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.
The honourable Mr Falloon. Mr. Speaker, I did not come into parliament necessarily to have to impose my views on moral issues on other members of the society that we are part of. However, I'm not prepared to run away from the responsibility that a member of Parliament has in exercising there the right of a member to vote according [00:00:30] to his or her beliefs or what they perceive their electorate to be on this particular issue. My mind is made up on the basis of personal experience and also of what I perceive my electorate to believe on this issue. I'm bound to say that the personal experience is more important to me than what I have seen coming from the electorate. But it does happen [00:01:00] to coincide, coincide with what the views appear to be from correspondents and people who have discussed the matter with me. We cannot run away from such an issue, and I think that my views would be somewhat different if there were homosexuals being persecuted and confined to prison for their sexual preference. But given that they do not appear to be so, then I will be opposing [00:01:30] the legislation on all its stages. And the reasons really were covered in part by the previous speaker when he suggested that a Kinsey report, which I haven't in front of me, suggested that people could be graded on the basis of a 1 to 6 scale and that many could go either way, I do not perceive Mr Speaker [00:02:00] that as a society we are yet ready to accept that homosexuality is normal behaviour. I also do not see. But as a society we would be prepared to accept that those individuals who, in the privacy of their own homes in a relatively stable relationship, practise homosexual acts. And like most members, given any choice, I would back away from the issue and let the society [00:02:30] make its own mind up according to their own views. But we cannot, as I said earlier, run away from the reality of what is happening in our community and in particular what effects a law of this chamber have on the vulnerable in our society. Parliamentarians have the unenviable task of making moral judgments on others voting in such a chamber, [00:03:00] and we are certainly not perfect in any way. But once again we have to take that responsibility and accordingly explain it to our electorates. I said that I'd had some personal experience. I went to a boarding school where there was some homosexuality and I was in fact one of a prefect, a group of prefects who helped remove a headmaster from his job. A man who [00:03:30] I respected absolutely. I do not know to this day, not whether we were right or not, but what we whether what we did was just. But I do know the effect of the actions of that person on those that came to us and told us of the interference that went on. [00:04:00] And that really typifies why I am strongly opposed, particularly to the age of 16 and in fact, to the older age as well. For the reasons I will discuss a little later on. I don't think that the country is ready yet to see school masters or headmasters with the young, vulnerable people where they may go either way in a position where [00:04:30] they can be exposed to the type of indoctrination that we see so often espoused by the gay movement. And I believe that if the Human Rights Commission, part two of this bill is applied that the Minister of Education will have great difficulty in preventing a large number of active gays from being recruited in such schools. And it will put will put the individuals responsible for the recruitment of those schools, the employment of the [00:05:00] teachers in an unenviable position of having to oppose the law. And I take that view after discussing the matter with people concerned in this area. It's not something that I've dreamt up. It's a matter of discussion and analysis, Mr Speaker. I also consider that if our society was mature and prepared to accept with more tolerance, [00:05:30] the different deviancy, perhaps we could have a different view on the law as before the chamber. But when there is a lack of tolerance on both sides, but more particularly by the activists in the gay movement and I were going to quote one particular example of this, then I do not think that we should accept a law which encourages that type of behaviour. There was a meeting held [00:06:00] in the Hutt Valley, which was supposedly going to be started with a prayer when the Salvation Army major stood up to say Our Lord Jesus, the gay people chanted from the floor, Don't give us that, Jesus Christ garbage! Here he sodomised his own disciples. I don't accept that sort of behaviour any more than I accept the extremists on the other side. [00:06:30] But I don't think that the extremists on the other side on this issue are too concerned about trying to change the sexual preference of 16 year old boys. They may well be trying to help the moral standards as they see, and those moral standards are generally accepted by the majority of our society, including some people in the gay movement. But a sexual preference is a somewhat different matter [00:07:00] than a moral standard and value. And once again I come back to my point that let's at least make certain that those people who can enjoy a heterosexual opportunity in life get the advantage of that as opposed to the possibility of being indoctrinated by the alternative lifestyle of the gay movement. And why do I believe that? Because [00:07:30] I believe very much in the family as the stable part of our society. I don't see that the gay communities of the world are stable. They may well provide an opportunity for people with a certain preference to collect together and do the best they can and good on them if that's what they believe. But as a society here, I believe that what that would achieve is great divisions in attitude [00:08:00] and great stress on the type of society we have, because they become very active politically in all respects. I'm sure that the next stage of that development in New Zealand would be that they wish to bring up Children, and I would absolutely oppose any opportunity for people who are not prepared to get involved in procreation having the right to bring up a family. I have already, uh, if I can [00:08:30] just interrupt the member for for a moment. I've already referred to members in the public gallery, not having any place at all in debate. Now, I'm not sure whether that the same people are involved, but I would point out to them that the gallery will be cleared if there is a repetition of the kind of sniggering that uh has been going on. I hope that is quite clear. The honourable Mr Mr Speaker. [00:09:00] As I said earlier, I think that the law in this case must be a benchmark. As a house, we have to stand up for certain standards of behaviour which we believe in. And many members who are going to vote in favour of this bill say they find homosexuality repugnant. Then I must ask them, Why do they wish to encourage it? Because that is precisely what this law will do. [00:09:30] They can still sell their conscience if they wish to be tolerant by voting against the bill, because the way in which the law is being applied is in a tolerant fashion. But if we don't have that benchmark, then I consider that what will happen is that the very strong activist element in the gay movement will take it another stage further. And it will be the family that's under threat and [00:10:00] then the fabric of our society as well. And I'm not prepared to tolerate that when people are in such a vulnerable situation in modern society. Anyway, with so many of their options being determined not by a family, a stable family background, but by what people perceive as being the experimental society that we're shaped with and exposed to. However, I am conscious of those people in the gay movement who feel very strongly [00:10:30] about human rights and attitudes. And that's why, as I said earlier, if there was clear evidence of discrimination on the basis of these people being charged with offences and if they had to meet jail terms or fines, then I would have a different view, particularly to the age of consent. But at the moment, [00:11:00] Mr Speaker, I do not feel either the gay movement or the society is ready to be tolerant enough to accept the change to decriminalise in the law, not in the practise, but in the law homosexual activity, because I think quite clearly the behaviour of the particular camp in favour of this bill has shown that this is only the beginning of changes that they wish to [00:11:30] achieve in our society and in its attitudes on this issue. Being a politically active group, they are trying to increase their numbers and that says to me that those vulnerable people, if the law is changed, will be more vulnerable than before, and that condemns them to a situation which the majority of our society will never accept as normal behaviour and I do not [00:12:00] want to see more of that group exposed to such a situation. That's why I'm opposed to all parts of the legislation. Mr. Butcher. Uh, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate most of the participants in this debate because I believe this debate at the second reading stage has been conducted at a very high standard. Only one or two people have descended to a narrow partisan level [00:12:30] of debate, and most people have debated very seriously the issues which we're confronted with. I personally have never previously contributed to a debate on one of the personal morality questions that have come before this house. There are several reasons for that. One is, I guess, the innate reluctance of many of us to discuss private and personal matters in public even when they relate to other people. There is also, I believe, a natural disinclination to preach or to [00:13:00] lecture others on how they should behave. And as one who has never been blessed with a family, I personally am reluctant to parade my beliefs on this sort of issue in public at any time. But I feel on this bill, I owe it to my constituents to put my views on the record. I intend to support decriminalisation of homosexual activities, consensual homosexual activities. And that, I believe, is the weakness and the argument [00:13:30] of the member who has immediately preceded me in that this bill only refers to activities which are consensual. I intend to support the very greatly strengthened penalties against indecency with young Children and the great improvement that the bill represents. In that respect, I also intend to support the the same age for males and females as it relates to activities with people of the same [00:14:00] sex. At this stage, I have been inclined to oppose the human rights clause in the bill because of what I perceive to be the potentially divisive diversions that that could create. If decriminalised, I am prepared to listen to argument on that matter, and I will look forward to the debate at a later stage in the bill. The main issue, therefore, as far [00:14:30] as I'm concerned, turns on the vexed question of the age of consent. My initial preference was for an age of at least 18. For both males and females. However, experience has surely shown us all in recent history that 18. Indeed, the present age of 16 is honoured as much in the breach as is is, I should say, breached [00:15:00] more than it is honoured, and I believe it would be unfair to be different for anyone. Reluctantly. Then I have come to the view that if the bill is to be passed, it is probably probably the age of 16 is the only logical age to be incorporated in the bill. In actual fact, As I said before, I believe that because the bill only relates to consensual activity, the [00:15:30] practical difference would be very little irrespective of the age written into the bill. Originally, I felt as many members felt obliged to make an effort to sound out the views of my constituents. I wrote my views into the pages of a local newspaper which circulates to every household in my electorate, and, uh, I received a number of letters and telephone calls as a result of [00:16:00] that, however, over the years, because the views that I hold on this I've held for many years, I've entered into commitments based on my beliefs and the evidence that I have seen, I believe in those circumstances, a poll of the sort that many members have conducted could confuse people into believing that numbers would decide the issue. That is not the case as far as I'm concerned and the validity of polls can always be questioned, as my colleague, the member for Eastern Maori [00:16:30] pointed out in his very eloquent speech earlier this evening. In addition to that, there have been a large number of polls conducted by reputable polling organisations and their conclusions have been very similar. Now, Mr Speaker, I think it's important that if one is going to support a measure of this sort, it is important to put on the record how you came to that sort of view. For many, like many of my age group, our personal involvement [00:17:00] in politics began in the mid 1960 S. We were involved. We became involved in political affairs because of an abhorrence of persecution, of the few by the many of the weak by the strong. We were involved in issues such as the war in Vietnam, apartheid, corruption and dictatorship as it appeared around the world, and then this led us to a concern with issues closer to home issues such as poverty exploitation and discrimination [00:17:30] to this. This state of affairs leads naturally to opposition to laws which marked out a very small minority of our population as being different because of matters beyond their personal control. For that reason since the 1969 election, the very first I contested, I have always indicated that I would support a law aimed at decriminalising homosexual acts between consenting adults [00:18:00] following the disclosure or the reiteration, I should say of my views to the electorate. I received, as I said, a number of submissions both for and against. And I believe that most of those submissions were motivated by the highest of motives and very expressed views that were sincerely held. They certainly challenged my beliefs. They required me to put in very detailed terms and replies my views and I enjoyed the vigorous [00:18:30] debate that these letters engendered. But and I certainly would not vote for this bill if I did not feel that the very real fears that have been expressed very sincerely by many people are utterly groundless. I resented the threatening tone of some of the communications that I receive, and frankly, I'm not one of those people who respond in any favourable fashion towards political threats. [00:19:00] I believe very firmly in a pluralistic society, and that involves a number of things. It involves the whole issue of religious freedom. It involves laws which apply to all religious faiths, irrespective of where they occur. I believe that the attempt to impose one set of beliefs on the entire population is a threat to a pluralistic society. Three arguments against this bill have [00:19:30] been mounted by many of the opponents, and I would like to briefly canvass those three arguments and what I feel about them. The first argument has been that this bill is against God's law, frequently cited in support of that contention with Chapter 20 of Leviticus and particularly the, uh, contents of verse 13, which can, uh, concerned if a man has sexual relations with another man, both [00:20:00] shall be put to death. However, those who drew that verse to my attention did not as enthusiastically draw my attention to verses nine and 10, which referred to the question of rebellious Children and the question of adultery. Now the point about that, Mr Chairman, is that under our law, none of these things attracts the death penalty prescribed by the Scriptures. Only one of them attracts a criminal sanction under our law as it stands [00:20:30] at the present time now, to those who say that this bill is against the law of God, my reply is that may well be so. This house has no capacity to change the law of God, but it does not imply that we have to write that into our criminal law. Secondly, many people say that this bill is immoral because homosexuality is immoral. I would be quite prepared to accept the proposition that many people find homosexuality [00:21:00] immoral. Many others find it distasteful. And I certainly would be one of those who find some of the practises described by the member for Hauraki as very distasteful meanings. The first meaning can be that it occurs or does not occur in nature. And that certainly is not the case for homosexuality. Uh, as the uh pointed out already, it attracts mention in the Bible. The [00:21:30] best evidence available indicates that at least 5 to 10% of the population are that way inclined. Much evidence points to the determination of sexual preference preference before the age of five and for those who believe that it is a question of choice. Those heterosexuals who believe that homosexuality is a question of choice, I would ask them, How did they choose their sexuality? I do not believe an argument [00:22:00] based on the question of unnatural in that sense can be sustained. The second context in which you can use the word unnatural is that certain parts of the body are designed for certain functions and should not be used for any other now. As I said before, the member for Hauraki and others have described those things as being very distasteful. But they're certainly not confined to homosexuals. And if if it is the practise that the member wishes to prescribe [00:22:30] it is that which should be made illegal and not the, uh, practise of it by only some people. Those things, Mr Speaker, Of course, as a member of Parliament one does, uh, get involved in the personal affairs of many people as they come to make representations and seek help. And one of the representations I received over the years, which, uh, Dr dramatically illustrated for me [00:23:00] as much as anything. The reason why this bill or something very similar to it should come forward is the question of a young professional person from Hastings who came to see me. He said he discovered in his early twenties that he was homosexual. He revealed this information to his parents, who promptly threw him out of the house and wanted nothing more to do with him. He went to England on a scholarship and in the course of his work there, met a man with whom he subsequently became very intimate. [00:23:30] Shortly afterwards, this person from Hastings had a major accident, resulting in a prolonged period of hospitalisation. The only person in the world who was interested in him and was prepared to look after him at that time was his male friend. After making a partial recovery, he was required to return to New Zealand because his British visa had expired. He wished to bring his friend with him, but was unable to do so because his friend did not qualify under [00:24:00] the immigration policy. Had his friend been female and they were married, he would have automatically qualified for a mission to New Zealand. As the law then stood. I could not even approach the minister of immigration to exercise his discretion because the very act of their living together was illegal under the law. No other person in the world was harmed by their relationship. It was a very sincere and meaningful relationship, and both of them gained a great deal [00:24:30] from it. I would like to say that I believe that a law that creates such distress cannot be a law that is fair and a further submission I received or a further case that was brought to my attention concerned a person who told me that as a 14 year old in the 19 fifties, he said he knew where his sexuality lay. Although he had never heard the word homosexual, he said he still remembered the agony as a 16 [00:25:00] year old after a school dance. When he escorted his partner home, he would be expected to kiss her good night or even hold her hand, and he could not do so. But he said his first brief experience at 17 with a homosexual, his body and his whole reactions were totally different, he said. After many years, he reconciled his sexuality with his religious beliefs. He's now a lay reader in the Anglican Church [00:25:30] and his life cannot be a law that is fair and a further submission I received or a further case that has brought to my attention concerned a person who told me that as a 14 year old in the 19 fifties, he said he knew where his sexuality lay. Although he had never heard the word homosexual, he said he still remembered the agony as a 16 year old after a school dance. When [00:26:00] he escorted his partner home, he would be expected to kiss her good night or even hold her hand, and he could not do so. But he said his first brief experience at 17, uh, with a homosexual, his body and his whole reactions were totally different, he said. After many years, he reconciled his sexuality with his religious beliefs. He's now a lay reader in the Anglican Church, and his lover is a, uh, an [00:26:30] elder of the Presbyterian Church, he says they have lived together for 10 years as happily fulfilled criminals. Mr Chairman, I do not believe that a law of that sort is fair in actual fact, as somebody said earlier that the whole question is really one of community attitudes I do not believe the bill will make much difference to community attitudes. But in this house, we provide pride ourselves on democracy. We pride [00:27:00] ourselves on democracy and what is a democracy if it is not the absolute right to be different and in some circumstances, the absolute right to be wrong in the eyes of everybody else. And for that reason, Mr Speaker, I intend to support the bill in the way that I've indicated the honourable Mr Bulger. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this important issue. I know there are [00:27:30] many other important issues out there in the community, whether it be the level of interest rates, the debt of the nation, the value of the New Zealand dollar, the crises in farming or the problems of exports, all of which are important issues. But tonight, tonight we are seized with the responsibility of discussing the private members Bill, the homosexual law reform bill. It is a private member's bill. I think it's fair to observe Mr Speaker that many would see it, however, [00:28:00] as a Labour Party bill, inaccurate though that is in technical terms, in most matters that members speak on in this house we have, as it were, the support of our colleagues, the support of a caucus position, a consensus that has been reached. And we come and speak and vote in general, and almost universally, according to that consensus on this bill. Like a few others, we have no such [00:28:30] support. Members individually have to make their own judgement, do their own research. If they are of a mind to do so, take their own council. Some canvass the views of their electorates. Some gather their thoughts together in other ways. But finally we have to stand alone in this chamber and make a judgement and vote. According to that judgement, some find making such a judgement extremely difficult, and I cast no aspersions [00:29:00] on them because of that difficulty. Others find it much more clear cut and their views, perhaps, are more firmly held. Pressure is the norm in this type of legislation. Pressure from those in favour and pressure from those against. There are lobby groups that emerge. There are issues that are promoted, some with great vigour and some with a complete lack of subtlety. And there is concern at times that the tactics [00:29:30] of some of the enthusiasts, whether they be for or against, tend to obscure the real issues. I just would say, as I've said before publicly, I would ask that all should display tolerance and dealing with issues such as this that it is not. It is not consistent with the views of either side or the views of anyone that there should be a lack of tolerance for the views of others who may have a different viewpoint on the question [00:30:00] of homosexual law reform. And I want to say also that I don't believe that any member's views are going to be changed because of abuse or threats. I don't believe that. I don't believe that members on a moral question are going to be so easily dissuaded. I think that undervalues the integrity of the members of this house. I was in parliament, of course, one of the few during the last period in when this issue was debated when my colleague, [00:30:30] the member for wait, proposed reform in a much more modest fashion than the proposal currently before this Parliament and I spent some time with him on that occasion and talked with those he believed would be beneficial for me to talk with to give me a fuller understanding of all the issues involved. And I welcome that opportunity to listen and to assess. And I have to say, I finally voted against my colleague's bill. [00:31:00] It is my intention. Also, despite the passage of the years since then and all that has been written and said and stated and commented on to vote against the current bill before this House, much has changed. Attitudes have certainly changed in the community on a number of issues, and it would be correct to observe that what is termed a more liberal view, though some would dispute the word liberal. What is termed a more liberal view has now a greater measure of support [00:31:30] than previously. But there's one other issue that has changed dramatically in the specifics of the debate and the bill that we have in front of us at the present time. That is, sir, of course, the emergence of what was then unknown but now is known the deadly disease of AIDS. AIDS is a fatal disease. It cannot be wished away. It cannot be [00:32:00] pushed under the carpet. We cannot presume it does not exist it does, it kills. There is no known cure, and the most common way of achieve, of of getting Aage is, of course, through male anal intercourse. That is the statistical fact that no one in this chamber can deny the importance of that. [00:32:30] In terms of this bill, of course, cannot be overlooked because what the first part of the bill seeks to legalise is, of course, male anal intercourse. It's as simple as that. It doesn't address the question of whether people can have homosexual love, because, of course, there's no law against that. What there is a law against is the act of sodomy, and it's the act of sodomy to use what is now [00:33:00] a term in some usage but for many, many years was outdated and not used is the means by which the majority of people will contact the killer disease AIDS. And I don't believe I'm not persuaded others may be, I'm not persuaded that this parliament can lightly put that matter to one side in addressing in addressing this bill. And that's one of the reasons, [00:33:30] at least why I am not persuaded to support the bill. I am not persuaded, though I've listened to argument and listened carefully to argument that somehow legalising anal intercourse would make the control of AIDS more possible. I cannot, by the application of any logic, come to that same conclusion. I cannot see how making something that is legal is going to prevent that disease. [00:34:00] There may be others again who can so persuade themselves. I am not one of them. In fact, if it was in any shape or form to encourage more to engage in the act of anal intercourse, the inevitability is there would be even a wider spread of AIDS. Now that is again logic. That, of course, is the experience on the statistics that I have read of other [00:34:30] societies where legalisation has occurred or was practised before. This is a major health threat. And while one does not want to put a financial sign on a moral question, one must observe a major financial question as well. So this chamber must very, very carefully consider that before we vote [00:35:00] on this issue, a major argument in favour of the law. Change is a simple proposition that the law has no place in the bedrooms of the nation, said on many occasions and with some conviction, and I have to say on first hearing it has a comfortable ring about it. It sounds a comfortable notion and perhaps one that one should be persuaded to accept [00:35:30] until, of course, you think a little more deeply and you find, of course, that the law says very precisely, that in many circumstances it has a place in the bedroom of the nation. It certainly says it has that role If you are dealing with the young of the nation, it certainly says that it has a role in the bedrooms of the nation. If you're dealing with heterosexual sex with people or girls under the age of 16, so there is no [00:36:00] basic proposition that the law has no place there. What we have then is a qualified statement that the law from time to time, has a place in the bedrooms of the nation and therefore it's a question of whether it has a place at the present time or on the on the present. On the present issue. I don't believe that there is any member of this chamber who would dispute that young people should be protected. I don't believe there are having [00:36:30] said that. It must be also stated. There are those out there who are active in promoting the acceptability of homosexual acts. Who do There are those who believe that man boy sex is normal. This house does not, and I'm sure never will in my time in it. And I would suspect and hope never. But all I put that point to you is to say that there is, of course, other reforms. If I [00:37:00] misuse the word reform that some would want this parliament to address at some later date, I hope it never will address that question. So this house, Mr Chairman, today or next week or some subsequent date when we come to voting on this bill has to make a quite simple decision on a complex matter. Yeah, Do we legalise [00:37:30] and thereby give some public sanction to homosexual acts between consenting males and depending on your viewpoint, over the age of 16, 18 or 20? So I must say, one of my colleagues has indicated to me he's prepared to support it at 94 But, uh, I suspect that Bulger king country do we give some sanction because we must accept in this parliament [00:38:00] that if we vote in favour of the reform, we are giving some sanction. We must not mislead ourselves to say that what we would be doing is, as it were, just ratifying the status quo and to some extent we would. But we would be going one stage further. We would be saying that in fact it was normal in the eyes of the law and therefore of course, it must widen the occasions [00:38:30] when it could be promoted as a normal and acceptable lifestyle. And I think there are many New Zealanders who have great sympathy for active homosexuals. But who would not want to see that conduct, which is central to the argument, namely anal intercourse promoted or seen by this parliament or seen to have been promoted by this parliament [00:39:00] as normal? I am one. I am one of those, Mr Tim, Mr Speaker. Another argument that is advanced is that of course the law must be amended to prevent harassment, that harassment is wrong and the only way to prevent it is to amend the law and therefore to give the cloak of normality to what is presently prescribed by the law. [00:39:30] And again it sounds attractive that we just as it were, say, make it normal. Therefore, harassment will not take place. The first question that must be asked, Is there any any level of harassment that makes that a major issue? And I know an earlier speaker tonight was drawing on some historical evidence, reminding the house that perhaps it did happen in an earlier time. I have not [00:40:00] read or seen or had presented to me any case in recent times where what's happened in the confines of one's bedroom to use that term has been brought to the attention of the court, where it was action between adult males. So the harassment argument tends to fall down, in my view and in my submission on the grounds that it doesn't have substance in the first place, [00:40:30] I have to say, I'm inevitably brought around when I study this, having read the answers as to yes and no as to whether or not I want to put my name beside the legalising and therefore the normalising of anal intercourse, I cannot persuade myself that it is a biologically normal function for the human body, cannot persuade myself of [00:41:00] that. Some may be able to, but nothing that I have read nothing that I have seen could suggest to me that it was a normal biological function of males to engage in that activity. And therefore, I would have to say I have listened. I have been sympathetic to those who have seen me to talk to me about this issue. I have endeavoured to understand their views. [00:41:30] I have endeavoured to try and see the issue from their point of view, which I believe one must having done all that, I have to advise the house that I will be voting against the bill. Mr. Gerbe, Mr. Speaker, I propose to vote for the second reading of this bill. I believe that adult homosexuality should [00:42:00] be decriminalised to the extent that this bill proposes. Uh, Mr Speaker, I think the the fact that the law has not been enforced in this respect indeed indicates that the law is unenforceable and therefore is in itself an as Mr Speaker. The law [00:42:30] has been no restraint on the development of homosexuality in society. In my experience, homosexual homosexuals are in general very good citizens. Uh, they do a lot of good work and active work in the community, in the social welfare field, in voluntary organisations, they should not be [00:43:00] classified as criminals or subject to the criminal law. Uh, Mr Speaker, other members in this house have covered that point quite substantially, I think are more eloquently than I can make it. I have some concerns about this bill. I have to report to the house that I did conduct a survey in my own [00:43:30] electorate. I sent out 1000 questionnaires to randomly selected electors, and the result of that survey is that the electors and are roughly in equally divided on the subject. In fact, within seven votes, like other members [00:44:00] in this house, I have received enormous amounts of correspondence on the subject. And in respect to those letters from the electorate, the very substantial majority are in favour of the bill. Uh, Mr Speaker, there have been some very eloquent speeches and very sincere speeches from members in this house. Like every other [00:44:30] member, I have been subjected to, uh, submissions from electors, and, uh, but I have not had the benefit of attendance at the select committee hearing so that I have had to rely on what evidence has been presented to me and I want to now refer to the report of the Department of Justice [00:45:00] to the Select Committee and to send to each member and to refer to a section of it which refers to a policy advisory committee on sexual offences in the United Kingdom in 1980 where it says a majority of 10 members of the committee considered that the age for consensual homosexual relations should be reduced from 21 to 18. It went on to say that it is our experience [00:45:30] that between the ages of 16 and 18, girls are on the whole more mature than boys in their approach to sexual relationships, and that in so far as it is possible to generalise, boys have caught up with girls in the process of maturing by the age of 18. The majority also expressed some doubts about contemporary medical opinion that a young man's sexual orientation was fixed by the age [00:46:00] of 16, although it was accepted that sexual orientation was firmly established by the age of 18. I note also from this report, Mr Speaker, that England, Scotland, Wales, our age of consent for homosexual activity at 21 as opposed to 16 for heterosexual activity in New South Wales, is an age of 18 as compared to 16. The Justice Department [00:46:30] report also advises that from the pragmatic point of view, selection of 18 as the age is likely to lessen what appears to be the genuinely held concerns of a considerable number of people in the community. It would also tend to put the bill in the mainstream of reforms overseas. And so far as my own survey in the electorate is [00:47:00] concerned, I, i majority. But a substantial majority voted for an age of an excess of 16, referring either 18 or 20 Mr Speaker, from the outset of consideration of this bill, I used a very simple yardstick. I am satisfied that adult homosexuality should [00:47:30] be decriminalised. I then looked at the question of where an adult comes into the picture, and I fix the age of 18 as being most appropriate. Uh, I think 16 is too young, although whatever figure or whatever age we fix, uh, this will, in any event, be an arbitrary figure. [00:48:00] I believe there is a need to establish a differentiation between homosexual activity and heterosexual activity. I cannot accept that homosexual activity is a normal activity. I believe that Yeah. In spite of hundreds of years of homosexuality practise, some people have said [00:48:30] that there should be equality between the sexes as to the age of consent for both heterosexual activity and homosexual activity that to have a homosexual age would be a higher homosexual age would be discriminatory against young men. They question why young men need more protection than young women. But we already have discrimination against young women. In fact, in respect [00:49:00] to heterosexual activity prohibited under the age of 16, young men have no such restriction in law. They can practise heterosexual activity from capability. Indeed, Yeah, an age of consent is an arbitrary judgement. Taking all things into account. I think age 18 is appropriate for homosexual activity. [00:49:30] Mr. Speaker, I also have some concerns, uh, in regard to the Human Rights Commission amendment. I haven't heard evidence as yet to support the need for this amendment. I have not heard of cases of discrimination against homosexuals either in housing or in employment. Mr. Kirby, I question the amendment if I was the [00:50:00] owner of housing property for rent. I would be quite delighted to rent my accommodation to homosexuals. I think that they are most careful people, most fastidious and, uh proper. And so far as care of the TENANCIES. Is concerned. I also draw members attention to the fact that we have a residential tenancy bill before this house which [00:50:30] I have no doubt will be passed in due course. And that bill provides protection for tenants are evicted from their homes or under threat of eviction so that they can appeal to a tenancy tribunal. In so far as employment is concerned, members will be aware that I have had considerable experience in this area [00:51:00] no less than 23 years in the industrial field. Throughout that experience, I have not had the occasion to take up or have referred to me a case of discrimination relating to the employment of homosexuals or in respect to the dismissal of a worker, because that worker was a homosexual. Uh, [00:51:30] Mr Speaker, I would I believe, uh, that in passing this amendment that homosexuals would be given a privilege indeed that no other person holds a homosexual dismissed from employment. If that person is a worker covered by an award would have the same rights as every other person [00:52:00] as a worker to go to a personal grievance hearing and have his case appealed or determined on finally by the arbitration court and appeal against the dismissal. That is a provision which every worker is entitled to. Uh, Mr Speaker, I am, though, uh, [00:52:30] willing to be convinced on these issues. I have a relatively open mind, but I must say that I haven't heard evidence so far that to convince me that I should change my mind in so far as the age of consent is concerned and the amendment to the Human Rights Commission, I would like [00:53:00] to hear a response to the points I have raised from the sponsor of the bill. And in conclusion, can I compliment her for introducing this bill to this house for placing this issue before us and the people so that the people can have a say through us on the subject? I think she has done it with dignity and courage, and I certainly compliment her for it. [00:53:30] Yes. Uh, Mr Bill Sutton, Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt in my mind that the matter we've been debating is of great importance. It raises fundamental issues. Many of them have been debated adequately already. I'm sure it will play a part in determining thousands of votes in the next election, and I congratulate those members who have already spoken most of them for their sincerity and their restraint. [00:54:00] I find myself with a great deal still to say on this matter. Some of it has yet to be canvassed in this debate. I wish to speak as a scientist and make some comments on the biological evidence relating to homosexuality. I wish to report the views of my Hawke's Bay constituents in so far as I've been able to determine them, and I wish to foreshadow certain amendments that I intend to move in the committee stages. [00:54:30] The widespread occurrence of male homosexuality is a matter of common knowledge and also a matter of scientific record. And for example, Bar has stated that homosexuality is one of the oldest and more commonly indulged sexual behaviours they've referred as many members have to Kinsey's report and to later reports which confirm all the main conclusions of Kinsey. They've noted that most [00:55:00] Children pass through a stage of homosexual expiratory activity, which is not considered either criminal or deviant. And they further pointed out that oral genital sexual practises are no longer considered deviant and marriage manuals now, including they also refer to the fact that a smaller proportion of men persist with exclusively homosexual behaviour throughout their lives. The biological basis of this is still a matter for scientific [00:55:30] debate hold the view that it appears that neither genetic defects nor hormonal influences play a part. There are other scientists who have studied this field who come to quite different conclusions. And I might mention, for example, Money and Earhart, who hold the view that gender identity is critically determined by levels of hormones, particularly sex hormones, during either the prenatal stage [00:56:00] or early post natal development of the brain. In other words, they hold the view. And it does appear to be a strongly held view amongst scientists who have studied this field that there are actual changes in brain structure during development as a result of the hormonal environment which determine gender identity. And if that view is correct, then it follows that homosexuality, in fact is not a chosen behaviour, nor is it something that is likely to be curable. That's certainly [00:56:30] the view, which is put forward strongly by the Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, who stated in their submission to the select committee that the notion that homosexuality can be treated as a disease is inappropriate and unacceptable. Many homosexuals are leading well adjusted lives and have no need for medical treatment. That's their professional view on the matter. If I can turn from matters of scientific record to some of my own personal observations, [00:57:00] it's apparent to me that male homosexuality is widely prevalent in New Zealand. Like some of the members who have spoken previously. I attended a boys boarding school for five years, and I observed a number of instances of adolescent homosexual behaviour such as, for example, mutual masturbation. It was when I was at school, a small group of boards who openly adopted a homosexual behaviour pattern. They were, by and large, tolerated by the majority. I've since been [00:57:30] told that this is a most unusual occurrence in New Zealand high schools. Several of the members of this group were during my time at the school, involved in a scandal, uh, where they were discovered engaged in sexual activities with boys who had not previously been suspected of having homosexual incarnations. Interestingly enough, it was the latter group, uh, who were regarded by most of the borders as being disgraced, not the former group. Uh, some of those involved [00:58:00] have since attained responsible and respected positions in New Zealand provincial towns with respect to the broader field of homosexual behaviour. A men's discussion group that I joined in the late 19 seventies included two adult male homosexuals, one of whom introduced me to several of his friends. In this way, I learned that many practising homosexuals live outwardly normal lives in our provincial towns. On the question, [00:58:30] which I believe hasn't received enough attention in this debate, the question of the the basic human dignity of male homosexuality Nobody who values literature could fail to be aware that the world of homosexual love is seen as being as rich and multifarious for homosexuals as the world of heterosexual love. The scene for Heterosexuals One of the finest love poems that I know was written by a practising [00:59:00] male homosexual, W a Jordan, and I'd like to quote that poem in this house because I believe it's a reasonable antidote to some of the long descriptions of homosexual behaviour that we've heard from people who regard those behaviours as disgusting. The poem, which is untitled, reads. Lay your sleeping head, my love human on my faithless arm. Time and fevers burn away individual beauty from thoughtful [00:59:30] Children, and the grave proves the child ephemeral. But in my arms till break of day let the living creature lie mortal beauty. But to me, the entirely beautiful soul and body have no bounds to lovers as they lie upon her tolerant, enchanted slope in their ordinary swoon grave, the vision venous senses of supernatural sympathy, universal love and hope, while an abstract insight [01:00:00] wakes among the glaciers and the rocks, the hermits sensual ecstasy, certain fidelity on the stroke of midnight pass like vibrations of a bell and fashionable madmen raise their pedantic, boring cry. Every farthing of the cost or the dreaded cards foretell, shall be paid. But from this night not a whisper, not a thought, not a kiss, nor look be lost [01:00:30] beauty. Midnight vision dies Let the winds of dawn that blow softly around your dreaming head such a day of sweetness. Show I and knocking heart may bless. Find the mortal world enough noons of dryness. See you fed by the involuntary powers. Nights of insult let you pass. Watched by every human love. I believe that there are many testimonials in literature to the very profound, loving [01:01:00] feelings that some male and female homosexuals experience, and we should treat those with the respect it could to all human beings. Mr. Speaker, a land of course, has occupied the attention of the number of the people who have spoken in this debate. I believe that it is a minority practise for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The [01:01:30] anus is anatomically placed close to the genitals, and some anal stimulation is virtually inevitable during sexual activity. Anal touching and other behaviours are said to be experimented with by many heterosexual couples. Anal intercourse is perhaps less common, But I note that in many of the rape trials reported in the news media in New Zealand, there are also charges of heterosexual sodomy. [01:02:00] There were 331 charges and 46 incarcerations for sodomy in New Zealand between 1973 and 1983 and although there is no record as to how many of those were female and how many male. It's my impression that most of the victims are, in fact female. These numbers are dwarfed by the reported sexual crimes against Children. In 1983 alone, there were 549 reported sexual crimes against girls under 16 and 100 and 53 against [01:02:30] boys under 16. Only 11 of those involved sodomy. My personal view is that homosexual law reform is overdue. As the member of Parliament for Hawkes Bay, however, I've tried to ascertain the views of my constituents. The numbers he signed. A petition against the law reform bill, UH, was 404,849 or 15% of the total electoral population in Hawke's Bay. This was a lower proportion than in many other provincial seats. [01:03:00] There is evidence that that number may be underestimated, although many of those who are opposed would probably not be prepared to sign a petition in April and May, I caused to have carried out a telephone survey in Hawke's Bay using 100 and 20 names selected at random from the electoral roll. 80% of those agreed to answer and of those, 57% agreed that homosexual acts between adult males should be permitted, 43% were against. Just one of the respondents [01:03:30] didn't know the majority of those who were in favour supported either 18 or 20 as the age of consent. And there were similar answers given with respect to lesbian acts. When asked if it should be illegal to discriminate against homosexuals, as in the provisions of Part two of this bill, 68% were in favour of making that illegal in other words, a greater majority than were in favour of decriminalising anal intercourse. These figures are in good agreement with Highland polls [01:04:00] that have been carried out in New Zealand, the most recent of which showed that 61% supported law reform, with 34% opposed, but that only 22% would support 16 as the age of consent. The majority of you then appears to be clear enough, but I must report that this has been a bitterly divisive issue in Hawke's Bay. As in other parts of the country, I've received 100 and 17 letters and telephone calls on the subject and 59% of them were opposed to the bill, 41% in favour. [01:04:30] Some of the views on both sides were highly extreme. I felt them to reveal a frightening depth of hatred. Uh, one constituent declared. The passage of this bill would condemn more souls to hell than a million nuclear bombs. Another described homosexuals as arrogant, vicious liars and stated that he wouldn't want them in the office of the factory, the school or the services. On the other side of extremism. One woman declared that heterosexual men were responsible for all rape, incest, venereal disease [01:05:00] and unwanted lives, and that those opposed to the bill were a radical fringe of inhuman religionists. I also I'm glad the report received a large number of sensible and sincere letters from people maintaining both liberal and conservative views on this issue. The most moving messages that I received came from adult male homosexuals. I shall not read extracts from them because without the personal human details, they would lose their impact, and I do not wish [01:05:30] to risk revealing their identities. Finally, I received six personal leaders from Hawke's Bay ministers of religion. Two were opposed to the bill and four supported it coming to the proposed legislation. It's clear to me that I must support reform of the law both as a matter of conscience and in response to the majority view of my constituents. Because there is such extreme division, I believe it's necessary to try and reach some [01:06:00] pragmatic stance which will broaden the area of agreement and reduce the division. I see no good reason or valid reason for the criminal law to be invoked against notice that I shall move a number of amendments in the committee stages in part one. I believe that the proposed age of consent for anal intercourse 16 is not acceptable to most New Zealanders. If it were to be passed, it would move substantially ahead of public [01:06:30] opinion, not only in Hawke's Bay but in the whole country. And I shall therefore be moving an amendment to the proposed section 142, setting 18 as the age for consent. This would have the following purpose firstly, to make the bill more broadly acceptable. Secondly, to reinforce the current medical opinion that anal intercourse is a dangerous practise, I shall speak at more length on that in the committee stages the suggested age [01:07:00] is the same as the voting age. Finally, by confining that amendment to the proposed section 142, there would be no discrimination between homosexual and heterosexual practises. The proposed sections 1 41 48 which relate to indecency with boys should, in my opinion, remain unchanged. They would bring the section of the Crimes Act into agreement with sections 1 33 and 1 34 relating to indecency with girls. In Part two, I propose to put forward a number of [01:07:30] amendments. Firstly, that the definition of sexual orientation in Clause nine of the bill should be amended to re sexual orientation in relation to any person means the heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual preference of that person. Secondly, I believe that sections 15 3 C 15, 6 and 21 2 of the Human Rights Commission Act should all be amended to permit discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation as well as on the [01:08:00] grounds of sex. These provisions relate to domestic employment in a private household and to any position, authorization or qualification that is for the purposes of an organised religion and is limited so as to comply with the doctrines or rules of the religion or to avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of the adherence provided those amendments or similar amendments can be passed. I intend to support both parts of this bill and I believe that that is acceptable to [01:08:30] majority of my constituents in Hawke's Bay and Mr Angus. So I want to firstly congratulate the four members of this house who have given up so much of their family life and spare time to campaign against this piece of legislation. In order to preserve and maintain some sort of decent order in our New Zealand society. I want to also sir congratulate the organisers of the largest [01:09:00] petition ever to be presented to Parliament on behalf of the very many good and well meaning New Zealanders that went out and worked to solicit support. We can argue about the numbers, whether it's 800,000 or 500,000. It is still the largest petition ever to be presented to this Parliament. Sir, it was amazing the night or the day when the uh, [01:09:30] the mover of the bill appeared on television as that petition was presented to Parliament looking like a startled hen just being chased off her net and well she might have. Well, she might have. She looked startled, confused, and I would have to say shocked because a very large number of New Zealanders had spoken very clearly in that petition. The junior government whip was also in a state [01:10:00] of shock. I guess, sir, because it was shown clearly that this legislation is neither needed nor indeed supported or wanted by a very large majority in our New Zealand society. Mr. Speaker, this Labour government and the member for Wellington Central are clearly trying to destroy and break down the normal strong structures and the very fabric [01:10:30] of a strong a strong family life in New Zealand. Sir, The bill was clearly brought in to create some sort of a smoke screen to divert people's attention away from the failures of the government in the economic fields and to distract the thoughts of people from the shambles that our economy is in today. From the real issues inflation, interest rates, cost of living for our young people, [01:11:00] to endeavour, to legislate or legalise homosexuality for 16 year olds spells disaster, and I certainly will not support any part of this legislation. Nor would the majority of my electorate wish me to do so. I would even go to as far as to say, sir, that there will be some members in this house who will regret their support for this legislation in the next election. And [01:11:30] I believe that members should think for themselves and vote with their own conscience only on this particular issue, Mr Speaker, Homosexuality is an issue which is complex and must be considered with compassion and concern for individuals involved. However, in the long run, society and many, many individuals in it will be worse off if this bill is passed. Sir, the following argument [01:12:00] is frequently put forward that homosexual practise is not immoral, just an alternative sexual orientation as moral and normal as homos as heterosexual practise. Sir, it is certain that if parliament passes this bill, homosexuality will eventually become acknowledged as morally accepted sexual practise. This is certainly the expectation [01:12:30] of the so-called gay rights movement. What, then, is morality, our moral values, merely our moral values merely relative to the current social laws? On what ground, then can homosexual practise, be moral and, say violence be immoral? A popular thought is that any action is OK, provided [01:13:00] it does not harm others. Live and let live. You know the sayings. If this is so then orgies, prostitution, pornography, poly adultery, incs, sodomy of animals and drug abuse, et cetera, provided all parties involved. Consent should not be inferred, interfered with by laws or condemned by intolerant objectors. Isn't that what the supporters or [01:13:30] some of the supporters of this bill are saying? It is surely inconsistent to say that violence in society will always be wrong, whereas homosexual practise may now be regarded as acceptable moral standard. We're talking about violence, and I was disappointed, sir, to read today an article on the tablet where supporters of the homosexual law reform bill have Sava savagely attacked church leaders. The latest [01:14:00] attack is made in the latest issue of art and says the language used shows that whatever happens in the bill, the gays plan an aggressive strategy against all opposed to them. Church. Mr Angus for Wallace. The article also warns that if the bill does not pass, the active element of the gay movement could become very active. Indeed, in spite of the law, it would not be it would be unrealistic not to expect a reaction against supporters [01:14:30] of the bill who may have been seen to be unwise in identifying themselves. However wrong it may be, gay bashers and their families could well find themselves and their property at risk. Do the people who make statements like that deserve any sort of compassion or support? Sir, I've been reliably informed that the whole gay task force right [01:15:00] around the world are watching the progress and the hopeful passage of this legislation in New Zealand. And I wonder why. I wonder why, sir. For many years, many homosexuals remained in the closet, so to say, concealing their behaviour from employers, from friends and even from spouses, many wrestled against their impulses in much the same way an exposer wrestles against the compulsive behaviour that makes him feel [01:15:30] guilty and ashamed. But these are not the people for whom the gay rights laws are primarily designed or who lobby for them because they keep their sexuality private and they are seldom, if ever discriminated against. And I really don't argue against this group. The militant homosexual community, though sir, has sought to overcome the natural revulsion of their behaviour triggered by ef- efforts to polish their image by [01:16:00] efforts that have been largely successful. They have won the support of many people of goodwill, including prominent religious and political leaders. And then they make statements like that as inferred in the tablet. What spillover effects do homosexuals have on society? Mr Speaker? Homosexual act behaviour leads to problems far beyond the circle of the homosexuals themselves. [01:16:30] As a group for examples, homosexuals release both disease and crime into our society to an extent far in excess of their percentage of the population. And research around the world confirms that the connection between homosexuals and ill health has been underscored more recently by the rise of AIDS. The medical community had long known the medical effects of homosexuality. Medical specialists [01:17:00] knew the disproportionate impact on the sick, sick homosexual community of diseases like syphilis, hepatitis a, hepatitis B and so on. Mr. Speaker, although homosexuals may be small in number as one in 10 or one in 20 or, as some estimate, the United States population they carry there over 44 4% of the nation's cases of syphilis, 51% [01:17:30] of gonorrhoea of the throat and 53% of intestinal infections, 40% in the United States. 40% of homosexuals admit to that infection, and one survey in Amsterdam reflected syphilis and about 34% of homosexuals who were attending saunas in that particular country. Sir, diseased home food handlers and public restaurants have been responsible [01:18:00] for major outbreaks of serious disease. Hepatitis A infections and San Francisco and Minneapolis homosexuals, unfortunately, have a rate of infectious hepatitis B 20 to 50 times greater than heterosexual males. It's no wonder, sir, that doctor Seema Dritz, an official of the San Francisco Department of Health, wrote that special precautions are required to protect the [01:18:30] public from carriers who work as both food handlers, bartenders, attendant and medical care facilities, or as teachers and aides and day care centres for INS and for young Children. While gay rights laws have been in effect for the last decade in San Francisco, that city has seen a sharp increase in the viral disease rate of 22 times the national average. Infectious hepatitis increased by 100% [01:19:00] infectious hepatitis B by 300% and other large areas, sir. In that city, 75,000 patients each year, of whom 80% were homosexual males. Yeah, sir. It is interesting to note that in spite of efforts by the South Australian government and agencies and the AIDS task force to alert homosexuals of the dangers posed by AIDS, [01:19:30] a survey in South Australia has found that most have not changed their sexual habits to prevent the spread of this horrific disease, Mr. Speaker, More than 300 young homosexuals were interviewed in Adelaide city bars and then discos where homosexuals are known to meet, and most said that they had not changed their lifestyle or sexual behaviour due to the threat of aid. [01:20:00] Another constant question. Are homosexuals born that way? Although gay rights laws customary speak of the affection or preferences, homosexuals on the defensive frequently say they have no choice. Responsibility. I'm sorry to interrupt the honourable gentleman, but the time must come when I must leave the chat.
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