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 Speaker, I move. That would be an instruction to the committee of the whole house that in its consideration of homosexual law reform Bill, it may consider the bill part by part. Yes, Uh, the question is that in the instructions to the committee of the whole house, uh, that the instruction be that the bill be considered, uh, part by part. Fran. [00:00:30] Mr. Speaker, I just want to tell the house that the member for and I have consulted on this and we have reached an agreement that this would be a rational way of debating the committee stages of this bill. Right? I'll restate the state. The question. The question is that in the instruction to the committee of the whole, uh, the instruction [00:01:00] be that the bill be considered part by part. Those who are of that opinion will say I, um Mr. McKinnon, this is, um this is a debatable motion, is it not, Mr Speaker, Whilst I'm aware that there has been an arrangement between the junior government whip who stands at one extreme of this not at one extreme one side of this particular issue and the member on the other side of the issue. There are [00:01:30] quite a number of members in this chamber now who are looking quite bewildered. It's just how many parts are in this bill, and I really think it's necessary. I'm not suggesting for one minute that I'm trying to prolong this thing. I made a decision. I made a decision some time ago. I wouldn't even speak on this bill. I have to speak on this bill, but I feel as a as a member in this chamber with some responsibility on the side of the opposition. I think members should in the [00:02:00] next couple of minutes have a chance to look at the bill as they have to do as as individuals, because this is not a party matter. It is a conscience matter, and every member may have a different position on this particular bill as to whether it should be debated part by part. And given the given the few minutes that's required to do just that, I think we'd be in a better position to, uh, vote on it now, Mr Speaker, I'm informed by someone said three parts. [00:02:30] I'm informed now that there are that the bill is divided between part one is the short title. Part two are the balance of those clauses. And part three is the human rights, the short title in part one. So it's the intention of those moving at the order order, right? I do realise that there is quite some in, uh, the, uh, opposition [00:03:00] senior opposition which contention here so that although I must not involve myself in the debate, it is my duty to look after the interests of all the members. And I would suggest that it would serve the interests of all members if one or two people got up and drew attention to what was involved in each of the parts and clauses and gave some suggestion to the house as [00:03:30] how they thought this debate should be conducted. Now, I am not doing this in the hope of prolonging. In fact, I'm doing in the hope of avoiding a prolonged debate about a procedural matter. But I think that the House does not want need to know exactly what is involved in this and why this procedure is seem to be advantageous by those concerns. In conclusion, it seems to me that those that promoted this idea may [00:04:00] give consideration to allowing the debate to begin on the short title and having signalled in advance, they wish to debate subsequent parts part by part. It could then be moved after the short title that the balance be moved, handled part by part. But that will not affect the short title debate. If in fact that's an honour as a stand alone debate, Mr Speaker, the honourable Parliament. Mr. Speaker, this is not a matter in which I have taken any direct [00:04:30] interest, but I think I should say something about the procedure that the House might now wish to adopt. If the committee is going to consider this bill part by part, it is necessary for the house as a whole to give that instruction to the committee before the House goes in the committee. Therefore, it is not practical to adopt the course that the senior opposition whip has suggested it has to be done by the House as an instruction [00:05:00] to the committee. That's the first point. The second point is that the structure of the bill does seem to lend itself to the sort of motion that is being suggested. It does that for this reason that the debate on the short title on which each member will be entitled, I think if there are no other members expecting the call to a total of 45 minute calls, each member of this house 45 [00:05:30] minute calls on Clause one, which which ought to give any member of this house ample opportunity to say a great deal. I would think that that deals with the nuts and bolts of the bill. But is the most general debate that the committee of the whole will have The second, the second part of the bill deals with part with the Crimes Act and all of part one, as far as I can see, deals with amendments to the Crimes Act and the criminality, uh, with which [00:06:00] the substance of this debate has always been concerned. Now, if that part is dealt with again, each member will be entitled to 45 minute calls on that part, and all amendments which will would members would want to move, will be able to be moved and be able to be considered. There's no difficulty with any of that. I don't think the secrets of the amendments will be changed [00:06:30] at all because what will happen is that the committee will vote on the amendments at the at the end and they'll vote on them. I would think in the order that they amend the clauses of the park. And if that is the case, uh, there should be no logical difficulty involved in it at all. That and when the when the house has dealt with that part of it, it would then move to the part two of the bill itself, which is the amendments to the Human Rights Commissioner, and and [00:07:00] and that is a is two clauses of the bill and a discrete matter quite separate from the criminal provisions which are dealt with in part two. Now we are then left with the schedule, and I think probably that the schedule would have to be dealt with separately. Yes, the honourable Van Young, Mr Speaker. Before I could support or reject this, I would need to have a clearer [00:07:30] reason put before me and before the house why we should restrict the discussion on clauses of the bill. Because, quite frankly, when measures government measures are moved to be taken part by part, we know quite well it does facilitate the passage of such measures through the house. Now, in this case, it is not a bill of a large number [00:08:00] of clauses, whereas in other times when the House is considered a resolution such as this, the bills have been large bills and the House has needed to make some progress on that. The intention of the government has been known. But in this case, Mr Speaker, not only do we have a smaller bill, and as the deputy prime minister said one that has, we know two separate parts, but it does in fact divide [00:08:30] it into two separate bills. Finally, because there two acts that are being amended. If both parts are part in those circumstances and in the knowledge that there is widespread interest in the manner in which parliament deals with this legislation, uh, I believe that we may be unnecessarily pushing Parliament. Uh, in the consideration of the [00:09:00] committee stages of this piece of legislation, I'd like to point out that, uh, in clause five in particular, there are a number of amendments and members will need to have very clear in their minds during the committee stages. just which ones they would propose to support and which ones they would propose to reject. There's a proposal for a new clause by eight. All those, I think, Mr Speaker, deserve the separate consideration of [00:09:30] this house. And I do recall that perhaps the most difficult issues that members have to deal with when it comes to a number of amendments on a private Members bill, which is a conscience issue are different stances that individuals or groups may take. Now I haven't had, although I know the house wants to with the we do not want to have the committee stages with us for another three weeks, we want to make decisions. It seems to me that there is [00:10:00] some danger of short circuiting the rights of members to speak to individual clauses. If we follow the suggested court, the Honourable George Gear. Mr. Speaker, I have considered myself how best we might proceed with this stage of this Bill and I have had words with one or two people in this regard. It seems to me that the proposal before us does make [00:10:30] eminent good sense, but I do believe to win the support of the House the proposal needs to explain how the sequence of amendments would come before the House. Now, I have in mind particularly Mr Speaker, the question of changes in the question of age. Unless we adopt a, uh, a process of elimination on the matter of age, we could get ourselves into all sorts of trouble. May I give you an example? [00:11:00] There is a proposal in the bill for an age of 16. I myself with, uh, supplementary order. Paper number seven here have proposed 18. There is a proposal at 20 a different proposal yet again that comes in at 58 at 20. Now, sir, as 16 is in the bill, clearly the amendments will have to be put before the substantive clause in the bill. It seems to me [00:11:30] that we should, by a process of elimination work from a higher age by amendment down to the substantive proposal in the bill. And in this way we will learn the mood of the house. If but in terms of the sequence in which the the SOPS were lodged, we could in fact I, I No. I realise that I realise that, But the concern of members I think, some of whom perhaps [00:12:00] have not considered this proposal before this debate. Right now, the concern of members is partly about the right to speak. But it's partly about how they will have the right to make their choice when the amendments come forward. Now, if we can be clear, if we can be clear that this a and agree amongst ourselves that the order, the order of choice, is made available to [00:12:30] members according to a descending order of age then and these would all be taken in series on the completion of the debate at the end of part two and the consequential amendments through the clauses of part two would then follow. I think, sir, we may well have the best solution that we can in this circumstance. Uh, yes. Uh, Mr Peters, the Speaker, I, as one member of the [00:13:00] parliament, would like to make a plea for normalcy and convention these matters I believe that the clauses should be debated clause by clause, for example, I would like to have a short title debate. I would like to see that we have a debate in respect to indecency with a boy between 12 and six years of age. I believe we should have a debate on decent, decent assault on boy by a man, I believe so. We should have a debate on keeping place of resort for homosexual acts, and this is also [00:13:30] in part one. Now I understand my colleague's desire for, uh, a part by part debate. But really, it's in the hands of the proponents of this bill. If some of the clauses are out of place, that is that they should be rearranged for the convenience of the debate. Let them so propose a rearrangement that's in the member for Wellington, Central hands and the government has. But it's not for them, sir, [00:14:00] to ask us to abandon the conventions of the South, the conventions that are attached to nearly every bill that passed through it purely because they may subscribe to a certain approach in respect of this bill. Now, sir, in respect of part two, I would like to know whether we're going to have a debate on the Human Rights Commission Act. Discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation on being unlawful. That's Clause nine and the schedule. Now those are separate matters, but at the end of the day, I come back to this [00:14:30] point if there are clause clauses which, because of their placement in this bill, create difficulty for a logical chronological debate that it's for the mover from the It's for the member from A from to redesign now, rather than to ask members of the house to abandon and to ask you, sir, to abandon the convention the tradition of discussing bills in this house. Uh, [00:15:00] Mr Lee, I'm opposed this bill entirely. But my point in moving that motion was to recognise the difficulties the House would otherwise get into and and pro. Regrettably, the confusion that may follow in terms of not realising that the substantial amendments applied to Clause five but in the chronology of the chair haven't addressed causes one at a time. Clauses [00:15:30] three and four, sir. Which, uh, perhaps hasn't been quite clearly indicated, referred to the age below 16 where fences can occur and which, as far as I know, don't draw any amendments, perhaps as one small technical amendment, but otherwise they're not drawing any amendments Now, sir, with the understanding of that point, Clause five therefore will be the important benchmark clause now, sir. It was only my [00:16:00] attempt to facilitate the chair by suggesting that those areas could be taken together now, sir, it could be addressed in other ways. My colleague from Tauranga says the cause may be rearranged. So be it. If they took the clauses 34 and five as a decision by the chair, that would also make it possible. Certainly the point raised by the member for North Shore in terms of addressing the amendments with the age benchmarks in decreasing [00:16:30] order or decreasing age would be automatic, sir, would be automatic. So that point set aside. So So that's the reason. And at the present time, the motion simply means that clauses up to clause seven in fact is addressed within the motion. It would not preclude any discussion. In fact, in my understanding, it would allow the best result. And I repeat, I am against the whole bill. The question is, [00:17:00] uh that in the instruction to the committee that the instruction of the whole of that the instruction be that the bill may be dealt that the bill be dealt with in parts. Those who are of that opinion will say I of the country. Opinion will say no. But the eyes have it. Is division called for? Yes. [00:17:30] Uh, ring the bells. The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. The tell us for the eyes are Fran Wilde and Lee and the Tell us for the nose. Mr. Peters and Mr Bells are ringing in parliament building, summoning all members to the chamber to vote in [00:18:00] a division that the motion be agreed to. Those who are the eyes are 55. The nose are 21. The motion will be agreed to unlock the doors, unlock the doors. I declare the house in committee on the homosexual law reform bill. Uh, the in [00:18:30] the conduct of affairs, the committee will deal with the bill by pass that or the House and Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform bill. The question is that Clause one the short title stand part of the bill. A point of order, Mr. Banks. Mr. Chairman, Uh, I understand pursuant to the standing orders that a member can, uh, take a call [00:19:00] four times. 33 times. Um and, uh, is it your intention to take a call a subsequent call from a member once first time callers have taken their option as it were, or can they take them all at once? Or how do you propose to do this? Now, the, uh, the situation is, uh, set out in the standing orders on page 118 on the short title of a bill or any amendment there to each member is entitled to three speeches of five minutes. That doesn't mean 53 [00:19:30] consecutive speeches, Uh, five minutes. If I understand the member's question correctly, uh, that is what he is asking Now, I think that, uh, the member would be better for better. Not to better. The member would be better not to seek a ruling on this question because I think that the, uh, the short title stages, uh, will be no different from any other. Uh, and the way in which, uh, it will be treated will, I think, evolve as the committee proceeds. Say again, I think that it will be clear to the member how [00:20:00] speaking rights will be to to be determined as the as the bill proceeds. We don't have speaking lists. We don't have a situation where we normally do where two sides of the house are debating the issue. Uh, so I will be relying on members to make it very clear that they are seeking the call from me. And, uh, I will determine the call on the basis, uh, previously set out, uh, in the in the in the matter That that, uh uh that the that the bill addresses in the handling of the bill [00:20:30] in previous stages. That's, uh I think AAA precedent has been set in that regard. So the question then, is that the short title Dan Piper Bray Brook. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt at all that this bill has divided New Zealand. It has divided this nation, possibly, uh, like no other bill. It has even divided our churches, our communities and in many cases, our own families. It is a bill which [00:21:00] has brought out the best in some people and regretfully the worst in others. But throughout our community, it has brought resentment, anger and, in many, many cases, outright disgust. Mr. Speaker, I have thought long and hard about this Bill. I My conduct has not been perfect and I do not pretend that it has ever been. But I have come seriously to the conclusion that nobody Mr Chairman, had [00:21:30] a mandate to introduce this bill just out of the blue, on to the citizens of this country. It certainly was never discussed as a major issue at the last election, no political party, or, in my view, no particular member had a mandate for it. And so, Mr Speaker, I believe that what is required is a Royal commission of inquiry to investigate all aspects of this question of homosexuality so that we may all [00:22:00] be the better for it. I do not know all aspects of it. I doubt whether any member does. But I am confident that in this country we could set up a royal commission of inquiry. We have set up many others on many different subjects. Indeed, and probably the last important one on a moral issue was the Royal Commission of Inquiry, which reported on the contraception, sterilisation and abortion debate. I therefore formally move Mr Chairman the supplementary the [00:22:30] amendment in my name on the supplementary order paper that in clause One to admit sub Clause two and all the words in line six and seven on page two and substitute the following sub clauses. This act shall come into force on a date to be appointed by the Governor General By order in Council three, no order shall be made under subsection two of this section unless and until the Governor general is satisfied that a a royal commission has investigated [00:23:00] and reported on all aspects of homosexuality in New Zealand. That is part one. And I believe that if members wish to just vote on that particular sub clause, then I would be happy to agree to that part. B of my amendment reads that a national referendum of persons eligible to vote in the general election of members for the House of Representatives majority of persons who voted were in favour of each of the following propositions [00:23:30] one. That homosexual conduct between consenting adults in private should not be a criminal offence. Yes or No. Two. That discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation should or should not be made unlawful under the Human Rights Commission Act 1977. Mr Speaker, I believe that that is a fair and honourable way of settling this debate. If we do not either a set up a royal commission of inquiry for the benefit of us all. Then the issue will drag [00:24:00] on. I am strongly in favour of referendum although I know that I'm probably in a minority here. But if we do not have a referendum on this question, then it will not go away. It is no good voting tonight or next week in the sincere hope that having voted on it, everybody is going to sit back and accept it. There will be repeal bills brought into this house. It will be an election issue. It is not a subject for which we, in my view, are fit and proper persons to judge upon this grave moral [00:24:30] issue. But it is an issue which New Zealand should decide upon and a referendum will settle it one way or the other. Because it is the people of New Zealand who have to accept the laws which we sometimes force upon them. This law should not be forced upon any citizen. Mr. Speaker, The Royal Commission of Inquiry should in my view, have the widest terms of reference, including travelling overseas, to view what has happened in other countries that have liberalised [00:25:00] this law. They should also look into the question and that terrible affliction of AIDS. And I have no doubt that we will hear more about that during this debate. But it is urgently needed. Even in the United Kingdom, they did not dream of amending the law before they had what was then known as the Wolfenden report. I very much doubt if the Wolfenden report was to sit now, it would come back with a recommendation that it did in the United Kingdom because one of the clauses that he said was that it would only agree to liberalisation of the [00:25:30] law, provided that nobody in society suffered. And now, of course, that hideous infliction of AIDS has changed all day. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it. A royal commission of inquiry made up of the best medical legal even people from other all walks of life should be admitted to it. Uh, the question was that the short title stand part Since when Mr Bray Brook has moved in the terms set out in supplementary order paper number 71. [00:26:00] The question then is that the amendment be agreed to you, Mr Speaker the honourable Ben Young. Mr. Chairman, I think most of us would feel if there that there was a solution in the amendment put forward by the member for Napier, it would absolve ourselves from a responsibility that we we find quite onerous dealing with a bill [00:26:30] such as this. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the course set out by the member for nature is a solution more than a referendum to make up our minds as individual members. How we should vote on the difficult clauses of this bill in fact, uh, means that we are doing our job or fulfilling our responsibility. [00:27:00] As members of Parliament, we owe our constituents our attention. We owe them the responsibility to place their arguments and submissions before the government of the day and to present them in Parliament. We also owe our constituents our judgement. My judgement on this bill, Mr Mr Chairman tells me that I should support [00:27:30] the amendment that is to be moved later by my colleague, the member. For Pendleton. It means that, uh, the law then would be changed if Parliament accepted that amendment to decriminalise homosexual acts between consenting male adults in private. Let me emphasise the word adults because the House will no doubt have [00:28:00] some difficulty when considering the several ages of consent that are offered first of all, in the bill and secondly, and thirdly, by way of an amendment. Under our statute, a person is an adult when he or she reaches the age of 20 not 18, and certainly not 16 for [00:28:30] these reasons and the reasons that such a an age of consent has been found acceptable and passed in the parliaments of the countries such as Canada is sufficient evidence to me that that is a step that I believe that this House should be able to take. I might say that if in the deliberation room during the committee stages, the House decides [00:29:00] that there is to be some younger age of consent for homosexual acts between consenting people, then I will oppose the part of the bill that is to be considered first. In any case, I am going to oppose part two of the bill. So the my position, Mr Speaker, is simply this, that I support the intentions of my colleague, the member for Henderson. [00:29:30] I will vote in the on the clauses of the bill in a manner in which in which his proposal could be accepted by the House. That is to reject, uh, clauses 34 and five and approve the inclusion of a new five A that would result in the position I've just outlined. I cannot accept part two of the bill when it is considered [00:30:00] Mr Gramley, Mr. Speaker, Um, the bill before the house is is a thoroughly bad, repugnant bill. In fact, it's, in my opinion, the most obnoxious Bill ever brought before this house, certainly in my time as a parliamentarian. So the house should realise again that in fact, it is a bill that's been uniquely prepared for this time, [00:30:30] and it has in fact, the focus of the whole of the homosexual world upon it. And it should be indeed, in itself, a point of concern to this house that a group of people have chosen this time to introduce this particular bill, a bill which is the most progressive of its type ever introduced to any place in the world. And so I've chosen this time to introduce [00:31:00] such a type of legislation Now, well, let me correct that. My colleague says. Not progressive. It's progressive in a technical term. But what? The house, I'm sure, understands it's progressive in the sense that it reaches further than any legislation of this type. And therefore, sir, for that one alone, I believe it's extremely bad. In fact, the bill, therefore, is not amendable. The bill cannot be amended. It can only in fact, [00:31:30] I repeat, be thrown out. Eliminating Part two, the human rights section, sir, or lifting the age benchmark will do nothing to eliminate the threat the bill poses to public health, to the family life or to the risks to the individual. Now, sir, we have been through in addressing this bill a second reading which probably has become the longest second reading in the history of this parliament. So [00:32:00] I can put the house that surely the depth, the sensitivity, the division of this bill and the fact we have gone this far surely should speak volumes just from that point of the second reading address alone. A point of order, Trevor Mallard. Pretty important for the consideration in this committee that we get the rules pretty clear at the beginning. I ask you therefore, to consider Speaker's ruling uh, 36 5 [00:32:30] and six. And this speech as to whether it is one of general principle or addressing the clauses of the bill, Yes, I think that the point is well taken, and it is, as the member for Hamilton West has suggested it important that we get the ground rules clear. They're no different, of course, from the ground rules that apply at any other, uh, committee stage during the discussion on the short title. But, uh, we have perhaps concentrated, um, a little more upon the, uh, importance of [00:33:00] the speaker's rulings as they apply. Uh, in this in this particular case, uh, I think that I can best, um, set it out for the for the committee in this way that I'm looking for members to address themselves as speaker's rulings require them to do, uh, in the short title debate to the clauses. Uh, that is to say, and I think that, uh, in listening to the member for that, he was indeed doing that, uh, order, Uh, but [00:33:30] I want members, uh, in the in the short title debate to go through and consider or ask the committee to consider their position um, in relation to the various clauses and I take for my authority in this respect, uh, speaker's rulings on page 36 number six. The purpose is not to have a discussion of the broad principles but to consider when clause one is being considered the drafting or the technical details of clause four, clause 44 or any other clause. I believe that members have discharged their responsibility in this, uh, in this respect, provided [00:34:00] they are ranging across the clauses in the bill and speaking to specific clauses in the bill. And I'll be listening very carefully to ensure, uh and I think it's an important point that the member of Hamilton West has raised that we don't have a second reading debate that we don't start to debate the the, uh uh, principles of Bill. Rather, we talk about the way in which the clauses, uh, should be applied and if necessary, um, when we get to them, uh, amended. I think so far, at least, the debate has been pretty relevant. [00:34:30] Thank you, Mr Chairman, to seek your clarification. Your ruling. Because I thought by addressing the bill and the third and then the short title that I could reasonably draw the implications of those clauses and the results of those clauses becoming law. And I thought my comments then were relevant for that reason. Well, I hope that the member for hasn't taken any of this because what I've done is to rule that what he has so far told, the committee [00:35:00] is relevant within the confines of the standing orders that apply. The member is debating in an appropriate way, Mr Lee. Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I, uh, I would wish just to address right now the amendment offered by the member for Napier in calling for a Royal Commission inquiry so I could support that I could support that because I believe at this point in time such an inquiry could [00:35:30] be relevant. I believe it would have this effect. It would reveal that many parliamentarians in this House have failed to understand the full facts. And such an inquiry could in fact show to the nation that, in fact, sir homosexual the the the bill before the house is not a suitable bill at all. Now, sir, there is a precedent for this type of inquiry called in Britain. The wolf report. That report, however, of interest came down [00:36:00] supporting decriminalisation. But, sir, I believe that the significant difference in time right now is that today we have before this nation and certainly before the world the greatest killer disease threat ever known to mankind. Now, sir, that's why I am confident that such an inquiry by proper people would recognise that there's no way that in fact, this bill could possibly or should [00:36:30] be ever become law when that disease of age is about to strike this country. And indeed, we have a period of grace right now in which we have been able to address the implications and know something of the facts and the enormity of that disease, sir. So therefore, I believe that particular me could be relevant. But, sir, it seems to me that it's a it's a grass. It's a gross move from sanity, if not common sense, sir, for this house. Yet even now to [00:37:00] be at this stage, addressing this bill when there is, in fact such an absolutely overt threat to this nation through the issue of AIDS. No, sir. I also want to mention the House that there has been the clearest possible expression of the voice of New Zealand against this bill. And the bill, sir, has been presented to the public in New Zealand. The clauses contained there in has clearly [00:37:30] indicated that this bill is not wanted or accepted by the time the honourable Mr Mr Chairman, uh, not had an opportunity to speak yet to this, uh, bill. And if I, uh, I believe that I have a duty to explain to the house the reasons for my voting on on the bill I was assure the member that I will explain that to him. Mr. Speaker, the, uh, in the various elections that I've stood [00:38:00] in Auckland Central, this question has always been asked of me, and I have made it quite clear that I do not support. I do not support the sending of people to jail for sexual acts committed between consenting adults in private. I don't believe, having listened to most members of the House, that they actually support that action either. The action of sending somebody to jail [00:38:30] for homosexual acts is, of course, very rarely done. But that is no reason for not amending the law Indeed, if we fail to amend that sections of the law, we will be sending a very clear signal to the courts that this Parliament, in effect, supports sending people to jail, uh, for homosexual acts. I don't believe that. That's what parliament thinks. I believe that it's very bad, uh, legal practise [00:39:00] for the house to leave on the statute books laws that we do not wish to be enforced. That brings the law into, uh, disrepute. And that is that is bad on a general law and order, uh, rule of law philosophy. And as such, I have always opposed such laws being on the statute book. And in this case, uh, I therefore support the general thrust of the bill, [00:39:30] and two other questions then have to be basically dealt with. And the first is the question of the age of consent. The age of consent. Of course, for women, there's no age for men engaged in, uh, heterosexual activity is 16. And that raises an interesting question. Should the age be 16 for homosexual acts, there have been a number of different arguments put up in this house. But I put it around this way. Why [00:40:00] did parliament decide on 16? Uh, as an age for women? Why not higher? Why not lower how many members of Parliament actually support young girls of 16 engaging in sexual activity? I most certainly do not, but I don't support lifting the age. The reason I don't support lifting the age is because there is a limit to the protection that the law can grant to people. And the reality is that [00:40:30] the Parliament cannot protect people over the age of women over the age of 16 who engage in sexual activity. I frankly think that the same thing applies with homosexual activity, and even though I am, there's a number of different ages put forward at 18 and 20. I frankly don't support people engaging in homosexual activity at any age, and it seems to me that the right age it's therefore we should determine [00:41:00] that question on sound lawmaking principles and on sound lawmaking principles. The age of 16 is probably the limit of the protection that the court can grant that that the parliament can grant. We then have the question and part two as to whether we should move past decriminalisation to a question of whether we should extend the Human Rights Commission to those who are, uh, engaging [00:41:30] in homosexual activity. I represent the Auckland Central electorate, which I am informed. I don't know how people can possibly make such judgments Is the, uh, centre of capital of homosexuality in New Zealand. I'm not sure that that's in fact, true, but it is true that Auckland Central is a very tolerant electorate and minorities who are perhaps persecuted in other parts of the country uh, tend to go to Auckland Central. That's one of the reasons why I, uh, I personally [00:42:00] love it. And like like, uh, representing that electorate. I have to inform the house, however, that I get people complaining to me about various things I have never had in the 10 years I've been a member of Parliament. Never had a case of somebody telling me that they were unable to get accommodation because they are homosexual. Uh, because the reality is, of course, that landlords actually like homosexuals, they don't have Children. [00:42:30] Uh, and the Children are what our people are discriminated against. So I've had many cases of people coming to see me because Chairman do you need to do five minutes debate a point of order, Mr Bank. Mr. Chairman, I think this would be an opportune time to canvass this matter with you. That you didn't wish to canvass at the start when I raised a point of order regarding the number of speeches. And I think that the member for Auckland Central [00:43:00] has precipitated this by endeavouring to seek a further call. Now, personally, I don't mind if the member for Auckland Central takes a second call because he obviously is only halfway through what he wants to say. And the point I make in respect of this it seemed logical that he could do that in order to, uh, finish off the tenor of what he wanted to tell the house. Now, if he has to wait until next Wednesday night or the following Wednesday night before he can finish off what he's got to say, it makes nonsense of the whole thing. Now, I don't want to put you in a position [00:43:30] where you might make a ruling that you don't wish to, but I just say simply that this is exactly the case that I was talking about before, and the difficulty that we're going to get into speaking to the point of order. The honourable Mr. I appreciate the remarks and for but But it's up to the house. I've indicated that I want to call someone else, Calls against me. Of course they will. I will not be able to complete my remarks. Yeah, the position is that, um, the member may, of course, uh, continue a speech if there is no other member seeking a call. [00:44:00] Um, if if another member does, however, seek a call, then that member will receive preference from the chair. The the Honourable Richard pre you. I thank I thank the house. I I've never known a case of a homosexual being refused accommodation on those grounds. I'm not saying that it's never occurred, but it's never come. It has never come to me. I have had many cases of married couples being unable to get accommodation clearly because they have Children. I have also [00:44:30] a very good reason why that person, uh, was sacked and I I had a case recently of a union which was accused by one of their staff of having uh sacked the person because she was a lesbian and the union secretary said. Me Well, that's extraordinary because I knew she was a lesbian before I even hired her. Of course, I didn't sack her for that reason and then produced that person's employment record, which was quite clear. The reason why I have doubts about Part two, however, go further than that. I very much [00:45:00] support the Human Rights Commission. I don't believe that women in this country have yet got equality. The Human Rights Commission most certainly hasn't completed its task. I don't believe that we have racial equality in this country, and those are the Those are two priorities, and the reason I make them priorities is you can't change your sex, you're born with it. You can't change your race. We can have an argument about whether people are born homosexuals [00:45:30] or not. There is some doubt about it, but there's absolutely no doubt that people cannot change their race. And for that reason, I believe parliament has extended protection and the area of race and the area of of what sex you are. I don't believe that we can extend it to the area of sexual preference, and in addition to that it will create a very great difficulty. What it will mean is that if somebody is a homosexual and they are fired, they will [00:46:00] always be able to raise this particular claim against their employer. And how do you answer an accusation of that sort? I think it is extremely. It's extremely difficult. I think we'll have great problems with it, but there's another reason we'll have problems with it. It's clear from this house that there are respectable members of the community who have very strong exceptions to homosexuality, and what we will have is those people will still go on carrying out their beliefs [00:46:30] and we will be persecuting them because of their beliefs. And can I advise the house that martyrdom is something that Christians believe in? It is never a very good idea to parliament to pass a law that could make Christians into martyrs. And I am the Caesars discovered That wasn't a good idea, and it's still not a good idea today. I say on sound lawmaking grounds. I do not believe [00:47:00] it's a good idea to make the member for HAA into a martyr because I'm sure he's not gonna change. Yeah, I hope he doesn't mind me picking him out, but I I'm sure he's not going to going to change his views because of a law passed in this house. He believes that he should follow, uh, laws passed in another and higher house, Mr Mr Chairman. So for that reason, I think that we will be going far enough if we pass part one of the bill. And [00:47:30] as I've explained to my electorate, uh, and the electorate has no doubts about this. I'm going to support, uh, part one, and I'm gonna support it completely. Not none of this, uh, pussyfooting around. I'm gonna support part one, and I am going to oppose part two. Mr. Banks, uh, we, uh, on this side of the argument are delighted, uh, to hear the revelations of the member for Auckland Central who hasn't spoken in this debate. I don't believe, uh to learn that [00:48:00] he's going to, um he's, uh, not going to support part two. we think this is a pretty obnoxious section of this bill. Uh, we think that, uh, the legalisation of the act of sodomy for 16 year old boys is abhorrent to us on this side of the house. 16 year old kids. Uh, but we won't have, uh, any part either of the second part of the act, which, um, simply, [00:48:30] uh, puts this down as an or an acceptable orientation. Sexual orientation, uh, in the eyes of the law because we say on this side of the house that, um the next thing will be coming and that this will mean is that, um, as someone who commits the act of incest, uh, can be accepted under these kind of terms in terms of the human rights, uh, of the country, Uh, somebody that has other [00:49:00] kinds of, uh, perversions with perhaps animals or something else, uh, should be accepted that because of their sexual orientation, they shouldn't be discriminated against by an employer or anyone else. And I have employed more people than anyone else in this house by thousands. And I have never, ever turned anyone down, uh, for employment opportunities on the grounds, uh, that, uh, that person, uh, is a homosexual or something else. In other words, because [00:49:30] of her or his sexual orientation. And, uh, but I am one of those on the side of the house. That is, uh, totally opposed to this parliament. Uh, legitimising and legalising on the statute book for part one of this, uh, bill. And that is the legalisation of the act of sodomy, Uh, between consenting boys of 16 years of age. And that's what we're considering. Yes, we do have an amendment from my friend and colleague, the member for Elton, uh, lifting this [00:50:00] age limit if you like, uh, to 20. Uh, but as as we see it in the substantive part of the bill and the bill before the house right now, uh is that the age should be 16. And we say that we don't want to know about that on this side of the house. And the member for Auckland Central is quite right quite right when he talks about, uh, people homosexual acts. We are not here, uh, saying and opposing the act of homosexuality, [00:50:30] uh, meaningful relationships between two men, whether they be 16 year old boys or 18 year old men. Uh, what we are opposed to is this parliament legalising the act of sodomy in this bill for 16 year old boys. So we are opposed to that, uh, Mr Chairman, and on this side of the argument. We represent 800,000 New [00:51:00] Zealanders, many of whom will be listening with great interest tonight to hear what we've got to say, Uh, we propose to fight this bill. This evil bill that will have insidious consequences for the moral fabric of this nation are the cornerstone of this society, the family unit and ultimately, democracy. And we say it is wrong. 800,000 New Zealanders say it's wrong. The majority of the people of say it is wrong, and I have plenty of evidence of [00:51:30] that. So they have sent me down here with a mandate to oppose this. I oppose it anyway, and I'm interested that the member for Napier, um, issues the challenge to the House to accept his amendment, which is very worthwhile indeed to have a wolf and, uh, inquiry done on this or a referendum. I've got to say that even if even if a referendum was held and, uh, the majority of New Zealanders want it, I still couldn't support it. It's sort of like, [00:52:00] uh uh, the debate on abortion and so on. I mean, you can't cut your conscience, uh, to fit the day the era and what we are worried about. Also, Mr Chairman, is once this bill gets onto the statute books and there's no doubt in our minds that part one of the bill will reach the statute books. We doubt very much if part two will get there for the reasons that the men of Auckland Central mentioned. But once part one [00:52:30] of the, uh, bill gets to the statute books, that is the legitimization and legalisation of sodomy between 16 year old boys. Will there be an amendment put forward to this principle act by some members of this house or a future Parliament are to lower the age to 15 or 14 or 13. Uh, we find that quite obnoxious. Uh, Mr Chairman, I will allow the member for Southern to speak the Honourable [00:53:00] Sullivan. Uh, Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to the member for Auckland Central and agree with the observations he made on part two of this bill. Uh, as to his comments on the martyrdom of those who take the opposing view, I would say that ecclesiastical supporters of homosexuality have not and cannot produce any [00:53:30] texts which present homosexuality as a legitimate sexual expression such Mr Chairman do not exist. Yeah, When I last spoke on this matter, I was referring to Maori opinion on the spill, but did not get very far when it was closing. Uh, when I had to end my speech. So I want to tell this house [00:54:00] that I have spoken with the leaders of significant Maori movements. I believe every significant Maori movement to consult with them on this bill. And even today there was a possibility of this continuing. And it is important for me to bring before this house on the short title uh, the summon substance of the opinion that was given, I believe the motion of the Hui Amur at its annual gathering [00:54:30] in Auckland over the days 22nd to 24th March. This has summed up my view point on this bill and I read in fact the resolution that this that is, of the Anglican Church of the Diocese of the Diocese of Auckland, which is the most populous, uh, statistically [00:55:00] evident group of Maori in this country. This a expresses its strongest opposition to the homosexual law reform bill which proposes legalising homosexuality between consenting males. Uh, the letter was signed by the archbishop of New Zealand at that time, the bishop of Auckland, the most Reverend Paul Reeves. On behalf of that community, [00:55:30] Mr Chairman letters lobbying me to support this bill have referred to homosexuals as an oppressed minority, likening the oppressed Maori minority to the bill's proponents. Some Maori groups have accepted this premise, but the leaders to whom I have spoken whose wisdom, uh, for whose wisdom I have significant and considered respect [00:56:00] do not agree with that premise, and I want to mention that I will not refer to them by name. But throughout Maori for this decade and previous ones, the group have been accepted as leaders throughout the four Maori electorates. I do not accept that premise. There is no sense in which the homosexual community can be compared with ethnic minorities, as has been made, [00:56:30] UH, A, as has been suggested. But ethnic minorities have traditionally been at the lowest end of the economic ladder, and that is certainly not true of the homosexual minority, for the level of education is much higher than the national average. Those are few Maori homosexuals who have been part of the gay liberation group have been characterised by a university education [00:57:00] and, of course, are among the higher salary earners. In fact, in America, the homosexual community has considerable economic clout because it is in the affluent, higher educated echelons of society. It has that economic clout and perhaps the existence of travel agencies, one of which is said to have some 20,000 members who are actively seek [00:57:30] areas of the world where safe homosexual sex may be pursued is of particular concern to the Maori leaders with whom I have spoken for overseas experience in my own observ observation overseas suggests that those who suffer most from proselytization and enticement into promiscuity are the indigenous [00:58:00] minorities. I will come back to that before calling the next member. Could I just say that the last member speaking and I didn't want to interrupt her? UH, may have may or may not have been here when the ruling was originally given on the relevance of, um of debate under the short title. But can I just repeat that we should be discussing specific clauses in the bill? We are required to do that by previous speaker's rulings on the subject, Um, and it's therefore necessary if members are to remain relevant for them to refer in their speeches to specific [00:58:30] clauses, I gather that the honourable member for Southern Maori was in fact pick picking up where she left off. Uh, in the second meeting, in fact, she admitted she was doing just that, and I didn't want in the spirit of a conscience debate, uh, to make too much of this. But in fact, we are not entitled to extend the second reading debate in the committee stages. We are here debating the bill clause by clause, as well as an amendment which has been moved by the Honourable Member for Napier. All of those matters that is the [00:59:00] clauses, um, of the bill, plus the amend now before the committee are now, as it were up for grabs, and members must, in order to be relevant, address themselves specifically to a clause or to the amendment. Mr. Williston, Mr. Chairman, having spoken in the second reading of the debate on the bill and expressed my support for all parts of the bill in that debate, I don't propose to range widely over the clauses of the bill, but instead want to address myself specifically to the amendment, which has been [00:59:30] moved by the member for Napier because I think it is something that the House needs to consider fairly closely. Uh, in moving that amendment, the member for Napier said that I think I quote him fairly accurately that he felt he moved the amendment because he felt that the 95 members of this house were not fit and proper people among themselves to decide on this matter. And I want to say that that may well be true. It may well be true of many matters that come before this house, but nonetheless, when we offer ourselves for election to the house, we do take on ourselves [01:00:00] that duty, rightly or wrongly, whether we are fit to do that, make those judgments or not. And I think that the Crimes Act and the contents of the Crimes Act are matters which are very much within the control of this house. It is a nettle we have to grasp, and I don't think that we can put that responsibility from ourselves at a late stage. I want to say that the amendment as proposed on the supplementary order paper, creates some real problems. It proposes a hybrid procedure that is, that we pass the bill or if we [01:00:30] pass the bill that we then move to establish a royal commission to examine the issues in the bill and from there to a referendum, Um, the Well, as I read it, um, Clause one sub clause two A er requires that a royal commission has investigated and reported on all aspects of homosexuality in New Zealand and be that a referendum be held now. What I want to say about that is that a royal commission can in fact be a very useful adjunct to legislation in matters of this kind. But if a royal [01:01:00] commission is to be held, it must surely precede the introduction of legislation and the passage of legislation. Surely the purpose of a royal commission would be, in fact, to examine the issues which might properly be in the legislation. And I ask the House to consider what on earth would be the purpose of passing a bill, which was to then come into effect when a royal commission had examined the issues which must in fact inform the drafting of and debate on a bill if we were to have a royal commission, we should have had it already. [01:01:30] I suggest that the issues have been so widely canvassed that one is in fact not needed. But I don't see how on earth we could pass the bill and then have a royal commission to see whether or not it is the right sort of bill. But to have a referendum after that would, I think, make the situation even more complicated. And I don't think that we can seriously contemplate such a hybrid matter. But there's one other point that gives me even greater cause for concern. And that is that. Sub Clause 13 of the proposed new clause requires the governor [01:02:00] general to be involved in making a judgement on the bill, not just in giving the royal assent as is required under our Constitution now, but in making a judgement. It requires the governor general to be satisfied that certain things have taken place before he can set a commencement date for the act and I suggest that it would not be very easy to satisfy oneself that a royal commission has investigated all aspects of homosexuality, and I doubt that the commission itself would ever make the claim. A royal commission would ever make the claim that it had exhausted all [01:02:30] aspects of a time put before it. So it would seem to me that passing this amendment would have two results which could be a very grave consequence. Firstly, we could end up with a bill which had passed through all stages, presumably been granted the royal assent but did not have a commencement date, did not come into force, hung in limbo, perhaps indefinitely an act that had been passed by the house but was perhaps never to come into force. And that is a constitutional nonsense, which should I think, concern the House consider. But the second point is even more significant. [01:03:00] That is a requirement that the governor general of New Zealand become involved in more than a formal way in legislation, become involved by the requirement that he make a certain judgement of some of some substance, become involved in a substantial and controversial matter of legislation and the thought of the people who have lobbied members of this House to act or not to act in a certain way. Lobbying the governor general of New Zealand. To act or not to act in a certain way is one which I think would be repugnant [01:03:30] to every member of this house because it would in fact have a constitutional effect which would be marked and would not be in the interest of the country. For that reason, I find that the amendment moved in good faith and of a technical nature. Uh, I think is not possible of passage If the House is not going to do considerable violence to some of the constitutional requirements under which we work. Mr. Norman Jones, I'd like I'd like to spend five minutes My first five [01:04:00] minutes on Clause five of this bill, which repeals Section 142 of the principal act relating to sodomy and substitutes a new provision, uh, related to anal intercourse. And it goes into some description about what, in fact, anal intercourse is. Well, I don't think too many of us need to be arguing too much about what the difference between solum and anal intercourse is. All I am saying is, if anal intercourse is legalised to replace sodomy, which is which is a crime, we will see New Zealand today, Mr [01:04:30] chairman pass from condemnation of sodomy to legalisation of sodomy, albeit by calling a intercourse under clause five and then to sponsorship of of, of sodomy. And, uh, we can do all talk about the gay bars. They may well be able to put up with the gay bars and the gay, uh, and the gay nightclubs and the restaurants and the Auckland and then the Wellingtons and even the Christchurch. But if this is legalised at 16, and for 12 year olds with consent providing [01:05:00] like the 16 year old can claim as an offence and he thought they were 12 years of age, then we're going to find it down in the in the car and then the the tyres. And then there's I just want to read out to the to the to, to define I. I know the act. The bill goes in and defines what anal intercourse is. I don't think we need to worry. I'm going to read out a submission, Uh, a letter from a specialist, Venero, who was prevented from making submissions. I've got his name here. He doesn't want me to give his name because [01:05:30] he treats mainly homosexuals. I'm prepared to table the letter he gave me, but he doesn't want his name. He treats homosexual. He's a friend of mine. He used to be in practise down in, uh in South, but he's been in orphan for years. He's a specialist, Venero. I'm a specialist, Venero. I want to tell this house what anal intercourse is, and and and I'm a specialist, Venero, who works at the coalface. Yay! The very tip of the pic and dealing with examining and treating male homosexuals and in the professional setting, treat them as I do all others [01:06:00] who consult the best of my professional ability. And I've had many comments of thanks and gratitude for this and the help given. However, I would like all members of Parliament who vote on the bill to be able to look over my shoulder as I do. Anal and rectal proto examinations, swabbings for cultures and treatment of anal warts, herpes, syphilis, gonorrhoea, etcetera, meaning inflammations, pass and diarrhoea, which results from the infection spread by sodomy. We're now talking about anal intercourse. Yes, nothing more or less than the unprotected [01:06:30] Penis inserted in many cases and still in spite of AIDS warnings, frequently with many casual partners, change partner change in a short time into the rectums and faces of such partners as an individual specialist mineralogist. I am no prude and I cannot conscientiously not prepared to table this letter consciously condone such practise, comparing as it does with the pigs who eat their food from amongst their own faces or a human walk through a sew without gun boots. I don't think there is any other [01:07:00] way to regard this. And though not religious, I can understand the social sanity of the prescription of such practises since biblical and bygone times apart from the now known infection risks. In addition, it came as a surprise to have starkly brought to my attention at a recent seminar I attended on sexology attended by many male and female homosexuals, some of whom were speakers and spoke openly discussed the fact that not only do these people have difficulty relating and feeling [01:07:30] at ease with medical practitioners and matters pertaining to sex and associated problems, but unless the doctor is homosexual and indeed some are that treat these people, they have the same difficulties over nonsexual matters, thereby highlighting the problem world of maladjustment almost bizarre, immature and social disease that they live in and seek to solve by only moving among their own kind. A type of withdrawal from society to a sexual and social apartheid, which, with the point mentioned Peter, I [01:08:00] would hate to see extenders as a normal feature of New Zealand's social life. Except what I am describing here is anal intercourse from a specialist Genero, and this is what this government. This is what this bill is now going to legalise to replace so anal intercourse is no replacement, no change at all. It's half a dozen of 1/6 of the other. Why the hurry? My own personal view is that enough is known of homosexuality now to label it as situational [01:08:30] and developmental, almost predictable and understandable when it occurs in individuals allowing that what occurs in the privacy of bedrooms among consenting adults or whatever age is greed is their own private business. As with heterosexuals instead of the 90 the MP S deciding what the country wants to these, perhaps you could take a lead in fostering the development of strongly family and heterosexual health and norms. As Luther said, Here I stand, I can do no other. Now there's from AAA specialist Genero, who treats basically homosexuals. [01:09:00] That's what anal intercourse is. I I'm very loath to interrupt members during, UH, five minute speeches, but I've already made the point twice that we are obliged in the short title debate to talk about the clauses of the bill. And we've had quite a lot of material. That's strictly speaking. Second reading material. If I can point members again to the speaker's rulings on this subject and uh, specifically to Speaker's ruling number six on page 36 it sets [01:09:30] out there that when Clause one is being considered, we must look at the drafting or other technical details of Clause four, Clause 44 or any other clause the member may wish to speak to in order to tie up its consideration of the details of a number of clauses. Emphasis is given to the clauses, and the ruling goes on to say the details of the drafting of the clause are a proper subject for consideration. Likewise, details understood drafting of other clauses. So, um, I'd like members to to when they're addressing [01:10:00] the short title, make sure that they're talking to a particular clause. And in doing so to the drafting and technical details of that clause or to the amendment, I don't think it's too rigid a requirement on members. I'm sure they can still say what they have to say without, in fact, giving another second reading speech a point of order, Mr Mallard, During the last speech, the member from Invercargill offered to table a document. I think it would be appropriate if that was put to the house now, rather than rather than left. I [01:10:30] think there is no objection to that big table. Uh, the member for Invercargill did did not in fact, do more than suggest that he might wish to table it. He didn't actually request for it to be tabled. He is free to do so. If he wishes. He likes to indicate that he wishes to table. I'll put that matter to the house. Is it the wish of the house that this document be tabled? I gather there is no objection. Therefore, the leave of the house is granted. Mr. Bray Brook. Mr. Chairman, I just want to briefly take a second call to explain [01:11:00] the reasons, uh, and solicit the the support of the house for the amendment moved in my name. Now the member for Nelson, um, put forward some reasons why it should not be supported. I want to point out to him, of course, that the reason is not that the bill should be passed and then have a royal commission of inquiry. It is that the bill should not be passed until such time as a royal Commission of inquiry has looked at all aspects of homosexuality. So I freely confess that if that is accepted, [01:11:30] the bill should not continue. I agree with the member for Nelson, it would be farcical to pass the bill and then have a royal commission of inquiry. That is not the purpose, Mr Chairman of my amendment. My amendment is that this bill should not proceed any further until such time as a royal Commission of inquiry has examined all aspects of homosexuality. I want to inform the house that I think that I have some very good support for that suggestion. One of the leading Christian theologians [01:12:00] of this country, no matter which particular church you may belong to, is Cardinal Williams of the Roman Catholic Church and This is what he said, uh, back in March when this bill 1st 1st presented to the House, and I believe it does support the need for greater research, he goes on the cardinal. His eminence says homosexual persons will not be served by examining only legal aspects of orientation and behaviour and ignoring social, medical, psychological [01:12:30] and moral aspects. The proposed bill does not do justice to this complexity. There is need for a sustained, systematic research. It would be tragic if the proposed legal change distracted attention from that need. I couldn't agree with Cardinal Tom Williams more because if this bill does become law as some people want it to be, then the chances of ever having an in depth investigation for the benefit [01:13:00] of home homosexuals and the rest of us, I believe will be lost forever. A Royal commission of inquiry can look into all those aspects mentioned by Cardinal Williams in his address. It can look Mr Speaker at the social, medical, psychological and moral aspects, and we would all surely be the better for it. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this Royal commission of inquiry is an absolute necessity. If we ignore it if we think that we know better. [01:13:30] If we are prepared to ignore public opinion, then I'm sad to say that this parliament will be the lesser for it. Public opinion decides the fate of each and every member in this house and without a commission of inquiry, let me tell you now, if we go regardless on then I believe that some members and I I say this on both sides of the House will unfortunately pay the penalty because of public opinion. The public have the right [01:14:00] to be informed of all the facts, not just one argument that I may care to put up. Or my colleague, the member for Wellington Central may care to put up. They should all know the facts and they should decide. And I urge members not to be sidetracked by some smart talk on legal aspects of what could or could not be. Research is required. It is necessary. Cardinal Williams is correct. I urge all members to vote for it if you're [01:14:30] frightened of a national referendum. As I said before, Mr Chairman, I'm quite happy that when the vote is taken that the first vote on a royal commission of inquiry have a vote on that and the second one to be on whether or not there should be a referendum and the people of New Zealand decide this very grave moral issue, I believe that we will ignore it at our peril. Mr. Chairman, Other aspects of the bill which I'm going to relate on briefly, is that it is all too demanding, especially Part [01:15:00] two and I will be introducing to counteract that thing that that part of the bill, that if it is passed it not really related to members of the armed forces, the police or prison officers. I believe that it would be absolutely horrendous for the members of the armed forces to be to not have as a disciplined reaction the fact that they could commit legal sodomy. In conclusion. Mr Chairman, this bill puts a cloak of respectability on on a practise which I believe [01:15:30] the majority of New Zealanders detest and do not want. But research into this problem is needed. The Honourable Peter Tapsell, Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the bill can, with any sense of logic, be amended if part one is to succeed and the legal sanction against sodomy between consenting adults be removed. Then there would seem to me [01:16:00] no good reason why the age of consent for such acts as between two men should be different from that applying as between a man and a woman. Nor and equally would I see any good reason why such an act between such persons shouldn't Such a person should not enjoy the protection of the human rights legislation. Or alternatively, [01:16:30] if part one is to fail, then, of course, other parts and the amendments are superfluous. That is my own view. I will oppose all six Mr Norman Jones. I'd like to spend some time on Clause three page two of the Bill Pat one Two new sections relate to in DC with Boys substituted in DC with boy between 12 and 16 and the clause on page [01:17:00] two of the bill everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years has been about assault. But the provision is it is a defence to charge under this section to charge under this section. If the person charged proves that the boy consented that he is younger than the boy. What I'm talking about here, Mr Chairman, is if legalised rights are given to you young males under this clause at 16 years of age, that is, pupils in the 5th and 6th forms of any [01:17:30] high school, and I've taught it for them. And and and and unfortunately, I can safely say that 3.5 years in the services as a killer youth at 17, wounded, back home here at 19 years of age, wounded three times. I never struck a case of, of, of, of, of proposition of homosexuality, not even in the troop ship. It wasn't until I came back to teach at five high schools that I found cases. There were cases of of homosexuality between masters and pupils. And that's the worst [01:18:00] part of this is the worst feature of it that if legalised rights are given to young males of 16 years of age, I'm We're talking about pupils in the 5th and 6th forms. Then I believe, Mr Chair, that as a society we have totally abdicated our responsibility to protect our Children. And when I look at this sort of thing and I say in this day and age that, uh, try telling, try telling your 12 year old in the third form who gets into a liaison with 1/6 form or 1/5 [01:18:30] form and has a homosexual act. Anal intercourse with his consent and some of these third form boys. 12 years of age and 30 years of age. And I've got a 6 ft 5, 18 year old son and a 6 ft four son who was 6 ft when they were at the 3rd and 4th form playing rugby for the 1st 15 in the fifth form. And I can tell you that there's There's no way that 1/5 form sixth form of fifth form can say that the third form of fourth form under the age of 16, down [01:19:00] to the age of 12 with his consent. That's a defence Now. I'm saying that this is wrong as far as I'm concerned. Try telling your 12 year old son who comes home or your daughters, and that matters. 12 year old son who comes home. Try telling him that anal intercourse is abnormal, unlawful sex between males, and he said, It's lawful, Dad, I'm allowed to do it. We're not allowed to do it by consent, but bill in the 5th and 6th form, said, It's OK. He doesn't know I'm not 16. And [01:19:30] even if he's 16, the 2/5 and sixth forms get together. Try telling them that it's abnormal, that it's intercourse. Intercourse is perversion. And what do you say about this now legalised unnatural act when they say it's legal and we're 16 and we're consenting adults at 16 under this act, and what are you going to do about it? Stopping this at 16? I can well understand that consenting adults at 20 years of age and things like that. What they do in their own bedroom is their own business. [01:20:00] But there's no agreeing for me or anybody else in this house to say that 16 year olds are able to distinguish when they, when they when they proposition or influenced by older people or certainly 12 year olds. And anybody in this Parliament that votes for this bill of 60 year old is really building up some problems for the family unit Now, as far as I'm concerned, the so the the reason for bringing this in the main reason to bring it in this clause is that the that the that the homosexuals this country say they're being victimised, [01:20:30] persecuted and harassed under existing laws. That is simply not true. As spokesman for police, I've done my homework on this. I've looked up the I've looked up the records. There hasn't been a prosecution taken by the police in this country against consenting for 14 years. The police have got more to do. For goodness sake. They're out there on the front line getting stabbed and beaten up. They've got more to do than follow a couple of books home from a homosexual bar or pub and to find out what's going on in the bedroom. So there's [01:21:00] no harassment, no harassment. And because they say they've been harassed. Why, if they had come into this Parliament satisfied at 20 years of age, the same as the Ben Young Bill in 74? I doubt very much that I have been out campaigning against this bill to the same extent, and I believe frankly, that they are being too greedy when they are bringing it down to 16 years of age and to a 12 year old that is not on. And there's over 835,000 people in this country that will say it's not on and they are not going to go away. [01:21:30] They will be here. And I can promise this house and every member that votes for the 16 that those people will continue continue their campaign. And during the last eight years, Mr Chairman, only 72 persons have been charged with, uh, an imprisoned. There are only in prison at the moment for practising sodomy. Only 30 in prison, Mr Chairman, And does it matter three times? So I like taking the call again because nobody else has one in call. I'm [01:22:00] sorry, I presume. I said no Jones as it march the first Mr Speaker 1985. Only 13 persons last March haven't got the figures up since March were in prison for committing homosexual offences. And they were in prison because they were committing these offences indecent acts against non consenting adults. And that is still going to be a crime under this act. I appreciate [01:22:30] that. I'm not arguing that so. Those are the only people in prison. So where's the sexual harassment of consenting adults in private? Our police Look, I've gone round with the police cars in the evenings. They are more concerned with crimes against the person than watching homosexuals than they don't bother them. They don't harass them at all. And the homosexual violence will say. But the persecution? As far as I'm concerned, there's no prosecutions against consenting adults, never has been and are not likely to be. But the prosecutions [01:23:00] are when these people are propositioning and sodomising, non consenting adults or youth. And I want to go back to that clause. Mr Speaker, Mr Chairman, I can't see where the indecency you the boy under 18 to bring this in. I know that homosexuals argue that it's the same for heterosexuals, and there are members in this Parliament who will say, If it's good enough for the girls, it's good enough for the boy, for goodness sake. It isn't good enough for the girls anyway. And no parent wants to have his daughter [01:23:30] have carnal knowledge with anybody four or five years older than herself. Certainly not at 12 years of age. I know it happens, but that doesn't mean to say that we have to legalise it and give young boys who are more open to this sort of thing more open to this sort of thing among their peers. And as far as I'm concerned, anyone try telling you, Put yourself in the position of telling your 12 and 14 year old or your 15 your 5th and 6th form, that the association that he's got [01:24:00] with his friend is unnatural and not right. And what are we doing? We are normalising it, not legalising it. We are legalising it. We are normalising it. And what's more, it'll be commercialised. And when we've got this age around, I can tell. And I wasn't joking when I said that the homosexuals throughout the world who know they can't get their safe sex because of age with aged and older homosexuals will come to New Zealand in their thousands, looking for the 14 [01:24:30] and a 16 year old where they'll get reasonably safe sex free from age for some time. And we'll have surf, sun and scenery and safe sodomy. And I've said it before, and it's no laughing matter because they travel around these people and that's why the AIDS is is great and they travel from Sydney to Australia, and when they can, when they no longer can have safe sodomy in Australia and New South Wales and Victoria and in America. They will come to this country and they will [01:25:00] sodomise call it anal intercourse. There's no difference, and we're taking away something which is fine. I want to say nothing as as spokesman for police. If this act is brought in, our police are going to have an absolutely horrendous dimension placed on top of their present law and order. Things of going around trying to find out what's going on. They'll have another degree of responsibility looking after boys instead of girls when they see them in the streets looking after [01:25:30] boys with other boys Now I wouldn't wish that on the police force, and I'm not going to go into the Human Rights Party, and I'll do that in my next call. I'm just going to say it's going to put something onto our police at the moment, which they don't need, because we can't even cope with the crimes that we've got today without giving the police another dimension of having to look after 12 and 14 year olds and they'll get complaints. All right, there's no question of doubt about that there'll be complaints coming and we can talk about all the incest complaints 400 on that programme the other night, but not from the police will be getting [01:26:00] complaints from the police and they've got enough to do. And as far as I'm concerned, I don't think when it comes to crunch that this parliament and I believe when it comes to the final vote 16 or nothing and remembering that 16 means 12 year olds consenting, consenting 12 year olds with their consent is a defence. I'm not gonna say that they could get away with it, but it is a offence and in most cases they won't get any worse treatment than what a 16 year old gets with a 14 or 13 year old girl. [01:26:30] And we're talking here about talking here about not prison sentences. We're talking about $100 fine in the courts the other day. That's right, with boys of 67 year olds of 14 and 30 year old girls, $100 fines, no imprisonment with their consent. I'm talking about Mr Speaker I. I would I would say that that Clause three that's the crunch of the thing down to 60 years. We can't have it. Helen Clark, Speaker. We've been treated again to 15 minutes of the bizarre fantasies of the member for in the Cargill, who appears to believe [01:27:00] that this bill is somehow going to attract thousands of sex tourists to New Zealand. I wonder, sir, if he has considered whether Poland or Czechoslovakia or Italy or Holland or Norway or the United Kingdom, which have rational laws on homosexuality, have attracted sex tourism of that sort because they have a decriminalised homosexuality. And I suggest, sir, that his argument [01:27:30] is specious, as is the interjection of the member for Ponga. Unfortunately, sir, there are members here who are obsessed with the personal practises, sexual practises of the minority of the community who are homosexual. And a couple of weeks ago, when I interjected on the member for Invercargill that he was obsessed, he was only too happy to agree with me and said that he had a magnificent obsession. What I object to, sir is the constant confusion of one's [01:28:00] personal obsessions with what should be written into the statute books of this country, and you make bad law when you try to write the personal prejudices of individuals about this matter into our statutes. If the police have better things to do as the member for Invercargill attempted to argue a few moments ago, why keep this law on the statute books? If the police have better things to do, then enforce it? Why are we hearing so many [01:28:30] arguments against passing the bill coming on to the member for Napier's amendment? Mr. Chairman, I have some considerable constitutional objection to what he has moved. He has moved that the act shouldn't come into force until the governor general is satisfied that a royal commission has investigated the subject of homosexuality, nor until a referendum has been held. I think it is highly [01:29:00] undesirable that the governor general should be brought into an issue of this sort. In this way, it's a long standing convention in the Westminster system of government that the executive should not be closely involved in matters which are more properly those of Parliament. And I consider this amendment runs contrary to all the constitutional conventions under which we operate. But, sir, if we were to take seriously the proposition that there [01:29:30] should be a royal commission, I think it's probably fair to observe that no amount of sane evidence before a royal commission would convince some members that homosexuality ought to be decriminalised by members of this House voting. And I would submit that the only royal commission which some members are interested in would be a royal commission which came up with evidence which they agreed with. And that would be extremely unlikely because the weight of the evidence, [01:30:00] which was heard by the select committee considering the bill, was overwhelmingly in favour of the bill being passed. And I find it unlikely that any royal commission in this day and age would be so stacked that it could come out with findings other than that the decriminalisation of homosexuality was long overdue in this country. Can I deal just briefly, sir? With the argument of the member for Auckland Central against Part two [01:30:30] of the bill. And he argued that it was right to have a sexual discrimination and discrimination on the grounds of colour covered by the Human Rights Commission Act because, he said, individuals could not change their sex or the colour I submit so that the weight of the evidence is that adults cannot change their sexual orientation either, and that that is an argument why sexual orientation [01:31:00] should be covered by the Human Rights Commission Act. I would say that the reason that many members, like the member for Auckland Central, are unable to cite many cases of discrimination against sexual from that is an unhealthy social climate. And if we change the law to decriminalise, the next natural step to take is also to ensure that people cannot legally [01:31:30] discriminate against that behaviour.
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