseases in San Francisco is up 2400% since the liberalisation of this measure in that city. She cannot deny it. Those are the facts I say I find from a report which is not mine, but from the homosexual community itself that deaths in America. New York City 3415 San Francisco 1141 as of 22nd April 85 both cities who have no laws against [00:20:00] this measure and then I find that AIDS becomes the top killer in New York on the 16th of August this year. Top killer in New York on the 16th of August this year. At the end of the day, Mr Speaker, it's the duty of every member of parliament to prevent a preventable evil, and aid is still for every New Zealander, a preventable evil. The passage of this bill within two years, if overseas evidence is an [00:20:30] indicator, will in New Zealand be the number one medical problem, some will say that sexual hedonism is more important. Others will say that the greater public good lies and giving in to to sympathy and to fine feelings. Mr Mr Speaker, I was amazed to find the previous speaker commenting on my responding to his speech because I was, in fact sitting with my pen, poised [00:21:00] to write down anything that he said that had anything to do with this bill so that I could reply to it and the pad is still empty. This is basically a matter of basic human rights. The ability for us is mature adults to allow other mature adults to express sexual activity that is basic to their own nature. It is a question of [00:21:30] the right to develop and express the intrinsic nature of one's person. It is the ability to be able to give and to receive affection from others. It is a question of ensuring that there is equal access to the provision of basic needs, such as employment and accommodation to all people. [00:22:00] I find it quite amazing to hear the previous speaker suggesting that the passage of this bill is going to bring on a Holocaust in the collapse of human civilization. Most countries in the world have treated in law in the role of the state, heterosexual and homosexual acts equally for a very long time. [00:22:30] In the case of Spain, for instance, which has allowed both heterosexual and homosexual acts from the age of 12 for the last 150 years there is only 1/10 the incidence of AIDS in the population than there is here because people are able to seek and gain basic information and education and responsiveness regardless of their sexual orientation. [00:23:00] We've had suggestions about, uh, promoting paedophilia, which is nonsense. Not in this bill. We've had suggestions that in the Middle East, 50% of the people are homosexual, and the only reason given for it was that they are allowed four wives each. There is nothing in this bill to allow people to have four wives, and in fact, Muslim Muhammad and teachings [00:23:30] are very much based on the Old Testament they prescribe homosexual acts just as strongly. And Iran, for instance, the penalty for homosexual acts as death i B. It's got a great deal to do with some of the comments that have been made on this bill. The basic point is that about 10% of a population, regardless of their criminal structure, their [00:24:00] social structure express naturally a homosexual orientation. We had clear evidence from the Department of Health submissions quote. Homosexuality is no longer considered, with the men within the medical and other health professions to be a disease. Increasingly, it has come to be viewed as a normal psychosexual variant, one of a number of possible sexual orientations. [00:24:30] The then go submission then went on to state from the health Department that an essential and integral component of mental health is the individual sense of identity and self esteem and his or her perceived value in society. This position underlies the frequent observations made in clinical practise that the major causes of mental distress found among some persons of homosexual orientation derived not from that orientation itself, [00:25:00] but from the attitudes of the wider society and the laws which give them expression. The US National Institute of Mental Health, noted that the problems facing many homosexuals are caused by the need for concealment and the emotional stresses arising from the appro of being in violation of the law. We have in fact very strong evidence [00:25:30] that the homosexual orientation, just as the heterosexual orientation is formed in very early years of life and that it is not a matter of choice for the individual, the it is something like left handedness developed early in life and perfectly normal. And I think it is ludicrous to suggest that something which [00:26:00] is common to all societies is not normal, and to then go on to deny legal acceptance and legal rights to those who differ from us in only disrespect when it is not causing harm to others is quite ludicrous, grossly unfair and showing a lack of respect. I There's [00:26:30] been much argument about the question of of lifestyle and I think the emphasis, the description in some ways of homosexuality is the alternative lifestyle in fact derives from the obsession with sexuality, which many in our society have. It is in most cases only the sexual component of their life that is different, and even in that the way in which the methods in which it is expressed are [00:27:00] in most cases, the same as for heterosexuals. They yeah, the suggestion that one's sexual orientation can be changed or determined by deduction or race or rape is as ludicrous for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals. There is clear evidence in this matter that such events [00:27:30] do not change the basic sexual orientation and may in fact, of course, leave permanent scars in terms of expressing sexual activity at all. But the point is, and it's clearly shown that the attraction to sexual activity with people with Children is a illegal and harmful variant as common among homosexual as as homosexuals and [00:28:00] heterosexuals. To the same relevant degree, the question really arises. Is the human right to be able to express affection and an emotional life for all people rather than a continuing persecution for a characteristic over which people have control a question of mutual respect and acceptance [00:28:30] for people as people and the right to full participation in life? And this is the stand which I believe members of parliament should take on the evidence and on what is right or wrong, alright, when I stood for Parliament said quite clearly that I would support reform of the law that would ensure that homosexual and heterosexuality [00:29:00] were treated the same in law. In terms of the response from my electorate, I have received 953 letters from my constituents in favour of the change and only 100 and 76 against the change. And of those 953 in FAVOUR, 930 were in favour of the whole bill, including the age of consent, the same as for heterosexuals [00:29:30] and the provision of the human rights clauses in the petition that was carried out against the homosexual law reform law. Those signed by many people on the basis of their sincere belief is a fatally flawed document. In many respects, the suggestion made by the previous speakers that [00:30:00] people on Mars than point would not, uh, succumb to this sort of pressure is in fact, and he would know it misleading. The macho attitudes prevalent in our society mean that that is exactly that sort of pressure to which the workers on Marston Point could not stand up to, and I have had letters of similar pressure applied. A woman, [00:30:30] terminally ill in a hospital in my electorate was pressured to sign the petition by her nurse, and in those circumstances where somebody was totally dependent, that was a gross invasion of her, her privacy and her rights, he argued. The point finally did not sign the petition and died within 24 hours. I urge members of Parliament who may be considering [00:31:00] voting against the second reading of the bill because they are not yet convinced of the right of some parts of it, should let it go forward because there is clearly a need to change from a law which sentences to lengthy terms in prison. People who are carrying out activities basic to their nature and what may be regarded as a sin against God cannot be regarded [00:31:30] as something for which such severe penalties should be provided. In the law of this nation. There is a desperate need for change, and I urge members to vote for this reading and then to consider which is the appropriate amendments or type of vote to take at a later stage. The one of the key questions, of course, is the implications for the physical health of people, [00:32:00] Mr Richard nor the Eden. A quote from the Department of Health submission again and physical health problems can result from promiscuous sexual behaviour in both homosexual and heterosexual persons. By contributing to the speed of the spread of sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis, it should be emphasised that it is the promiscuity rather than the sexual orientation, which is the crucial factor determining the transmission of [00:32:30] such diseases. And the best way of reducing such practises is through effective education in a non coercive environment. The December 1984 uh edition of the expert public publication Sexually Transmitted Diseases, has found that there are a lower proportion of most sexually transmitted diseases among homosexual [00:33:00] men than among the populace generally, and that this had arisen because they are in fact intrinsically no more, um promiscuous and careless in their sexual activities than were other members of the population. And of course, the publicity about AIDS had effectively reached that population in an area where that activity is legal and [00:33:30] the proportion was dropping very rapidly. Among that population, the extent to which promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities occur is related to the nature of the law and to myths around the issue and the myths which have been expressed in this parliament tonight about different levels of activity and in other countries is related to those myths rather than to reality. The [00:34:00] with respect to the issue of AIDS. World experts, ill AIDS have made the following comments, Dr Pearl Maher, the chief of clinical microbiology in New York, said. Quote New Zealand's laws and conservative attitudes against male homosexuality are a major problem in trying to combat AIDS. Doctor David Miller, a clinical psychologist and a leading researcher into AIDS prevention, said in Auckland in January this year, [00:34:30] Quote, The single most helpful action the government could take is to legalise homosexuality. I must state that the AIDS Foundation and also the gay community in New Zealand have done a tremendous job in effectively educating, educating the openly gay community about prevention and about safe sexual practises. The problem is in the education and the information getting to those practising homosexuals [00:35:00] who keep their activity and orientation secret and who also take part in heterosexual activities, often within a marriage situation and who will, unless the law and social attitudes change to an extent will spread AIDS into the heterosexual community unless changes are made. What must be prevented are promiscuous and dangerous sexual activities, whether homosexual or heterosexual. If [00:35:30] the spread of AIDS is to be prevented in this country, the um next point I'd like to make is regards to the the question of the attitude which has been expressed that homosexuality is an inferior sexual activity because the length of relationships is less [00:36:00] the and the and the suggestion that more promisary activity is engaged in. And yet these are caused very much by the legal situation and if the legal situation was changed. Those who are concerned to preserve families, whether the traditional family or a family that could be, um, consists of a stable homosexual relationship that it is the change in law which will, um, secure those [00:36:30] relationships to be both more lasting and greater in depth. We had many distressing examples given to us in evidence to the committee about the effects of homosexuality in marriage, about one woman who found found out for the first time that her husband was a homosexual when she was run from the police station and told of the activity for which he'd been arrested. [00:37:00] Another who sends her child to a special school outside her neighbourhood in order to endeavour to prevent their fellow uh, pupils describing their father is a criminal and a pervert. There is quite clearly a need to support a change in the law. Having token laws is bad for respect for the law. In general, [00:37:30] the age ought to be the same for both homosexual and heterosexual activities and for boys and girls for several reasons. One, The attitude has been clearly implied that boys are somewhat more special than girls and need protection for a longer period of time. I reject that the sexism inherent in that statement. I am concerned that if the age was raised to 20 the dilemma of the young person [00:38:00] uncertain of their sexual identity and their ability to seek counselling and advice would be would be greatly reduced, even beyond the situation now and given the harm that it would be done to that group at a time when people are at their most vulnerable. I'm not sure how I would vote if the age were in fact raised, so that group were not given protection. The human rights aspect also is [00:38:30] vital to this, and there are some misinterpretations about it. The law quite clearly says that people can still say whether or not they are in favour of homosexuality or even whether they regard it as a mortal sin. People will still be able to discriminate in the choice of people in terms of employment on the basis of their sexual activity. The law deals only with the question of their sexual orientation. And that is something, as I said, which [00:39:00] is not determined by the person is intrinsic to them as the colour of their skin or their sex. And it is essential if public attitudes are to be changed. And if real protection is to be given to these people to play an equal role in society, then that law also must be changed. Mr. Speaker, I urge Parliament to pass the second reading of this so that the degree of reform that is needed [00:39:30] in this area can be carried out. Uh, yes. Uh, Mr Mr Story, when this bill was introduced to the house, I voted against it. A large number of people have written to me and asked Why did you vote against this bill? Let me answer that question. My answer has been that I voted against this bill because of the method by which [00:40:00] it was introduced to the house and the timing of its introduction to the house. I voted against it because I believed it was introduced by the private member, the junior government whip, with the four connives in support of the government as a useful diversion from the very serious matters affecting our economy and our deteriorating position within the world family of free developed nations. Mr. Speaker, [00:40:30] I voted against the bill because I objected to the way in which a measure which was studied at great length in Britain, was brought before the house with very little expert opinion. A bill which was sifted, examined, considered, went to a royal commission and then came back to the parliamentarians who are already laymen elected to make laws, then [00:41:00] came back to the parliamentarians with a body of expert opinion upon which they could rule. And I believe and I still believe, Mr Speaker, that that would have been the proper and correct course of action to take for this proposal in this situation and if that course of action had been taken, Mr Speaker, much of the damage which has been done between the homosexuals and our community and the heterosexual community, the rift which is developed [00:41:30] and which is not going to go away, no matter how we vote on this bill, I believe that that could have been avoided, Mr Speaker, and I believe it still could be avoided. Mr Chairman, if the matter was referred to a royal commission, then a real opportunity would be given for the many people who are not able to have their submissions heard. But more importantly, it would have also enabled some people who are experts in particular fields of knowledge which [00:42:00] this house requires information from to have used their expertise to have examined the submissions made by their fellows to have commented on them, criticised them, debated on the subjects introduced and who have arrived at a considered body of opinion for parliamentarians to work from. In fact, that has not happened and at this stage, having gone through a lengthy procedure of [00:42:30] select committee, we are in the process of debating in this house a topic about which not many of us know a great deal. We are listening to facts being described as myths if it suits certain people and other judgments being made on the basis of individual experience and limited knowledge. And I would say Mr Speaker, that if that is the way we are to go about changing law in this most important area, if that's what we as politicians and lawmakers are prepared [00:43:00] to accept, it is little wonder that the people of New Zealand, from time to time have a very low opinion of our reasoning and thinking capacity. Mr. Speaker, No matter what decision this house makes, the debate is going to continue. And if the majority of New Zealanders do not accept the final decision of this house in this after these particular debates, then the estrangement that exists now between the homosexual [00:43:30] and heterosexual community which did not exist prior to this bill being introduced, will be continued heightened and widened. And the ostracism which is said to be felt by homosexuals, certainly is going to increase. It is not going to go away. Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the way in which I went about polling opinion in my particular electorate. Initially, at an early stage, the local [00:44:00] newspaper conducted a postal survey and 100 people responded to that. 90 of them wanted the law to remain the same, and it must have been around. About 100 and 30 responded. 29 wanted legislative 8 16. They supported the legislation. That survey was conducted in March. The gay rights movement commissioned the Highland Poll to move into Huntley, and they found, according to their poll of an undisclosed number of people, [00:44:30] that 55% of the people in Huntley favoured a law change. At a later stage. Mr Chairman, I undertook a poll of 400 people in my electorate. And, uh, in that poll, 56% of the respondents were against a law change. 44% were in favour. I then took an opinion poll of the churches in my electorate, seven were against change, four [00:45:00] were in favour of change and finally I came to perhaps the most important sector, the medical fraternity, and polled the doctors who practise in the electorate. Four were against change, five were in favour of change, and the question asked was whether or not they felt that a change in legislation would help or hinder the containment of AIDS. Finally, the petition. Or perhaps I should say, the petitions. I didn't find the petition [00:45:30] which was presented on the steps of Parliament, an extreme or reactionary document. Nor did I find a way in which it was presented extreme or reactionary, found the way in which the gay rights movement went about their protest in most cases to have been unacceptable. There were on occasions, Mr Speaker, extremes on both sides, and I'd deplore that sort of extreme behaviour, which can only further divide [00:46:00] the community. I noted with interest that 4580 people in my electorate signed the homosexual law reform bill, Uh, the petition against the homosexual law reform bill. I have no evidence to find that any one of them were pressured to sign or that anyone signed who didn't understand what they were doing. Mr. WR story Waikato as I also accepted the petition of 56 staff at the University of Waikato who signed a petition [00:46:30] to me asking me to support the correction of an existing law effectively denying equal rights to homosexual citizens in New Zealand. So I have had two petitions, two conflicting petitions, and I acknowledge them both, and I accept the viewpoint of the people who signed those petitions. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to both sections of the bill, as they are before the house. At the present time, I recognise [00:47:00] some of the psychological problems of homosexuals who feel alienated from society, and I have sympathy with their particular needs. But, Mr Speaker, I want to talk for a moment, not about the psychological condition of homosexuals. I want to talk about one subject, and that is the question of AIDS. And I want to use a piece of information, a petition which was presented to the committee [00:47:30] but which was not heard. It was an expert submission from a surgeon who is involved in his day to day work in surgery in the area of the rectum in the anal area and who has a particular knowledge and I suppose, a particular concern in the effect on medical people of the passage of this particular bill. The doctor was Jeffrey Jones. He comes from the Hamilton East [00:48:00] Electorate, which may be of interest to the member from that electorate past president of the New Zealand Association of Part-time Hospital staff and that particular person very much regretted that he did not have the opportunity to go to the select committee to make his particular point of view known, his expert point of view known. And I'm going to Mr Speaker present to the house some of the information that he presented in written form and would [00:48:30] have elaborated on had he been invited to attend that committee. Mr. Speaker Wyn Jones makes one or two points, and the first one is about one of the common dangers of nurses of doctors. And that's the danger of needle stick. This is a needle, Mr Speaker, which is commonly used to extract blood from patients. It's one of the old tight needle you take off the guard. [00:49:00] You place the needle in the patient, you withdraw the blood and then hopefully because that needle by that stage is infected. You put it back with a little bit of luck into the guard, and you don't damage your fingers. And you do require quite a lot of reluctance to speaker because the rate of needlestick injury to hospital staff is reported overseas as being about 15 accidents and per 100 hospital beds. [00:49:30] About 80% of those people are nursing staff. About 10% are theatre staff. Most theatre accidental needle sticks are with potentially contaminated needles, knives and instruments. Now, Mr Speaker, I suppose, one of the things that has come out of the grave concern of the medical profession for the disease AIDS a concern which is very real is at last a guide, which can prevent [00:50:00] needles sticking. So when the needle is being put back into the guard, we have a device which could go over the top. And instead of sticking it into the hand of the doctor or the nurse, it goes through into the guard. In this case, it didn't it banged into the guard, or it can be placed through the hole and the cover put back over the needle. I'm informed that doctors have been asking for a number of years to have something like this put in place to try and combat the effects [00:50:30] of infection from hepatitis B. But it's really taken the concern about the disease, AIDS and the effect that it can have on doctors on nurses on surgical staff to finally have that particular device developed in New Zealand. So I suppose we can say that one good thing has come about this come out of this real concern and perhaps there aren't too many other good things which have come from it. The concern, which is expressed by Mr Wyn Jones, [00:51:00] is that all sexually transmitted diseases STD are transmitted by anal intercourse, as is hepatitis B and a I DS as well, so all can be transmitted by anal intercourse. He notes that syphilis has been almost eliminated from the general population in the United Kingdom. There is only one case of congenital syphilis reported in the last year. There are still 3000 cases [00:51:30] of adult syphilis in the UK, and nearly all of them are male homosexuals and this situation in the country. Without respective legislation against the homosexual, a high proportion of male homosexuals become hepatitis a antigen positive within two years of becoming active as homosexuals AIDS. Both epidemic and endemic parallels the behaviour of hepatitis [00:52:00] B more closely than anything else. No other neither are sexually transmitted and should not be labelled as STD sexually transmitted diseases, AIDS may become endemic in the fashion of hepatitis B, which has become a very real worry in New Zealand. And Mr Speaker, we have had a number of debates in this house showing concern for hepatitis B in some parts of New Zealand, and [00:52:30] obviously there is a very real linkage between hepatitis B and AIDS and homosexuals. Mr Speaker. One of the points that is made in the submission, which was not considered by the committee, was that had the report been brought before the houses of Parliament at a time when a disease such as AIDS faced the country, it is unlikely that it would have been carried because the thrust of that particular [00:53:00] report was sexual. Activity between consenting adults, where no damage was done to anyone else could be accepted by society and quite demonstrably, anal sex. Whether it is homosexual, anal sex or heterosexual anal sex is a major risk of AIDS, and there is a very good reason for that. Mr Speaker, if I could perhaps hold up for the house's benefit and I will table [00:53:30] two photographs and even from the distance, I think most people can get the general thrust of what I'm saying. The one on the left hand side is the thin layer of secretory goblet cells, which line the rectum, and there is a very thin lining, a very thin lining across the top. The second photo is the vaginal masa, which is a tough, thick protective surface. That's it there 20 times [00:54:00] thicker than the lining of the anus. And if I can tell the house what Dr Wyn Jones would have told in a much more professional and accurate way if the committee had been prepared to hear him, the concern that he has is that anal sex, anal sex rather than homosexual activity per se between males. Anal sex is the major cause of AIDS. And for this house to pass legislation at this time, which [00:54:30] gives tacit approval to anal sex until we know more of out ways in which AIDS can be contained, is giving the wrong message to society as a whole. As to our concern about AIDS and our acceptance of a means of making sure that this disease continues. So, Mr Speaker, I hope that those members of the committee and members of the House did not have the opportunity to hear that submission can [00:55:00] take that point because I think it's a very real one that impressed me that a surgeon was prepared to come out to stick his neck out and give some information to the house of a technical nature which, as far as I know, has not been presented as yet. Mr. Speaker, I said earlier in my speech that I do have a concern for the homosexual in New Zealand society and I deplore the way in which the bill has been introduced. I also indicated that I am going to vote [00:55:30] against it in its present form in both stages of the bill. If, however, there was an amendment which recognised that the House cannot give a signal to the people of New Zealand that anal sex is an OK method of sexual intercourse, that it is not OK, certainly at the present time when we are concerned about AIDS and know very little about this disease. If an amendment is brought forward, [00:56:00] that can in some way meet the needs of the homosexual community because not all homosexual acts are related to anal sex, then I would be prepared to consider supporting it. Yes, Mr. Yeah, Mr Speaker, Some [00:56:30] 11 years ago, this house considered an identical measure which was then introduced by the now present member. Well, OK, It dealt with almost similar circumstances by the now president member for wait total. I said in Maori that in May this year I attended the or the annual conference [00:57:00] of the New Zealand Maori Women's Welfare League. They unanimously sir, endorse the proposals contained within this bill. The house will know that on issues such as this, I have canvassed with them such as the adoption bill such as the abortion bill that was in this house. And now this question. [00:57:30] I have come to the conclusion, sir, that given the proverbs that were left by our ancestors and one of them in which I referred to which went like this what is the greatest thing on this earth? Let me tell you, it is people. It is people. It is people. And for that matter, sir, I have chosen that I could not depart from that philosophy [00:58:00] which we have on all occasions. Sir. Followed to the letter. Others in this house have spoken about the question of human rights. I have to accept, sir. And I'm sure all of us must accept married and has enter this position. What I am saying to this house, Mai, as a member of Parliament for Western Maori, [00:58:30] cannot afford to cast those of our people aside who have decided to take that upon themselves as they the Honourable Western in to support the bill. I want to congratulate you. The member who introduced the bill she went through, I believe a traumatic experience. I'm sorry, [00:59:00] but the member for has had his opportunity. If he hasn't, he can get another call during the committee stages. And there's plenty of those opportunities. But I simply want to remind him on one simple fact. Where does he then stand? In terms of the proverb in which I referred to I asked about the proverb. Of course he would know where it came from, and I simply want to say to him, [00:59:30] if he knew what that was all about and where it came from, its origins, I'm sure he had no difficulty with it whatsoever. And I challenge the member to that one because it's one well known in his district and his people, and they are to be admired. And if he's moving away from those principles, then I asked him to think again. I ask him also to consider, sir the position of our people, right at the present time, he well [01:00:00] knows 75% of our people in our urbanite 75% of them, sir, are below the ages of 25. A great number within that age group, sir have now joined this section of the community. And I simply want to say that he cannot deny that I'm not about to deny those people who have chosen that, but to simply say, parliament has been called [01:00:30] on to make judgments and to pass a law that will give those people the right of choice. And I believe that's what we are being asked. I have considered this question for some time, as I said before, it is not the first time that it's been before parliament. And, uh, that, uh, this time around, I think what has been demonstrated is a sign of maturity in this country that we have now for the majority [01:01:00] of people have come to accept it. Uh, Mr, uh, Wellington, the Honourable Mr Wellington, Mr. speaker. I have seldom heard the present minister for Maori affairs and the member for Western Maori. Quite so defensive indeed, sir. Earlier in this debate I call to him and he knows this well. The member for an is getting warmed up. We've heard him [01:01:30] about a week ago and we've forgotten what he said and rightly so. Mr. Speaker, I call to the minister of Maori affairs who is the senior Maori member on the government side and I concede that this he's been congratulated by the member for Mount Albert. I concede that this is a conscience issue, that he, of all members in this chamber on the Maori side of the issue, has the authority [01:02:00] and the prestige and the city authority to speak for the Maori people, particularly Mr Speaker as he has for many years. And I do not include the present year manage the affairs on land of the Maori Queen. No, well, he protests and he says, Oh really, But that is the fact of the matter. I have joined with the member, the minister of Maori affairs [01:02:30] on a number of Mara occasions, for example, at Saint Stephen's, one of the premier Maori colleges and I use that word advisably, for it is primarily a Maori college and one of distinction. And indeed, Mr Speaker, one of prestige and I have enjoyed the member's company and I have enjoyed the comments that he has made [01:03:00] on occasions on that. Mara and I said to him by way of interjection, speak for the Maori people. And I was disappointed with his comments tonight because in essence, they were by way of prevarication. They were ambivalent, They were ambiguous. And I wonder who has been at the Minister of Maori affairs in recent weeks and recent months, who has hammered him into shape. [01:03:30] Is he speaking for the Maori Queen? Is he speaking for the four quarters? It might have a chairman. Yeah, I I'm not Mr Gary. You asked to sit down while I speak the point of order, sir. Pardon? Sit. Just sit down here. Thank you, Mr Speaker. The member has been on the state for some five or six minutes supposedly talking to this bill and he hasn't referred to one [01:04:00] of the bill at all but has referred to the former speaker. I'll ask you to call them to order. I think I can handle this one. I don't think I need to waste the time. It is not true that the honourable members, speaking for the five minutes he's not quite finished his first two minutes just on two minutes. And in any case, I think, as I was understanding his speech [01:04:30] that he was referring to the contribution that was made by the former speaker and answering some of those matters which is quite in order for any member of the house. The Honourable Mr Wellington. Mr. Speaker, I record my disappointment at the contribution from the senior Maori member of this assembly. Well, the member for Taronga says he used to be and that will be proved correct. [01:05:00] Mr Speaker, he he of all people in this chamber has the authority to speak to the Maori people. He did not do that and I ask the question again, Who has been at him? Who has got at him? Does he reflect the view views of the Maori Queen? Does he reflect the views of the four quarters and Mr Speaker every member in this assembly excluding a few [01:05:30] like the member of Glenfield, the member for Glenfield will know what I am referring to. His speech would not go down at all well in the colleges such as Saint Stephen's Queen Victoria. They would not win for no other reason than the simple reason, Mr Speaker, then this bill does not serve in any realistic or practical way the interests of our young people. [01:06:00] Not not at all, not at all, Mr Speaker, calling as it does for the legalisation of homosexual activities from the age of 16 above. Now, Mr Speaker, I mentioned ST Stephen's advisedly for in 1962. I took up a position as a teacher at that particular school, and I assure the member for Western Maori who has a responsibility [01:06:30] as the local member, which he shares with the member for Franklin, that his views would not be tolerated for two minutes on the Maria of ST Stephen's College or at sister school at Queen Victoria in Parnell, Auckland. He would he would be run off the property if he made the speech he has tonight. I'm either of those two my eyes, and I am disappointed. I am disappointed [01:07:00] at the member for Western Maori. I am disappointed at the minister of Maori affairs that he has given the Maori people, the Maori people, such a bad steer and a bad lead in this chamber. Tonight it is 17 minutes to 11. The lights will be out in Saint Stephen's. We'll be out. But Mr Swell, the member for Eden and the member for Tori two extreme liberals, [01:07:30] can well Scott and well, Scott. But they will get their reckoning in due course. In due course. I am disappointed, the member for Western Maori. I am sure Matt Rata, who once sat in here, would be equally disappointed. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member for southern Maori is bitterly disappointed, bitterly disappointed [01:08:00] her father would be. And well, I make no apology for bringing the honourable member for southern Maori ancestors into this debate because the member for Western Maori, the Minister of Maori affairs, has made a disgraceful contribution to an important debate and he has made such a contribution because he is a minister in the Labour government which happens to embrace this latest [01:08:30] piece of liberalism because because he owes his position in this chamber, he thinks to his mates in the in the Cabinet and the cabinet benches and to his mates on the backbenches. He has a greater loyalty, and that should be to his own people. I want to pay tribute. I want to pay tribute to to the member for to the member, for Invercargill, [01:09:00] to the member for Gisborne and my word. He sits in a marginal seat, and he had the courage to get up, to get up and say, despite the marginality of his electorate, to say this is what I believe in. And the member for Napier, who who tried for various seats for the Labour Party around the country and finally won the seat for Napier. I say good on him and he has the courage to [01:09:30] defy his party on this issue. I know the pressures that have been brought to bear on the member for Gisborne, a marginal seat. A member in a marginal electorate has the courage to say This is what I believe in. This is what I believe. But I, my people, sent me to do not like the member for Western Maori. He's under the whips. He has been brought into line [01:10:00] and he comes out tonight and merely regurgitates the party line. I also pay tribute not only to those four members, but to the people who have backed them. People who have been damned in this house. People who have no right of reply under the panoply of privilege in this parliament. No, but they have been damned in this house as portraying facts, events, [01:10:30] Mr. Speaker, they have no right of reply under the panoply of privilege in this Parliament. People like Keith. Well, there they go again, You see? They damned them. They Scot people like Sir Peter of Well, of course, the member for Eden is in trouble. The member for Eden's in trouble. We heard in Auckland the representations of various [01:11:00] people. The member for Eden, the member for Mount Albert didn't ask a question. Didn't make a comment when the liberals and the lesbians came in. Didn't say a word because they knew very well, Mr Speaker, that if they had, they would have had their argument. And if the member for Mount Eden or Eden or whatever it is, goes on, I shall ask him Where [01:11:30] is Ms? So where is Ms Sori and I suggest that the member for Eden as the member for Hamilton West, advising him keeps his mouth shut. Now, Mr Speaker, I pay tribute to the people who brought the petition before Parliament, the largest petition in this country's history. People who sustained unprecedented attack in this house. [01:12:00] I pay tribute to them, as I do to the four members who back them. Mr Speaker, they have no privilege within the panoply of this particular place. And I'm reminded, as I've listened to the meandering speeches of those who support the bill of the 18th century political philosopher Edmund Burke, who said the concessions of the weak [01:12:30] are the concessions of beer. The concessions of the weak are the concessions of beer. 200 years ago, the honourable Mr he says, I pulled my electorate and my gosh, they say to me, Do it. That is the confession of the week. That is the confession of the week. I have heard of the confession of the member for East Cape. I have [01:13:00] polled my electorate. I thought I was for it. Then I was against it until I polled my electorate. And now I'm for it. What integrity? What integrity? In 1980 the people in my electorate and members on this side of the house will know of that which I speak said to me, said to me on another issue at a different time at an electorate meeting, unless you vote the way we want you to [01:13:30] vote, we will fix you I said. You have sent me to Wellington. If you don't like what I am doing, do that. I'm still here. I am still here. I will not deal with the issue. I will not deal with the event. I will simply say it was the 1980 and after two terms as minister of education, when my two immediate predecessors were shot in their electorates. Labour and national, [01:14:00] I say to the member for East cake. Stick to your guns, I say to the member for stick to your guns, I say to the member for Glenfield, Stick to your guns, do what is right. Do what is right. Don't agree. The dictates of an amorphous mass do what you think is right on conscience issues, and I say to the member for Cap, who polled her electorate, [01:14:30] and I understand either changed her mind or had her mind shored up. God bless her. Stick to your guns because the people out there, the people who brought this petition and people who didn't even sign the petition, perhaps because they didn't have the chance, perhaps because they didn't really want to because they were not seized of the importance of this issue. I say to them, [01:15:00] I say to those members, obey the dictates of what you believe is right on conscience issues when you stand before the supreme body of this country before Parliament. And so the member for oh has changed his mind or something. The member for East Cape certainly has the member for glenfield or whatever the member for cap and so on. The concessions of the weak Mr Speaker, [01:15:30] the concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear. They are fearful of their electoral hides. And what a way to make decisions which affect the people of this country and in particular, Mr Speaker, the young people, the young people. I referred to Saint Stephen's. Earlier, I went to, um as many members in this house did to a boarding school to [01:16:00] a boarding school, and I will tell members, as I did upon the introduction of this bill to introduce this bill with an age fixed at 16, will be to sow not just the seeds but the actuality of discord and dissent in school after school across this country. Yeah, sure, they look [01:16:30] at and I see the minister of Internal affairs there smiling Riley. Is he smiling Riley? Or does he actually agree? Does he actually believe in what I am saying? You see, a 16 year old might be in the fifth book. He might be in the fourth form. And if you say to school after school across this country, boarding school or otherwise, that you can legalise homosexual activity at fourth [01:17:00] form or at fifth form. Or if the young person is pretty bright at sixth form, you will sow the seeds of discord and descent from the far north to the Deep South. Simple as that. And the member, the member for Eastern Marry, the minister of Internal Affairs knows that what I say is dead right. That's why the member for Western Mary has fled this chamber. He's gone. Yeah, [01:17:30] and that's got him worked up that's got worked up even at seven minutes of fear I remind the honourable gentleman that he is not to refer to the presence, or at least to the remove or absence of any member. He understands why members leave the chamber, and it is, uh, to disorderly to refer to a members movements. In that way, [01:18:00] Mr Speaker, the member for West Maori, has sub departed on urgent public business. I concede that, Mr Speaker, and I don't blame him. I don't blame him. I talked about Burke's comment on the concessions of those that are fearful. Burke also said a thing that may look specious in theory. Might might look good in theory on the statute books in the textbook, but [01:18:30] but be ruinous, be ruinous in practise. And that, Mr Speaker, is the burden of my argument. A thing may look specious in theory, but be ruinous in practise. And let me just add to that. It's if this thing, this bill brought in by the junior government whip was, of course, the alpha and Omega [01:19:00] of human male and female relationships. What is it that gives the member for Wellington Central in New Zealand a monopoly on human wisdom? In 1985 1 of the What is it, Mr Speaker? That gives her a monopoly on human wisdom in 1985 and the member for Hamilton West is discomforted one thing. Politics, politics and political fortunes [01:19:30] come and go. One thing is certain in the political life of this country within two years, and that is that the member for Hamilton West is gone. He is finished as a representative in this house. He is history. He is ancient history before his term has finished. It is as simple as that. So is the member for Mount Albert. So is the member for Wellington Central. So [01:20:00] are all those fair weather friends of everybody and everything who change their minds and have polls and say I will make up my mind when I see what my constituents think. The people of this country know with Burke a long time ago that a thing may look specious and theory, but be ruinous and practise If it were not so. Mr Speaker, why hasn't some enlightened law maker brought this measure down 20 [01:20:30] years ago? 30 years ago? 40 years ago? Half a century ago, five years ago? Two years ago, and had it passed in this chamber? Why not? Why not? Because Because of course, the theory is specious and the practise is ruinous. And and the vast bulk, the vast bulk of the people of New Zealand know that know that and above all, have a suspicion of measures that are brought into this [01:21:00] place under the guise of being private members. Bills but in fact are brought in by government whips by government whip. The member for Hamilton West says, Here we go. And that is why, apart from the member for nature, the honourable Lady for Southern Maori and the member for Gisborne, they've all been whipped into line. And look at the timing of the measure. Mr Speaker, look at the timing of it when the economy was going down, [01:21:30] when the ANZUS debate and a few others in foreign policy were warming up. Then comes the junior government whip, where the private members Berlin says, Well, we'll take the minds of the people of this nonsense. Unfortunately, it is not nonsense. These are weighty and serious matters. They were foreshadows two centuries ago by people like Edmund Burke, and the people of succeeding generations were warned by Burke [01:22:00] and others not to go down this particular road and other roads of light description. It is as simple as that. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have heard a lot about rights, the rights to do this, or the right to do this and the right to do that. I have heard nothing about responsibilities, not a thing about responsibilities. Let's [01:22:30] forget the adult population of this country. And let's think about the 16 year olds, the 15 year olds, the 17 year olds, the three quarters of a million New Zealanders in primary, intermediate and secondary school throughout New Zealand. What about their rights? OK, like your point of order, is it? Well, what is it? I'm trying. No, I haven't. [01:23:00] I haven't rang the bell yet. You haven't rung the bell. What? What? I? I haven't I haven't cooked. I under I understood under standing orders that the, uh, a speaker on his feet was entitled to go to the A lot of time which historically has been announced. And no bell has been run. And they like a Jack in the box. It was probably I think they were reading [01:23:30] my hand signs over the time. There was five seconds left at that point. And I have not rung the bill. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have heard nothing from the proponents of this measure about the responsibilities of people, especially for the order. Order, Order! Order! Speech is over. The time has come for should now leave the chair. [01:24:00] This debate is there will be continued Next sitting. Sit down for continuation Next sitting day. Uh, the house is adjourned until 2:30 p.m. tomorrow.
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