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 Roger Maxwell. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that this debate is or this bill has created a great deal of debate and even division in our community. But it also, I believe, played an educative role and that there is a much better understanding about the problems associated with the sexual orientation. And, uh, as a result of hearing much of the evidence, I have accepted the some of the, uh, uh, arguments put up by experts on this matter. But, uh, it's still those individuals. [00:00:30] And those submissions that have been based on that evidence supporting the bill still have not changed my point of view that this bill should not proceed any further and should not certainly not become law. There were a great deal of submissions over 1000 a lot of letters, the majority against the bill. And unfortunately, many of those submissions that were put by the bill, particularly those related to Clause five on the bill and and those clauses which make some reference to the age were not able to be heard. [00:01:00] And we had the closure in the committee. And for that reason, Mr Speaker, I think the member, well, I think it's it's It's, uh, possibly that I haven't ruled on it before, but I think it's important for the member to remember that Lily speaking that, um, we talk about the clauses of the bill here and not about the select committee consideration which is now passed. Mr. Roger Maxwell. I understood that the point of order the member [00:01:30] for Taranaki was, uh, uh, discoursing on a No, no, the the member may not raise a point of order. You haven't heard it yet, So how can you rule the order? The member will resume his seat, the member will resume his seat seat, or he will be subject to, uh, discipline by the chair in the usual way. Now, if the member has a point of order and it's not a challenge to the ruling that the chair has given, then he must come to it. Mr. Peters. [00:02:00] Mr. Chairman, the point of order is simply this. That, uh, uh, my colleague from, uh, Taranaki is in discoursing in a short title debate. Now I am I I'm seeking a point of clarity. Is he entitled to, uh, rely on the speaker's rulings and the standing orders in respect to the ambit of a debate in a short title debate or isn't he? And in that case, could you please clarify for him the subject matter that he may discourse on? I'm very happy to do that further to the point of order, Mr Freelander. So you would have noticed when the member [00:02:30] from Mount Albert, in fact, spoke on the short title. She in fact, referred to the weight of evidence that was heard by the select committee and in view of the fact that she was able to in fact cover that area without interruption, although it could well have been argued at time, she was out of order. I believe the member for Taranaki is entitled to briefly respond to that and to counter any arguments raised. Otherwise, it would in fact, be an unfair situation development. I think we need any more help, and I take the point of the member for New Plymouth that to the extent [00:03:00] that we have had some discussion, then, of course, it's, um uh, it's within the capacity of the member for Taranaki to rebut. I'd point out that the the member preceding, in fact, spoke in rebuttal on three points, and that was only one of them. But what I'm simply attempting to draw the member's attention to is that we are, in fact, bound by relevance. It is necessary for him to come reasonably quickly to the consideration that is appropriate on the short title. This is something perhaps that addresses the particular [00:03:30] question raised by the member for Tauranga. He's entitled certainly to rebut. But what he can't do is talk about the select committee stages and base his speech upon that. He is obliged, In fact, in the in the speech that he is giving under the short title to address the clauses of the bill as the major consideration that he addresses in his speech. Mr. Maxwell, Point of order. Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr Maxwell, uh, can I have clarification? You're ruling that, uh, I was not relevant, Uh, because I think the member better come quickly to the clause. I. I [00:04:00] sought, uh, to speak to the point of order because I wanted to point out that, uh uh, I may made an omission in that I didn't refer to clause five initially, but in fact, I had just when you were raised to the point, Mr Maxwell. Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for that clarification. Uh, the fact is, Mr Mr Chairman, I find that the given the experience that we've had, uh, in, uh, as a result of these submissions and the, uh the fact that are in these clauses that the commission [00:04:30] of inquiry, which is by way of amendment for the House, is not really an adequate solution to the problem. The in fact, I am well aware that there has been a great deal of evidence brought forward, particularly relating to the where in the bill, the reference And as I suggested, Mr Chairman, there's a number of references to age in clause five and in other clauses that those submissions were, in fact, uh, supported by many people who signed the petition of 800,000 persons who was presented to [00:05:00] this house, which was questioned by many supporters of the bill. But indeed, I understand that a independent newspaper has addressed that matter. Followed up uh uh, a sample from that Those petitions and found that over 90% of them are genuine. And for that reason, I believe that the submissions that have been put forward are soundly based and particularly those that relate to the clauses. Clause five in particular, where there's a great deal of reference to the age. [00:05:30] Mr. Speaker, Mr Chairman, The wolfenden report, which has been referred to and indeed when people supporting the various and submissions that were made to various clauses of the bill, particularly Clause three and once again, the important Clause five. The Wolfman report, which was often used by supporters as a major basis of acceptance of the bill, uh, really put up the argument that the state lawmakers should not be involved, uh, in legislative, [00:06:00] uh, procedures to to measure or to put parameters around society's morals. But, uh, I suggest, Mr Chairman, that evidence would show and in the, uh, in the circumstances where we have a major health problem aid, which has been referred to before that the quote that, uh, from the wolfenden report, which has been been used often is not, uh is taken out of context. And if that committee was sitting in New Zealand today, they would have not [00:06:30] have found in the way that they did. Mr. Chairman, the important, uh, it's also important in the context of clause five because the what Clause five does er in the way it is written, uh, creates a built in defence. And indeed, if we accept the evidence which was given through the committee in which I accepted those, uh, evidence dating from McKinsey's work and evidence built on that, uh, work shows [00:07:00] that, uh, there is a great deal of, uh, different degrees of sexual orientation. And really, what this clause five does allows the those who would not normally or would not have a strong enough homosexual orientation, uh, to carry out homosexual practises would be encouraged to do so under the provisions of this bill. And I believe that that is, uh, an unfortunate aspect of the bill. It in effect legalises, [00:07:30] anal intercourse. And what we ought to be doing is discouraging those that may have that, uh, sexual orientation orientation and not encouraging them. And that, I believe, is the major fault with the bill. The the other important area of which, I believe is of concern to many people in the country is the part two and particularly, uh, clause nine, which renders it unlawful to discriminate, discriminate against the person on the grounds of a person's sexual orientation. [00:08:00] Once again, I And speaking of that clause, I accept the evidence given on Kinsey's work. But the debate, I believe, is one should be one of understanding and not, uh, rejection. Mr. Trevor Young. Uh, Mr Chairman, I want to speak briefly to the amendment moved by the member for Napier. And after listening, sir, to the contribution tonight of the member for Mount Albert, I am I feel compelled to rise to support the amendment. I want [00:08:30] to say, sir, to the house that the objection taken by the member to mount of Mount Albert to the wording in the, uh, in the, uh, uh, bill here or the amendment proposed that, uh, we are that there is a constitutional conflict in referring to the Governor General here, sir, is not correct. I want to say, sir, that this this clause has been drafted by, uh, legal representatives in the, uh who are responsible for advising us in this house. And you will know, sir, [00:09:00] that, uh, no royal commission can be granted unless there is a warrant or authorization from the Governor General. Of course, sir. Who must always act on the advice on the advice of a minister of the crown. So, sir, there is there. That was a very speech argument. I suggest that was put to the house in to oppose the, uh, referendum of the at least the amendment of the member for Napier. But in any case, sir, I want to put it to the [00:09:30] I want to put it seriously to the house that this is a, uh, an issue which, uh, justly warrants deeper consideration by people who would be appointed to a commission of inquiry or a royal commission because of their ability to research and to report on the matter. I remember, sir many referenda that have resulted from royal commissions, [00:10:00] uh, that the government has set up in the past. I am. You will know, sir, that the, uh, the total A agency, uh, arose out of a, uh, a commission followed by a referendum. We know, sir, that there have been the reversion to, uh, on liquor hours as a similar result. And a while, sir, I am one who have not always been satisfied with some of the findings of royal commissions in [00:10:30] the past because of our personal attitudes I have adopted in life. Nonetheless, sir, I have been prepared to accept, prepared to accept what has been carried out as an impartial inquiry and then a decision that is made by the people. And I would appeal, sir, to all members of the House, including the member for Mount Albert, that she would likewise do that. Because I believe that that is a compromise Which citizens [00:11:00] in this country, sir, have long accepted And, uh, my experience in that, sir, I see the member for Mount Albert shakes her head. But I think, sir, I was campaigning on the on on the, uh, referendum following the royal report. The commission's report in 1946 on the liquor liquor interests. Uh, probably before some members in this house were born. And I remember that one, sir, very vividly. And there is the reason for that, sir, The the government giving a commission on [00:11:30] that occasion was that the issues involved transcended all political party differences. It went right across the community. And I believe, sir, that because we have a free vote in this house tonight is evidence that there is no one political philosophy on this. And I believe, sir, if we have a referendum to tomorrow that this bill would not be, uh, agreed to in any part whatsoever, the bill would [00:12:00] be thrown out. But, sir, before we have a referendum, I believe it would be advisable to have that royal commission. I think, sir, that the, uh uh, the WOLFENDEN Commission that sat in Britain some years ago would probably need updating. Certainly, sir, I think that the situation is applicable to New Zealand could be very different to what we've been in Britain back there somewhere about 20 years ago. And I am [00:12:30] appealing to members of the house that this is a logical way out, Uh, of the, uh of the issue. And I think it's one which would be accepted by all citizens in this country, irrespective of their present convictions on the matter. There is no more appropriate way out than that has been suggested by the member for Napier. And I exhort the house, sir, to follow this and the sort of [00:13:00] pattern that we have adopted in the past on other important social issues, such as in gambling and in matters of the liquor trade No, I'm sorry. The, uh now the Honourable member May may, uh, because we're operating under new speaker rule. Standing orders in this respect, uh, perhaps I should clarify the position the member has taken, Uh uh, three calls. Uh, he's entitled if if he wishes to refer to Speaker's rulings on the subject, he's [00:13:30] entitled to to, as I said on on page 18, uh, in the committee of the whole house to three speeches of five minutes. And the honourable member for Invercargill has had three speeches of five minutes order. I don't need the assistance of any member. I want to clarify it for the member for Invercargill. Two of these speeches which he made were consecutive periods of five minutes. I. I was going to speak to the amendment. I [00:14:00] speak the the member. Uh uh may not have been listening when I when I made the point earlier that we are speaking to, uh, in this, uh, particular, um uh, debate, uh, to both the, uh both the short title and the amendment there, too. When I when I intervened on on a particular point of, uh, of relevance earlier on, uh, I made it made it clear to members that that is the scope of the debate. It's the clauses and the amendment. And in fact, we've had numerous [00:14:30] members speaking to both in their speeches. Mr. Speaker, I want to continue to speak in the short title and refer this time to Clause five, which is commonly referred to as the age benchmark Clause, sir. And I want to particularly speak in the context of the age 16, an age sir that has been heavily promoted by the homosexual community and who have been most vociferous [00:15:00] in their attempts and intentions to maintain and to hold that age. And so I want just to say that if this house indeed ever passed this bill with that age 16 and 10, it would indeed be a very dark day for this nation. Now, sir, we all have received an enormous amount of correspondence on this matter. But the most recent correspondence that I have received, sir, comes again from the gay task force and addresses this question [00:15:30] of 16 this age 16. And so their comments, firstly, are that sexual preference is determined early in childhood, and the age of consent of 16 is unlikely to have any impact on the development of an individual's sexual orientation now, so that's spurious in the extreme, spurious in the extreme. The Kinsey studies, which [00:16:00] I certainly don't accept uh, in total showed at least 50% of the homosexual men attributed their orientation to having basically learned homosexual behaviour. Therefore, circumstances may lead to homosexual disposition, but it takes a homosexual learning experience or exposure to convert that type of predisposition serve into a homosexual orientation, as the phrase is today. Now that's what [00:16:30] we've got to understand, and it's quite erroneous for the gay task force to offer that comment. Secondly, they say that in a New Zealand survey significantly, New Zealand survey, 70% of gay men felt a physical attraction to someone of the same sex before the age of 14. And the conclusion, therefore, is that the age of consent of 18 or more would therefore seem to be unreasonable and workable. I just I cannot even [00:17:00] see exactly the logic of that particular phrase, sir, but let me respond to that that English psychologist Elizabeth Mob, in my research in the case that she has published data to support the theory And certainly I believe it is a very common sense theory theory that a physical attraction to a person of the same sex is a natural progression in sexual maturity towards heterosexuality. And so I believe [00:17:30] that's accepted by people everywhere. What we have from the homosexual group is entirely like their whole act and behaviour unnatural and totally unreasonable. Now, in the third point, sir, the comments are made that the vast majority of homosexual adults are attracted to other adults, just as heterosexuals are. The picture [00:18:00] of gays is predatory, child molesting monsters is a myth whipped up by extremist anti gay lobbies. And, sir, I want to respond. First of all, to this question of what is meant by these people in terms of adult, they use this term, and indeed, it seems to be a very adequate escape term. But Sir adult in this country has many connotations. In fact, in terms of drinking laws, an adult is not considered to be an adult as such until he's aged 20. [00:18:30] And indeed, I just had to write that the constant abuse of abuse of this law had not been seen as sufficient to change that. Now sir. The second part of that contention that therefore, as adults the picture of gays as predatory, child molesting monsters is an extremist lobby. Sir, I want to quote here the testimony of a man who is an ex gay activist, Noel Mawson. And he has said in the last [00:19:00] seven days that that is not true. Because as an individual who has been an activist who has been a leader in the homosexual community, he, sir, has said that indeed, there is a bias to younger people. And, sir, there is testimonies not only by that man, but in fact, sir, that could be offered to the house time and time again that indeed ages below the 16 [00:19:30] are sought by homosexual community people. Uh, Mr Chairman, Mr. Peter, uh, I defer to the member for Southern for the Honourable Suan. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to the amendment on this occasion and, uh, make the observation that, of course, it is based on a premise that this bill will [00:20:00] not be passed and it has its validity in that assumption, accepting that assumption. Then I speak to the amendment, suggested that there be a royal commission and I want to suggest that it would be salary for one of the terms of reference of that royal commission to study the [00:20:30] homosexual sociopolitical ideology and movement internationally to see if there is anything that New Zealand can learn. And I have no doubt that there would be from such a study and from such research. Mr Chairman, I want to paraphrase Santayana's famous quotation. Those who cannot remember are condemned to repeat [00:21:00] is not precise. I do not have it exactly here, but that is a reasonable paraphrase of it. For just as we are now following something like five years behind the movements, progress in America, I believe we have lessons to learn and must endeavour to learn for the the benefit of future generations, [00:21:30] and particularly for the Children of this generation. On the ninth of October, I referred to this importance and I claim it would be one of the most important aspects of that Royal commission of inquiry to consider progress and experience in other nations which have had a similar early history to that which we are in [00:22:00] right now in this country. I made the observation and I repeated that New Zealand is following the American sequence of events. And even though we are fully aware of the tragic consequences of those events, we are still slavishly following. You know, The amazing thing is that less than a fortnight ago in New York, in a drive to slow the spread of the fatal disease AIDS, [00:22:30] the New York City lawyers sought and won court approval to close a well known gay bar. But even as authorities tacked the closed sign on the door of the mine Shaft Tavern, local homosexuals said it was an empty gesture. John S Vinson, a 38 year old gay caterer, said of Mayor Edward Cox actions. It is a bad [00:23:00] joke because dozens of private sex clubs will open within a month and the police will never find them. The move against homosexual gay baths and bath houses, where customers engage in sex, is a rear guard action by the city authorities to contain the spread of aid by limiting sexual promiscuity among gay men. Less than a fortnight ago that was done in America and we are [00:23:30] following a very similar sociological phase as America, why, therefore, are we not learning from it? And if I would make an analogy on Santayana's theme where New Zealand ignores the American experience with respect to the homosexual movements, development and the gay liberation movement in particular in New [00:24:00] Zealand, we are condemned to end up with a similar epidemic. Now, having said that, I want to refer in fact to the meteoric rise of the movement in America and look at the initial impetus, an important part of an initial impetus, because it has frightening possibilities for this country. And I refer to the publication of [00:24:30] Donald Webster, Cory, the homosexual in America, which included a call for activities that would eventually result in the development of the homosexual movement. So we know it. There is there are frightening con Mr Chairman. There are consequences. Sullivan. Thank you. About the same time, through the efforts of a homosexual Marxist named Henry May, the society was founded. He proposed a code of organisation that was [00:25:00] similar to what he had found in the American Communist Party and among European Freemasons. The more radical elements within the movement began to come to the fore, and that was the first phase from which progress developed in the gay liberation movement. and we have seen the same progressive movement here. I call on the lessons of history for us to try at this stage to consider the young of this generation [00:25:30] and consider therefore, very seriously whether or not this bill should be passed. Mr. Chairman, I now come to Clause seven of this bill specifically, and the amendment that was passed in the Select Committee. The only amendment this bill redefines adult to 16 in approving consensual homosexual activity. This [00:26:00] bill legit legitimates what has been known as sodomy and may still be known as sodomy, although the act euphemistically changes the term to anal intercourse, if that is a euphemism. But in the alteration in the amendment made in the select Committee to Clause seven, it makes it a permissible and acceptable defence where a boy of 12 has been sodomised by an older boy to claim that [00:26:30] the 12 year old was thought to be 16. Now I want to take up the point where I ended when I last spoke that in countries overseas where the young have been sought and enticed, a particularly highly represented group have been the indigenous minorities, and I come back to New Zealand and that comes right back to Polynesians [00:27:00] in this country, the most highly desirable group for those who of these massive and affluent travel agents built of home on who build their businesses on the homosexual membership. I referred to one agency alone in America with 20,000 members who will come to New Zealand. If this bill is introduced, who will they particularly particularly look for among the younger people? I claim, Mr [00:27:30] Chairman, it will be the Polynesian boys. I claim that. And that is why I take a very strong stand in opposing every part of this bill, for I stand as an advocate and a defence on behalf of those young Polynesian boys. It is known if the research if if, if members of this house will consider what is happening in America have provided [00:28:00] the young prostitutes for the gay movement who which ethnic groups there are two that have now become very popular, the young black group and the young Brown group, the Hispanics, the Mexicans and I am referring to research. I also carried out on my own behalf and look, how can I not but work to see this bill fail [00:28:30] when I consider who would be most at risk. And then what follows with AIDS as we have it, we know it. Why are we not talking about it? It is a scourge in America that followed in the phase of the movement. I would like the Royal Commission to look at. It has reached a high point. Why do we ignore those figures for it is coming. It is beginning here for we are five years behind. But what will it become? [00:29:00] And who will be the most condemned group? That which is already at the base level of the socioeconomic scale in this country. And I come back to the Maori people and the Polynesians again? That is why even today, responsible Maori elders have said to me, especially of an older generation, do not let that Bill go by. Do not let that bill pass for it is our young who we see will be the subject of those [00:29:30] who will be attracted to this country. Once sodomy becomes safe, is a legitimate bylaw. And I pass their message on even communicated by the last group who spoke to me today in this building. Mr Chairman Mr Peters, speaking of the short title. So I regard it as a privilege to speak following the member for Southern Maori and I support the view she has has expressed at the house tonight, particularly [00:30:00] the view that the young Maori will be the person most abused as the consequence of the pass of this bill. And I say to anybody who has contempt for that philosophy or that idea that there is an inverted racism that the member for Southern Maori is talking about and she and I will have no part of it, though we be at different parties. Tonight's are not a matter of, uh, discussion about shallow thinking, but about the future of a significant part of our race. And for that reason, sir, [00:30:30] I support her views and I will oppose this bill. In respect of the short title. I believe that at least the amendment moved by the member for Napier should see the support of the house tonight. We are told, sir, that the wolf uh, report is a report which should gain the support of the members of this house and having read the report in 1957 it says this, Sir, we do not think that it is proper for the law to concern itself with a what [00:31:00] a man does in private unless it can be shown to be so contrary to the public good that the law ought to intervene in its function as the guardian of the public. Good. Now, sir, that was in 1957 and there was no age then. But if the Wolfenden Report committee had the benefit of what we have in front of this house today, I do not believe they would have said that. I don't believe they would have said that if they knew that as at October, [00:31:30] the 1st 85 in this country in New Zealand, we have had 12 confirmed cases of AIDS proper in New Zealand, of which seven have died. And you know and I know that the other five must die if they've got AIDS proper. Several have been in Auckland, but others already ill have returned from overseas to various parts of the country now. So that is the fact of the matter which nobody can deny. And I say that this is the wrong bill at the wrong [00:32:00] time. We serve our spending as taxpayers millions of dollars, millions of dollars in the health of this country, but specifically over $3 million to arrest the problem of AIDS. Now, sir, surely we owe the taxpayers. Surely we owe the people of this country who fund this country and answer before we so callously move in the face of such public expenditure. [00:32:30] It's not good enough to ask them to pay the price in their general taxation to pay the price of this phenomenon or this scourge which besets particularly the Western world, without first serve. We have regard in this house to measures which may assist that public expenditure. And right now tonight we have asked the taxpayer to pay millions of dollars to help the Western world solve the problem of AIDS [00:33:00] not just for ourselves but for the homosexual community. For people who have contempt for what I say tonight may well be alive next year because of public expenditure, because somebody in Qatar whose agreement, whose views they may not agree with, has paid out the money for their salvation. Now, sir, surely we in the parliament can do a little bit to assist them this bill is the wrong bill at the wrong time. And [00:33:30] those members who do not believe that have got to face the fact that in 87 we may well face five or six Mount Erebus in terms of the aid scourges in this country and they'll be on their conscience, not mine. It's the wrong bill, sir, at the wrong time. Now, sir, we have a duty to those taxpayers. But during the discussion tonight, I note from some members the particular concern to attempt [00:34:00] to identify the problem of discrimination as it affects homosexuals with firstly, Maoris and with that of Nazi Germany. Now I believe the member for southern Maori has well accounted for any attempt to link those two forms of discrimination that have homosexuals with Maori. And frankly, I tell you this, as a person with a Maori background, I'm sick and tired of people linking their discriminatory, uh, beliefs with their [00:34:30] beliefs and the history of the Maori people. I'm frankly sick and tired of it because it's a linkage of convenience, and when they're finished with that, they will move on to something else and leave the Maoris where they are still in the same situation and we will not stand by and see that happen to us now. Mr Speaker. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker and Point of Order. Mr. Banks, the speaker. We have been [00:35:00] running a system all night, and there's plenty of precedent tonight, uh, for a member seeking a second call seeking a second call and being given it now, the member for down one of the South Island seats Sydney did not was not quick enough. Did not take it. And he's in fact, acknowledged that my colleague and friend, the member for Tara can take a second call and were much obliged to him speaking to the honourable Jeffrey Palmer. The flaw in that, uh, theory is that [00:35:30] the member for Tauranga didn't call either the chairman, the chairman. I, uh uh Well, I, I think the matter could be read resolved. The the, uh, the situation is one in which throughout the evening, members have given way to other members. But of course, if another member calls and a member on his feet is seeking a second call, I must give preference to the member seeking a call. A fresh call. It's therefore in the hands of the member for Sydney if he wishes to remain seated at this point. And if [00:36:00] the member for Tauranga wishes to seek the call and continue his speech, well, then, uh, he may proceed. Point of order. I am aware of the way in which the debate has been conducted. I am aware that members have taken a second call. And I, I don't really think it would be appropriate to, uh, to take the call if the member has a second call to make at this point. Thank you. I thank the member for and just, uh, go on and say this, that the American Negroes are well aware [00:36:30] of what happened in respect to the Vietnam debate. Because when in the middle of the civil rights movement for Negroes, the Vietnam debate began, the liberals forgot off the Negroes and moved on to something else, and the Negroes remained where they were. And I'm not going to And I don't believe the member for Southern Maori or the member Mr Chairman, a point of honour. Trevor Mallard. Mr. Chairman, this is this member's second call he is yet to give to a clause [00:37:00] by clause analysis, analysis of the bill, as you required earlier. Uh, the the member was, uh, as I understood it, giving support to the previous speaker, Um, who in raising the question of, uh, clause five. And the penalties attached there, too. And their effect on Polynesian youth, uh, gave the opportunity for the member for to, uh, to endorse their views. But I think the members had all of, uh uh, two or three minutes on. Uh, [00:37:30] sorry, sorry. I just I'll just finish it, Uh, finish the point by saying that I think, uh, the members had ample opportunity now to give us his views on that particular topic. And I'd like him to come to other clauses in the bill. Which, of course, is the the proper consideration at this at this stage of discussion on the short title. That's That's Mr Peter. That's certainly true. And I would refer the member for, uh, uh, Hamilton west to page 36 of the Speaker's rulings, and he will find appropriately we don't order. No, we don't discuss, [00:38:00] uh, med of unless the member seek to raise a further point. I think we should go on from From the point from the point where I ruled and the member picked up a speech. Mr. Peters, Chairman, uh, it is a It's a very appropriate if you look at part two soon. This is a This is a, uh, short title speech. I'm talking about those who would say that we must pass this bill, that we must support Clause two, because to not do that would to be like Nazi [00:38:30] Germany. Now that's the argument of the member for Wellington Central, and she has conveyed that argument countless times in this house tonight and around the country over recent months. And historically it's not true. It's not true, and I can recite recite to her many historical examples from historians of eminent reputation not just in this country but throughout the Western world who refute that argument. Does she not know that [00:39:00] the Brown shirt was started by Ernst Rohm and Ernst Rohm was a leading homosexual in Germany and that he had 4 million brown shirts, which made it possible for Hitler to get going in his political career? Does she not know that? Does she not know that the leading officers in the Brown church were themselves homosexual? Does she not know that? Does she not know that the Brown church created [00:39:30] where many of them in time because they were homosexual, lost their lives? But they they created the monster which devoured them? Does she not know that well, I can recite to her historical present an argument which refutes categorically the kind of argument she has perverted around this country. And that is why part two is a mockery is an absolute mockery. And if you're going to come out of the closet, bring out the truth out of the closet, [00:40:00] bring the whole truth out of the closet. Something denied from this country thus far. And does she not know what happened? In 1934 Ernst Rom decided with the brown shirts that he would demand a an official place in the German army and consequently, the brown shirts. The leading officers of the brown shirts lost them, lost. They did. They lost their life. They lost. No, no, that's the That's the great argument. [00:40:30] That's the great myth and lie. But it's not true. It's not a who I think we're now well away from, and a discussion appropriate to the short title and in the course of the evening, I've tried to draw members' attention to what is relevant at this particular stage. We're dealing with the technical details of, uh, a number of clauses at a time in order to tie up our consideration of them at one at the same time. And the the material that is appropriate [00:41:00] at this stage is, is is is the details of the drafting of particular clauses. Now, um, that's that's a point that, uh, that has the order order. That's a point that, uh, has been made several times in the course of the discussion on the short title. And I'm afraid that the member for uh is well away from that and is indulging in, uh, with what's really second reading material. So I'd ask him, uh, in the in the time that he has, uh, two minutes to come back to a [00:41:30] discussion of the technical and drafting details of the of the various clauses of the bill and the way that they interrelate. And, of course, the way that the amendment, uh, which we're also discussing, uh, impinges upon them. Point of order. Point of order. Point of order, Mr Burden. Mr Chairman, Um, the member for the member for Christchurch North was screaming out fast and other such un parliamentary remarks at you from the back of the house, and I suggest you invite him to apologise and withdraw. [00:42:00] Perhaps perhaps you might. Well, it was. Perhaps you might consider the suggestion from the member for new Plymouth. Uh, I thank the member for Penton for his, uh, for his suggestion. Uh, I'm not going to follow it because I think that, uh, at the stage where I, uh I interrupted the the member who was on his feet. It was because I was concerned about general disorder in the house. I noted that there was some, uh, some kind of a gesture going on in the back from the member for Christchurch north. But there were a [00:42:30] number of other members who were also joining in. Um, and the member for TAA was, uh was debating with them, and that was why I That was why I rose to to make the make the point that I did I. I felt that, uh, the behaviour of the house was degenerating. And the member for Christchurch north was one of those certainly, uh, taking part in that disorder, which, um which I think that the member for Tara will assist by coming back to the bill of a further point of order, Mr Wellington. Very briefly, sir. [00:43:00] I, I listened to your early ruling not the last in respect to the short title in its relation to the total bill. Serve my understanding and I would be glad of your confirmation or otherwise of a short title debate, particularly given the fact that we have five minutes or four times five was that it could be wide ranging in its nature because it must of necessity, deal with the principles of the bill. As I understand, what [00:43:30] the member for Tauranga was doing was relating the principles of legalised homosexuality to the storm troopers in the Republic and Germany about, um, 40 to 50 years ago. So if we're going to consider the principles of a measure of this type, surely we must do so in the context. I think I have help of the total community, and I think I have the member's point. Yes, I think the [00:44:00] the point of No, no, I haven't ruled on the point yet, but before you No, I don't think there is any to do so because the point has been raised that we should be entitled to discuss in this particular stage of the discussion on a bill the principle, the general principles of the bill, given that it is a wide discussion and this is an important distinction to be made. If I can refer members to page 41 of the speaker's rulings, it says there and I think clarifies the issue raised by the member for Papakura. The second reading debate is concerned with the principles [00:44:30] of the bill. The committee stage with the details of the bill. Now the member has raised the point. How does that relate to the fact that the short title debate is a wide was not addressing any clause of the bill? And that was the difficulty that I had with it and provided he is pro provide is ranging across clauses. Then he is relevant. Can I finally say that if members are not prepared to be relevant, then I must consider that they are being tedious and repetitious? I [00:45:00] have no other choice open to me, Mr Peters. Uh, well, of course. You know I Mr Speaker, Mr. Chairman, I was speaking to the amendment. Very simple, covered by standing orders. The speaker's ruling. And it doesn't relate to what you've just ruled on. I'm speaking to the amendment. I'm telling you, sir, and the house I'm telling you, sir in the house why it's appropriate that we should have a royal commission as moved for the member of Napier. Now, am I entitled to speak on that matter? I believe I am. And I'm saying, sir, the country is entitled to know the truth and to have [00:45:30] exposed the specious arguments proposed by the member for Central. And it won't do because the truth, sir, historically that she sought to disguise around the country is not what the what? The situation is simply, Sir, Hitler owed the foundations in in large part to that maniacal regime to a homosexual order. That's the truth of the matter. And listen, I've got the books. There's Shearer here. No way disputes his authenticity. So I've got another second [00:46:00] book here. The Nazi Extermination of Homosexuals by Frank Rector. No way. Dispute disputes whether he's a leading authority. I've got a said by John Toland. Nobody refutes that. And she should read it before she tries to put that sort of argument around the country. The fact of the matter is that the so-called linkage with the Jewish extermination is not true. This is not true. And it won't wash and it won't wash. And as specious and as horrible as Hitler was, there is no way that they're going [00:46:30] to propound and advance their argument by saying that they also suffered from that monster because, uh, in large part, they created a doctor. Chairman, I move with you to report progress and ask Lee for it again. The question is that the motion be agreed to those in favour. Say I those were the It's just part of it. [00:47:00] Thank you. You need is basically a private business order. Now I will hear 11 member on a point of order. Uh, that member will be, uh I be honourable. I believe here in view of the new arrangements for for Wednesday for standing orders, the house, before it is asked to to vote on this matter, should know the implications for the balance of the evening. [00:47:30] I believe so that the house is entitled to an explanation. The the member puts me in a difficult because the the the motion that that is proposed must be put to the house without debate now on more than one occasion by buyers that were, uh, a agreement or concession on the part of the, uh of of the government to allowing some form of the explanation. But I see nobody, nobody on the government side who is willing to do that. The question, therefore, is that I do report progress. [00:48:00] Well, now the now we've had this difficulty before, too. And I hope that we're not going to, in fact, extend the point. And in so doing, enter upon a debate. Mr. Chairman, I just I just wish you to address the fact that I haven't been in the house all evening. Is this the first closure motion that has been put on? No, no, no. The the the member is member is is quite quite a quite, uh, uh at at variance with the fact the motion is that I do report progress. This is not [00:48:30] a closure motion. The question is that I do report progress and seek leave again. Those in favour will say I Those in the country opinion will say no. The eyes have it. Noes. Have it the vision called for. Ring the bells. The eyes will go to the right. The nose will go to the left. Tell us for the eyes. Are Dr Cullen and Trevor Mallard tell us for the nose of Mr [00:49:00] McKinnon and Roger McLay. Trevor. But again, the eyes are 43. The nose are 33. I will report progress. Unlock the doors. Unlock the doors. Oh, the house is resumed. Mr. Speaker, for the Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill has directed me to report progress and has also directed me to move to leave to sit again. The chairman of the committee's report that the Committee on the Homosexual Law Reform Bill has directed [00:49:30] him to report progress and has also directed him to move for leave to sit again. The question is that the report be agreed to. Those who are of that opinion will say I the contrary opinion will say no. The eyes have it. Mr. Speaker, that this bill is set down for further consideration in committee next sitting day. Mr. Speaker, The honourable Jeff.
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