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.
Sexual law reform bill. I have, uh, been aware of the very considerable number and the close similarity of a great number of the amendments that are in the before the committee so that I have asked the Clark in association with the law draughtsman to prepare a schedule of these in such an order as would allow [00:00:30] a rational, uh, consideration of the issues involved in each one. if they are carried out in this order to be avail made available to members of the committee, it can. The house may not instruct the committee in this way, but I have asked the clerk to have this prepared and distributed to members of the committee so that they each member of the committee, will be aware that [00:01:00] all the other members have this information in front of them. I declare the house in, uh, committee on the homosexual law reform bill. We we Mr McLay, is about the House Senate Committee on the Homosexual Law reform bill. The question is that part one stand part When this matter was last being discussed, Mr Roger MLA was speaking. He has [00:01:30] 4.5 minutes. Mr Chairman in the half minute that I had to say a few things concerning these measures. I did say to the committee that and to the member of the bill that I believe that her habit of resorting to what I see as some personal abuse of members who happen to be opposed to her own personal point of view did nothing to enhance [00:02:00] her chances of this bill moving through the committee stages smoothly. Mr. Chairman, I reminded the committee that there were, after all, 830,000 people who took the trouble to put their signature to a piece of paper to say that they did not want a bar of the contents of this particular bill. Now, Mr Speaker, there's been a lot Mr Chairman, there's been a lot of conjecture about how many of those signatures, uh, should [00:02:30] have been permissible. I don't care whether the number is half Mr Speaker. It is still a Mr Chairman, a very significant number of people who feel that they have not been given the hearing or the consideration that they should have been given. As far as I'm concerned, this measure has become a government measure because when you look at the way, uh, the rational government, irrational government members measure. And Mr Speaker, I believe that it's symptomatic of how [00:03:00] the government members in this house have refused to listen to the vast majority of New Zealanders on all sorts of issues. And this just is just another 1, 830,000 people, Mr. Speaker, they should be listened to. These are people who ask why it is that New Zealand must be the country to have the most liberal homosexual laws in the world. Why is it that New [00:03:30] Zealand has to have the most liberal laws in the world? I can accept well meant argument for some changes. But I cannot accept that New Zealand, in this day and age, is a country that is prepared or wants the most liberal laws in the Western world. I want to say to the move of the bill that no law change in New Zealand at this time is going to bring about a change of attitude concerning these [00:04:00] problems. It's a change of attitude that is needed and no law changes at this particular time, be it to the age of 16, 18, 20 or 90 is going to change the attitude of those 830,000 people and the people they represent. The member won't get rid of the attitudes that she doesn't like in other people. I want to address some remarks and questions to the member and ask why it is [00:04:30] that we look at amendments concerning 16, 18 and 20. Why is it that we look at those particular ages? What is so magic about those ages? What is wrong with 17 or 19? I also want to say to the member, Let's move this bill that there is much confusion and alarm and concern about the age of 12, and I refer to the bill part one, Section [00:05:00] three concerning the two new sections 1 40 Indecency with a boy under 12 1 48 indecency with a boy between 12 and 16. I want to know what the implications are. If this committee should decide that it will allow these homosexual acts between people at the age of 20 will that make any difference to the ages as mentioned in these new sections under 12 indecency between boys uh, 12 and 16. [00:05:30] And does it mean Mr chairman in this regard in 1 40 a two where it says it is a defence to a charge under the section. If the person charged charged proves that the boy consented and that he is younger than the boy, Does this mean it will be quite legal if the boy is a 13 year old and has performed these particular, uh, pursuits with a boy older and [00:06:00] can prove it? I want to ask the the member in the chair if she can address her remarks to that because many people are most concerned about that. Mr. Mr Chairman, Mr Bray Brook. Mr. Chairman, I rise to take part in this debate in the committee stages, possibly for the first time having been overseas. I was somewhat surprised when the member who has just resumed his seat, said that this was a Labour Party bill. I wonder if he's spoken to his [00:06:30] own political colleagues at North Shore. Uh, Raglan, et cetera. Mr Speaker, this is not a government's bill. This is Parliament's bill, and the member for Wellington Central, quite rightly acting within her rights as a member of Parliament, has introduced this bill for Parliament to discuss and to either pass or reject. It has nothing to do with party politics. And it's a pity that that member who has just resumed his seat even here has tried to play party politics. It may be on his side [00:07:00] of the house, but on this side of the house we have complete freedom of conscience to vote as we will. And I jealously guard that right, Mr Speaker. Mr. Chairman, I am against this bill, as I think is well known. I want to speak briefly if I may, uh, to those effects where Part five and I wish to rise to support the SOP put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Defence. I 100% support [00:07:30] that and I do it for the following reasons. Discipline in the armed forces is a fragile thing, but it is an absolute essential commodity to have no armed force can carry out its job without discipline. And it has been shown that where husband and wives are serving in the armed forces, rarely are they allowed to serve in the same unit. It is because of the emotional attachments which naturally a husband and wife have [00:08:00] for one another. If we permitted this bill not to be it to the armed forces, then you would find that gay people who would obviously have a great deal of emotional affection for one another could be that discipline where an order had to be given instantly and instantly obeyed. That would be in jeopardy. Therefore, I think the Minister of Defence's amendment should be agreed to another thing. Why the armed forces must not allow anal intercourse. Mr. Speaker, Mr Chairman, [00:08:30] is because in a battlefield situation, each and every soldier is virtually a walking blood bank. And the Falkland Islands has shown us that it would be disastrous for a soldier to be wounded and need a blood transfusion suddenly to find that he could be contaminated with the disease of AIDS. And I do not say that lightly. It is a blood borne disease. There is not the time in a battlefield condition to test each and every blood sample [00:09:00] for AIDS. It would be impractical and impossible in a battle situation. And can you imagine the morale of our armed forces if a soldier who was wounded even slightly but needed a blood transfusion was to contact AIDS in that way, until such time as AIDS can be screened and is eliminated by medical science that it must not be in any way endanger our armed forces. Mr. Speaker, another reason why I believe that it should not be entertained [00:09:30] by the armed forces, I think is because it would bring about a huge embarrassment and insult to our serving soldiers, sailors and airmen. I served many, many years in the armed forces, gay people, rightly or wrongly. And I can understand activists in the gay movement failing to understand that. But gay people in the armed forces are universally detested. And I can tell you now that to make it suddenly legal for men to sleep with [00:10:00] one another would cause grave acts of indiscipline. And I can tell you many a story could be told on what has happened to people who have tried to carry out gay practises in the armed forces. It is intolerable, and it is unacceptable. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, rather, I have spoken to many of my former colleagues in the armed forces. They find the thought that if the civilian law is changed, it will also apply to those subject to military law. Utterly detestable. [00:10:30] As one said to me, Mr Chairman, kiss me. Good night. Sergeant Major could well become a reality that would make a mockery of the discipline of the armed forces. And I it is totally and utterly unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, there have been some gay people who have forwarded all sorts of pamphlets for some people who are apparently in the past, non living, of course, who have apparently been well known in military circles who have been gay. And I note before, however, that they're all [00:11:00] dead now. But let me say to you that for every person that you can produce like that, I can produce at least 1000 who were not gay. There is no room in the armed forces for people who are not gay. Mr. Morris McTigue. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I rise to speak in the committee stages in opposition to a number of the clauses in part one. But I'd like to start off Mr Mr Chairman by saying that [00:11:30] I believe that for all of those parliamentarians who are in this parliament and who accept part in this conscience vote issue that it is a time to be counted. It's a time to be counted because we're making a decision here and we have to make the decision in the light of what's God's law and what's man's law? And if there is no place in this parliament for God's law, then why do we pray daily and why do whenever we petition this parliament, do we make that in the form of a prayer? Because I believe that there is a real responsibility [00:12:00] for this parliament to exercise its influence in setting a standard in the leadership for the moral code of the society as well. And I believe quite strongly, Mr Chairman, that there is no way that the act of sodomy on somebody between the age of 12 years and 16 years, even though it be penalised by the court, can be accepted or encouraged or even allowed to happen and have the condone [00:12:30] of this parliament. It is even more it is. It is just as unacceptable to me just as unacceptable to me. If that particular practise is to be advocated beyond the age of 16 years and there is no upper limit as far as I am concerned, it is a matter of making a decision according to my value judgments on whether it is right or wrong. If I'm going to make a judgement on whether it's right or wrong, I have to go back to the history [00:13:00] that developed my standards and my values and in developing those values and standards, I have to be thankful that the people who developed my character were not gay people because I believe that my values and standards would be very substantially different if they had been developed by people who were gay. The fact that this Parliament may and I pray won't but the fact that this parliament may sanction this particular bill will, I believe, [00:13:30] change for all time, the course of our society. And it's a change from which it will be very difficult to pull back, if not impossible. It will have a damaging effect, particularly on heterosexual relationships in our communities and on the family unit as a whole. I'm asked how I believe that the family unit as a whole only functions adequately because there is the special relationship [00:14:00] that there is between husband and wife and that special relationship has been developed. But with the encouragement of the faith of our great religions to be able to bring up the Children in a protected and loving environment which will produce for them the values that they will require and need to be able to fulfil the role that they play in the pro generation of the next generation. Mr. Chairman, Clause four deals [00:14:30] with indecent assault on a man or a boy, and that indecent assault is unacceptable to me at any time, in any place or under any conditions. And I would just like to say to this house that in many instances I know young people of the age of 16 years who I still consider to be boys and who, at an even later age 17, 18 and 19 years of age are still boys. [00:15:00] I believe that we have in our society developed a system which has very much developed the intellectual capabilities of our young people. But we have to recognise that a growing up process is not a matter of growing up and developing all of the talents at the same time. And at the age of 16 years, I believe that we have a very substantially underdeveloped emotional talent and emotional values and the fact that at that age we could be subjected to this [00:15:30] kind of sexual, uh, provocation. And maybe in some situations, sexual harassment will have an will have, in my opinion, a long lasting detrimental effect on those individuals concerned. It is totally unacceptable. And I believe that the responsibility lies with us to recognise that as a thinking. People here inside a thinking parliament, I would urge the members of this house that their first consideration has to be not what the [00:16:00] mos of society may be saying to them at the moment. Not what the liberal element within our society may be saying to us that it is time for a change, that there is a need for some liberalisation. Mr Mr Roger McKay. It's easy to see why the people of Timaru chose that member to represent their views. And it's the same reason that he will be here as a member of Parliament for Timaru for as long as he chooses, because he's representing the views of [00:16:30] the vast majority of not only his electorate but of New Zealand. And I think it's time that this parliament stopped and listened and looked at where we are going on issues of this nature. It is not the way New Zealanders want our nation to go. New Zealanders want to hear parliamentarians expressing their concern about the other issues of the day that this government, the honourable member but the time arrived from Italy. The chair and I shall resume the chair at 7. 30. In fact, pose [00:17:00] some questions to the minister of Defence who has an amendment concerning this part of the bill. But I want to pose a question to all members of this committee when considering these measures part of the most liberal homosexual measures in the world. Why is it New Zealand of all countries has to accept those most liberal homosexual laws? Uh, in this day and age, I'm not sure [00:17:30] that New Zealand is the country that should be accepting that on its shoulders. I want to know why it is that if we look at the reasoning of the Minister of Defence based on the chiefs of staff who made a detailed examination of the basis for their services, attitudes to practising homosexual serving in the forces, they came, the minister told us. They came to the conclusion that this would adversely affect the coherence, the discipline, the command [00:18:00] and ultimately the operational capacity of the armed forces. What's wrong with that reasoning for the whole nation? Why is it that just the armed forces need to adhere to these considerations? I want to ask the member. I want to ask the member interjecting who always interjects very loudly just after the tea break every evening. Strange That strange that you should concentrate on the food more. I want to ask the member What about this? These criterion [00:18:30] pertaining to other groups? What about teachers? What about the discipline and command and the moral fibre as pertaining to schools and teachers? What about lawyers? And, uh and their dealings with people? What about those who are involved with youth groups, the scout masters and so on? And what about parliamentarians? Why is it that the armed forces is such a special case? Now I can accept the submissions of the Minister of Defence on behalf of his own amendments. But [00:19:00] I do ask other members of the committee Why is it that that one special group applies? I hope that the Committee will address itself to that because the minister did talk about the need in the armed forces of effectiveness. Discipline the health questions as if it applies to the Army, navy and Air force only. What about the health questions that apply to the whole nation and the whole community, particularly our young people between 12 and 16, for goodness sake? Why where are we leading this nation? We [00:19:30] are parliamentarians. This is a free vote. Why don't we listen to 830,000 people who have told us on behalf of many other the people as well? This is not the measure that New Zealand wants, and I believe that parliamentarians have got an opportunity to show a bit of moral fibre. This is not the way New Zealanders want to take this nation. And I hope that the uh, the member in the chair will address the specific questions I have asked of her particularly pertaining to the [00:20:00] her proposed law changes pertaining to 12 to 16 year olds. What the implications are if, in fact, the amendments allowing homosexual activities between 20 year olds are in terms of the ages that she has in her bill. Will the 20 year age group make any significant need for changes to 12 to 16? Should it be 16 to 18? In that case, for example, I would like to know the significance of the ages of 16, 18 [00:20:30] or 20. Why have those ages been chosen? As my colleague? The member for Timaru ably demonstrated earlier in the debate this afternoon. These matters pertain to attitudes. These matters pertain to the moral fibre of people of this nation. The attitudes of this nation are not going to change. I want to hear from the member and the chair to those specific requests, which I make on behalf of many people [00:21:00] who have written to me. And I know other members who are most concerned. I hope that she'll give us those answers. Mr. Jim Anderton, Mr Chairman, I think the truth of the matter is that people are not made either good or bad by laws, uh, or by acts of parliament, but by the ethics that they acquire, uh, from their own moral formation, which is gained on a personal basis and not through legislation. This [00:21:30] homosexual law reform bill is intended to foster equality before the law for all New Zealanders, regardless of in this case, their sexual orientation. But of course it could be in other instances, in other legislations their religion or their political belief or anything else and approving this legislation, Mr Chairman, uh, to bring about equality or equal treatment in a legal sense does not necessarily imply support or otherwise for the behaviour of individual people. And [00:22:00] it is my belief that you cannot legislate for goodness and that all we can do as political representatives is ensure that there is a legal framework within which the common good is protected, as well as providing for individual rights to be exercised. Now, I want to say to the members who have spoken in this debate previously today that the time for equality before the law, in my view, is now. Other nations have taken this step years ago, and I've heard mention [00:22:30] made, uh, by members during this debate about Christian values and homosexuality. But nowhere in Christian teaching can I find any suggestion that one's Christian values should be determined by public pressure, by referenda or by the weight of numbers on a petition. I want to remind members of the house. That Pontius pilot held a referendum. He held a referendum. He knew his [00:23:00] prisoner to be innocent. But he believed that as the recognised lawmaker of his time and place, that he could wash his hands of the decision of the mob and stand aside and allow those with the weight of numbers on their side to have their say. And I would remind members who want to quote Christianity in their defence of that fact. The house, this house and the members of it cannot in my view wash their hands in that way. They must decide [00:23:30] for themselves. And it is my view that the possibility of objective, well informed and unemotional consideration of this matter has been shown to be, well, not impossible. My mail and I suggest the mail of all members is evidence of that fact. And some of the contributions to this debate reinforce that point. I want to refer Mr Chairman, particularly to clauses four and five. It has barely been noted that the terms of imprisonment for in for indecent assault or anal intercourse [00:24:00] on a boy under the age of 16 years is the subject to imprisonment of between seven and 14 years. Now, Mr Chairman, that is the same range of sentence usually reserved for murder. And I want to know what punishment do those who oppose this bill want? Do they want more punishment than for the crime of murder? And if they do, what are the implications of that? Does it, in fact, then suggest that you might as well kill a victim as [00:24:30] well as perform any other indecency on that victim? Because those who want more punishment than M for the crime of murder are inviting that comparison. And I want to say an answer to the member for Invercargill, who spoke earlier in this debate that it seems to me that the police have got a lot better things to do with their time than deal just with homosexuals and and chase them around the place. Dealing with heterosexual rape offenders, for one, would be an important job [00:25:00] of the police, and I suggest that we give them plenty of opportunity. Do that work. We like to remind the honourable member for Invercargill of the words of that London Bobby who wrote to me again because I want to ask this question of that member. Will it be you for the member for Wanga Ray or a religious group or a vigilante squad? Or the police who seek out these homosexuals that you want to persecute? Before the English law changed, he said to me, I was a young [00:25:30] policeman ordered into the dark streets in the private recesses of London to hunt and arrest homosexuals. My actions were the immoral act, their crime, their sexuality, my shame that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of a fellow human being to criminalise private morality turns us off the steep path to civilization. Now that's what he wrote to me, a London policeman who was responsible before the change in the homosexual law [00:26:00] in that country for policing the bill that you want to oppose. Now it seems to me that that is not what I've listened carefully to. My colleague and friend from Sydney want to tell him that I used to be a London policeman and I walked the streets of London, and I have in my time arrested homosexuals who have molested young people. And I did it then and I would do it again [00:26:30] because I think that homosexuality is a social evil that should not and must not be Condoned by this country. I oppose the bill, Mr Mr Chairman, because it is not in the best interests of the homosexual persons or our society. What we are telling the nation of this this people of this nation, is that if it is legal, then people and especially young, immature people, will think that it is socially and permissively correct [00:27:00] to be a homosexual. I do not accept that I do not accept it there in my youth and I do not accept it now. My colleague and friend also said that other nations have changed the law and it about time that we did too. He is quite correct when he says that other nations have changed the law. But I have correspondence here which I am quite happy to table for the benefit of members of the House, which shows that some of those nations now bitterly regret that they have liberalised and changed [00:27:30] the law in the state of New York. At the moment where the disease of AIDS is running rampant through that state where it is almost out of control, legislation is this week. I understand being introduced to stop the spread of AIDS through homosexual context. They want to close the gay bars, the gay churches, the gay dance halls, the gay restaurants, et cetera. Because they have said and in their legislation where they gave almost almost [00:28:00] legal licence to do what they want, including marrying one another, they have found that the society has rejected it, and now they have got an appalling health problem. Mr. Chairman, in my constituent of Napier Since this bill was introduced oh so long ago, I have spoken to many of my constituents. I have spoken. They know my views. I have listened to theirs. Believe me. In the city of Napier, there are a few people who support the bill. [00:28:30] But there are many an overwhelming majority who do not support the bill, and I shall vote against it accordingly because I believe I am doing what my constituents expect me to do. Can I just briefly touch to finish off talking about the armed forces, which was what I was speaking just before the interval? It doesn't matter if this parliament makes it legal for soldiers, sailors and airmen to engage in homosexual [00:29:00] activities. The members of the armed forces and those of us who served in the armed forces know this for a fact will find that those members will find this practise repugnant. They will be disgusted by it. And any gay that thinks that they can carry out those practises legally in the armed forces will get a very short, sharp chip Indeed. As I said before, it has already been spoken around. Well, I should have known there was an old sailor here who would pick [00:29:30] up that point as I I suppose that my colleagues age will accept anything. Mr Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is now becoming the butt of many jokes at Wau camp, the largest military camp in New Zealand. As I said before, kiss me Good night, Sergeant Major will become reality instead of being illegal. Mr. Chairman, what this Parliament has forgotten [00:30:00] and what many of my own colleagues have forgotten is that the actions of the so called activists and the gay community are not the same values held by members of the armed forces or many, many people in our society. Even if the law does this even if we pass it for the armed forces. As I said before, there will be many breaches of it and I feel sorry for any gay that thinks he can go into the armed forces and practise their there. Mr. Speaker, one [00:30:30] of the things that's been ridiculed by the supporters of the bill time and time again has been that they have ridiculed the petition which was presented to this parliament. I supported that petition. I was very proud to be associated with that petition. The one thing, though, that has struck me as rather strange is that though the people who oppose this bill organised a petition and I am not saying that it was 100% correct because who knows? But I know that it was overwhelmingly correct as far as I was concerned is that I am surprised that the gay community [00:31:00] themselves, if they are so certain their case, they themselves have never organised that position in support of this bill. Chairman Mr Chairman, I think it's important to correct a misapprehension under which the member for Napier is suffering and that is regarding the New York situation. Yes, New York is a city with probably the the largest AIDS problem in in the world that we know of. And in fact, just this week in New York they have passed anti discriminatory [00:31:30] anti discrimination legislation along the same lines as the bill we're actually discussing at the moment. And the reason why they have done that is because they know that unless the gay population and the at risk population are in fact, um, able to live ordinary lives and not, um, cover carry out sexual activities covertly, they will not be able to assist with the public education and a public health programme. [00:32:00] And the member for Napier might, um, bear that in mind that in fact, the legislation was actually passed this week. Uh, Mr Chairman, I want to comment on a question asked by the member for Moana, who appeared to have some difficult with the age of consent. And he did ask me why, um 16. And why 18 and why 20? Well, I can't answer for the movers of the amendments why they've put on ages why they have decided arbitrary ages such as 18 or 20 [00:32:30] should be the age of consent. But I will tell him why there is an age of 16 in the bill, and it is quite simple. It is because the age of 16 already exists in the Crimes Act, and I'm sure I've told this to the before. Perhaps the member wasn't listening at the time. The member for says he's heard it all before, but perhaps he should listen to. He might learn something. There is, in fact, currently in The Crimes Act, an age of consent of 16. And the whole rationale behind this bill is to actually make the law [00:33:00] non-discriminatory so that males and females are treated equally under it. And I think it's very important that, uh, those who are saying that it's going to legalise sodomy between 12 year olds, et cetera, et cetera. And that has been said both in this house and out of it. And those who have said, as did the Salvation Army in the war cry of the 27th of April 1985 that the bill will effectively legalise sodomy with all males aged between 12 and 16, and [00:33:30] it will be almost impossible to convict for sodomising. Even 12 year old people who make those claims are actually wrong and they should read the bill, and they should read the Current Crimes Act Section 1 34 on which this bill is modelled. It's actually a gross distortion of the legislate of the bill to say that to make those claims, and it's simply designed to make people fearful of their Children's safety if the bill is passed. In fact, the bill contains a provision which [00:34:00] is already there in the Crimes Act under Section 1 34 and which has operated successfully for many years. And nobody, as far as I know, the police, the Social Welfare department or the Social workers churches. Anyone who has anything to have anything to do with this legislation has has called for the repeal of this. That request has never been made. The provision, which is there is, is commonly known as the carnal knowledge clause. Um, it is carnal knowledge [00:34:30] is when a male has consenting sex with a girl aged between 12 and 15 years. It provides for two defences and the member for Wa mo, and I should listen to this because they might learn something. There are two defences possible to all knowledge. The first is if the male can prove he is younger than the girl. The second defence, which is here in this bill on an identical basis, has two has three elements, all of which must be proved to the court. Firstly, the [00:35:00] um accused must show was under 21 at the time of the offence. Secondly, he must prove that he actually believed the girl or the other party was aged 16 years or older. And thirdly, the judge and the jury must all be satisfied that they could reasonably believe that the other party was 16 years or over. Mr. Chairman, these are very stringent criteria. They are very difficult to fulfil. It is not very often that they are even brought forward as [00:35:30] offence because the people who are involved in the court proceedings know how difficult they are. And I think that it is quite fatuous to believe that it could be used successfully and that the and and that it is going to prove the claims made by people who oppose the bill. The homosexual law reform bill simply picks up identically the provisions that are already there in the Crimes Act, applying to heterosexual intercourse and people who are imposing it on those grounds [00:36:00] have should examine their own attitudes towards the young females in our community. The the the people who use those arguments are either ignorant of or suppressing the facts about section 134 of the Crimes Act. Or, of course, Mr Chairman. Or of course, they are only, um they are endeavouring to sensationalise rather than inform because they always use it in conjunction with the discussion about anal intercourse, not about indecency [00:36:30] or about heterosexual intercourse. And the other thing is, of course, that those who condemn this clause are actually saying that boys are so much more important than girls that they have to be given extra protection. Mr. Chairman, this clause is already in the law. This bill is simply bringing the law into line so that it treats males and females heterosexual and homosexual equally. Mr. Mr Trevor Young. Mr. Mr Chairman, I have, [00:37:00] uh, given notice. I think circulated the, uh uh, this evening a an amendment. I intend to move to the bill, Uh, which of course challenges the statements that have just been made by the member for Wellington Central and I'll come on to that in a moment. You'll notice, sir, that with that amendment, there are now 16 amendments on the floor to this bill. A bill which contains about three pages a little over three pages, and from this arena, Sir, there are 16 amendments expressing [00:37:30] the differences that members of parliament have, uh, to various parts of this bill that emphasises to me, sir, the fact that really this parliament is not in a position ready to process this bill. I am still concerned, sir, that there was insufficient study done by the committee that was given this bill in the first place. And I'm not going to, uh uh [00:38:00] to criticise that committee. Sir, I know the pressure the committees are under, but I believe, sir, that before we do process this bill, we should have had a thorough investigation into all that is involved with it. And, uh, I think, sir, if that had been done, it would have been easier to find a common mind among the members of Parliament rather than the rush of at least the host of amendments which [00:38:30] are coming forth. And, uh, I believe, sir, that this is a an important social piece of legislation which needs completely different treatment to the way in which parliament is treating it. And, uh, I don't In my mind, sir, we are really not in a position to process this bill in the way in which it should be dealt. Now. Sir, I have moved an amendment tonight to omit clause three from the bill. [00:39:00] And in doing so, sir, that would reinstate, uh, if the if this was carried by the house, it would mean that the crimes act, uh, in section 140 would in effect be reinstated. That act the Crimes Act. At present, sir, handling this situation of indecency between man and boy provides for a penalty of 10 years for any person who indecently [00:39:30] assaults any boy under 16 years of age or does any indecent act and so on with a person under 16 years of age, the legislation before us now the bill before us now provides the ten-year penalty for exactly the same conditions. Except that it is to apply not to a person of 16, but to a person of 12. Now the member for Wellington Central has has correctly pointed [00:40:00] out that this is at variance with earlier sections in the Crimes Act relating to heterosexual practises. That is correct. And I don't, uh I and I accept that, but I want to say, sir, that we are not dealing tonight with the situation. Uh, under this legislation of young girls and I would suggest to the member for Wellington Central and indeed to the house. If we are to look at this thing globally, then we should [00:40:30] look at it in the context of amendments to the Crimes Act. And when we come down, as indeed I hope so. We will, in due course, to look to the, uh to the penalties under the Crimes Act and various other provisions under the Crimes Act. That is the time when we should make any alterations. You know, the the member for Wellington Central just now said, Well, we're going to bring her intention is to bring it in line with indecent assaults on girls. All right, then why not [00:41:00] lift the situation? The protection of girls to that which is equal under section 140 here for boys under 16, rather than reverse it the other way. Yes, sir. it. The answer is, Well, we're dealing with homosexuals instead of heterosexuals under this bill. And, uh, that's not a not a sufficient answer for me at all. Now, sir, I think it is at our peril that we move to endorse the provisions of the bill at Clause three. At the present time, [00:41:30] I think we should we should, uh, uh, remove it and that there should be no approval by this house for any recognition of indecent assaults, indecent acts on any person or any boy under 16 years of age. We could reasonably leave it there. And we could look at this matter again, sir. When the crimes act, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman Trevor Young. When the crimes act, sir again comes [00:42:00] up for review, I ask, sir, that that be done by the house. I think that's the the the, uh, the fair way to proceed. And, uh, the the best way to proceed in handling this matter. As I said, sir, you could go either way. The me the member for Wellington Central says, uh, she'd bring it in line. This clause in line with the, uh, with the indecency provisions on young girls by reducing, uh, the the standards down to what is here in the Crimes Act to young girls. I'd personally [00:42:30] I'd rather see the the move made the other way. And why, sir? Because, sir associated with a lot of this, uh, secular and carnal knowledge and things are going on is violence in our community at the present time, I want to say, sir, and as many members in this house are on a committee with me where women young women are coming to us concerned. Really concerned, sir, about the conditions existing in our society [00:43:00] at the present time, which is, uh, uh, putting them at terrific risk of violence. And I believe, sir, that we are in a vastly different situation environment with an environment that's affected by, uh, new age such as, uh, television and so on. Uh, where, uh and, uh, and and the video age Where, uh, there is violence proceeding sexually mainly upon young, [00:43:30] uh, young girls, but not wholly that way. I believe, sir, that we need to have the law as strong as possible in this connection in the Crimes Act. And I it will be it's, uh, undesirable. So far as I'm concerned to see us reduce these penalties and reduce the conditions. Uh, to which these, uh, penalties, uh, provide, uh, in the way in which the member for Wellington Central, the promoter of this bill, is advocating. [00:44:00] I asked, sir that, uh uh, That the house give serious consideration in that way to the amendment that I have brought forward again. Sir, I emphasise the house. I don't think it's We are too late in saying no to the processing of the whole of this bill to allow the matter to be properly, uh, investigated by if you like, a royal commission or whatever. But certainly, sir, there's been insufficient study given to this matter. [00:44:30] That's why we've got so many amendments before the house at the present time. And, uh, I, uh, II I think that the house would be well advised if we had if we did proceed on that line, Perhaps just, uh, before calling the next member to speak. Uh, I could point out that members have a sheet of paper on which has contained the procedure proposed by the speaker, but of course, we'll accommodate it in due course to Chairman the honour Russell Marshall. Mr Chairman, I first in the first instance want [00:45:00] to address my remarks to the uh amendment moved by my colleague, the minister of defence to Clause seven A. And I've circulated the paper to members about the effect of that because I asked the officers of the Education Department to comment on the 2nd and 3rd proposals which the minister of defence has proposed. But before I embark on my comments on those aspects, I simply want to say in passing that I do not agree with. Nor do I intend to support [00:45:30] the minister of Defense's proposals. I think that I don't don't believe that that is necessary to take that step. I think there's been a considerable amount of exaggerated fear raised in this respect, as are many others, and I'm sure that although I've not been here for the whole of the debate, other members have canvassed adequately the reasons why no descript, no arrangement should be made for any occupational group. And I think I heard the member for Waay Moana saying words to that effect over the radio [00:46:00] earlier this evening. But Mr Chairman, I simply want to observe at this point that if the House decides to make the amendment which the minister of defence has proposed to clause 10 to Clause 10, I want to point out the contents of my memorandum which would suggest that there are quite serious implications if we go on to attempt to pass clauses 11 and 12 and the legal officers of the Education Department have suggested that we run the risk of being in a rather I hesitate [00:46:30] to you with the words hypocritical but certainly a double standard situation where people and other vocational training bodies would be required to adopt. A different would be allowed to adopt a different attitude towards people who are training for the armed forces than there would be for all other trainees. And that would be a very invidious position to put those organisations and their staff in, and it would open up a temptation which I think is quite unnecessary. Furthermore, Mr Chairman, if and I hope it doesn't eventuate if Clause 10 is passed, [00:47:00] then the legal advice given to me is that the concern of the Minister of defence is more than adequately covered by 10, but without having to go on and pass clauses 11 and 12 and clause 12. Frankly, the legal advice I have is quite superfluous. It's a it's it's a belt and two sets of races, which seems to me to be quite unnecessary. And I urge members if they must pass the first two amendments of the Minister of Defence. Do not pass clause 11 and don't waste your time passing clause 12 [00:47:30] as well. But, Mr Chairman, the other thing I want to say is that I have come to the view not lightly or easily, because I suspect that I am a typical middle aged pakeha male who has the many of the attitudes of my generation with me. But I have come to the conclusion that we must pass the law at 16. And Mr Chairman, there is no active evidence anywhere produced in this house to suggest [00:48:00] that sexual preferences are determined as late in life as that. Now, Mr Chairman, I know there are a whole lot of other things. Well, Mr Chairman, I must say I was ashamed as a member of this house to listen to the mindless emotional diatribe which we listened to last week from the member for Whangarei Mr Mr Chairman, the member had his turn. He can get more terms. I that [00:48:30] it is true that there will be, as there are now, people who will seek to corrupt minor. It is just as illegal under this legislation, as it as it is now, and some of the outrageous emotional rubbish poured out by the member for and others. It just does. I think he, at least as a member of this house, owes it to his constituents and to the people of this country to study what this bill is about, not what it's not [00:49:00] about. There are many of the things which he ranted on about last week, which are illegal now and which will be illegal if this bill is passed in its present form. And I think the House ought to concentrate on what's in the bill and what's proposed and not a whole lot of emotional clap trap. Now, Mr Speaker, it is quite clear to me, and I haven't come to this point of view likely. It is quite clear to me that individual sexual preference is determined long [00:49:30] before people reach the age of 16. Nor am I convinced by those who would argue that it's possible to change a person's sexuality by by whatever form after that age. Those preferences are set and long since determined by the time that people get to this point. And, Mr Speaker, I urge people therefore, to vote on the basis of what is objectively known and on Mr Chairman. And on it. Mr Chairman. Yeah, just, uh, brave Brooke. [00:50:00] Chairman uh, Chairman, I've listened very carefully to the ministers of education's contribution to this speech, and I want to correct him on one or two matters which I think, uh, he may not be aware of, and I do it with the best will in the world. He mentioned the fact that the armed forces are sometimes regarded and required to go to educational institutes. That is true, he said, that it would be wrong for them to be treated differently from anybody else. Well, let [00:50:30] me inform the minister of education that when one joins the armed forces, one accepts that you lose some of the liberties and the free and easy ways of civilian life, and you become subject to military law or naval law or air force law for instance, when you go to a university or a technical institute as a soldier, you are still subject to military law. You have to shave every day. You have to have a haircut and so on, because they are the requirements amongst many others of military [00:51:00] law. Are we to suggest, now that in some mysterious way that their human rights are being denied them? Because all of a sudden they can suddenly go and commit sodomy if they're attending a polytechnic? I'm afraid it is not true. When a New Zealander male or female joins the armed forces, they willingly give away many of the liberties which they are used to in civilian life and accept the disciplines of service life. Mr. Speaker, I've listened [00:51:30] carefully to what some of the other members supporting this bill have said. I want to tell you that in my opinion, this bill provides if we take it right down and I listen to the member for Eastern Hut very carefully and I agree with what he said. This bill provides a defence for homosexual acts upon boys under 12, where a homosexual under 12 one complete consent or mistake. As to the age. I find that totally unacceptable. The legislation, [00:52:00] in my view, would make it very difficult for a for guilt to be found in a court for the simple reason that young person be 12 or 13 or whatever. That young person and their parents would be loathe to have that child exposed to the trauma of a court's cross questioning. And I don't think that that is a good law to put a young child through that I There's been much debate about [00:52:30] the age. I don't care if it's 16, 18 or 20 because I think that 99 is not even an age, although I am tempted to think that by the time you reach 100 you should be permitted to do what you want, Mr. Speaker, the present law is against anal intercourse, or what it is commonly known as sodomy. That is what the present law attempts to prevent. The changing of the law to discriminate homosexual acts, I don't believe is the real aim of [00:53:00] the gay community of New Zealand. I believe firmly that the real aim is to change society's attitudes towards homosexuality and gain total acceptance of homosexual behaviours in all areas overseas experience has shown that where legislators of various countries have heeded to them and given in and liberalised the law, what has happened, I'll explain. And many people have seen what has happened in [00:53:30] the United States, especially Chicago and New York, in Amsterdam and other parts of Holland and in London, etcetera. The first that is to happen is that the gay bars appear bars for gays, gay dance halls, gay restaurants and so on. The next piece of legislation undoubtedly to come in will be to allow gay men to marry as they can in some states of the United States. That is the next logical step. Many of my colleagues will [00:54:00] poo who it and it's not in the bill. But let me just tell you. The bill introduced by the previous National Party member a few years ago had the age of 21. I've read the Hansard in those hands sides members on this side of the house. I believe it was, Henry May said. The next time this bill comes in, it'll be at the age of 16, and you know, he was right. And I'm telling you that if this bill becomes legal within a few years, the next one will be that it's their sexual orientation and males should be allowed to marry [00:54:30] and males should be allowed. Males should be allowed to adopt Children. That is exactly the experience of what has happened overseas. It is the thin end of the wedge. It is the first step along the way. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to Mr Chairman. Rather, I don't want to inflict that upon New Zealand because nobody can give a guarantee what will happen if this bill is passed and what effect it will have on our society. We can only judge what has happened overseas. [00:55:00] The honourable, uh, Mr Chairman, I listened to the member for Napier with quite some interest, as I have the other members who have contributed to this debate. He mentioned the member of the opposition myself, who introduced a bill 12 years ago. I want to say that as far as that measure was concerned, Mr Chairman, it is quite different from the present measure and I certainly would [00:55:30] not support the provisions in the present measure. But I want to say very clearly this when I was asked to, uh, introduce that bill 12 years ago, I said to the person who asked me, Yes, I am. I am prepared to introduce a bill because I hear the arguments one way and another, and I am convinced that it is right that we should decriminalise homosexual acts [00:56:00] between consenting adults in private. That's the view I took then, having heard all the arguments. And that's the view I held that I hold today, and that is precisely the stance I will take today. This bill goes far further than that of all the amendments that we have before us, the one that comes the closest to the recommendations of [00:56:30] that select committee of Parliament that sat over from one year to another reported back to the house in 1975. Uh, is the amendment that is proposed by my colleague, the member for Pendleton. And I want to, uh, in so far as the house will listen to my advice, advise the House to consider that amendment. I think it is the appropriate one. It is a complicated piece of legislation. We [00:57:00] know we know very well that it is fraught. This piece of legislation is fraught with difficulty for the promoter. I'm not telling the member for Wellington Central anything she doesn't know, and I believe we should. We should step forward, but step forward cautiously. We cannot get too far ahead of public opinion in matters to do with what they see as the morals of the country [00:57:30] speaker. We are talking about the criminal law, and we've got to ask ourselves, Do we expect the criminal law to intervene where there is no victim? In other words, a victimless crime Where there are consenting adults in private, however, their actions may offend us personally, offend our own morality. Is that the place for the criminal law? [00:58:00] And I'd say that it is not. It is not. What takes place in public is how minors may be affected are. And I'm not persuaded by the arguments put forward by the member for Wellington Central, who says that because we have a certain age of consent for heterosexual acts, the same age of consent should apply to homosexual acts. If you look through the jurisdictions of country after [00:58:30] country overseas, that argument is not sustainable. So I say to the house, Mr Speaker to examine very closely, and I'm certainly going to support the amendment that's put forward by my colleague, the member for Pendleton, because I believe it meets the needs of those who seek reform of the legislation. As it presently stands, it avoids offending those who are concerned [00:59:00] at the impact of changes on the law on one society and secondly, the young Mr Speaker, I believe that we should take a modest step forward in homosexual law reform this bill or this part the part that we are considering now goes far too far for this house, I believe, and for this country. But I suggest [00:59:30] to the house examine the amendment from the member for Ford and support it a point of order. The honourable Frank Flynn. Mr. Chairman, I think I should seek your guidance by way of point of order. I listened with interest, though I was not in the chamber to the speech a little while ago by the minister of Education, who has, uh, an order paper, I think, but at any rate was making or distributed some material making comments on some [01:00:00] of the contents of the order paper that stands in my name now Mr Chairman, Those parts of that order paper all relate to part two of the bill. I have said nothing about them so far. I gave a made a brief contribution in respect of that part of my order paper that deals with part one. And I'm now just a little bit of No, I'm sure the house doesn't want the minister to give his speech again, and I'm sure [01:00:30] it doesn't want me to give my speech twice. I am just, uh, enquiring, Mr Chairman. Whether and members might like to take some interest in it, whether it would actually be more convenient if I said shortly what I want to say about that part of my order paper that deals with part two now rather than later. Well, no. I think the the the fact of the matter was that the member, uh, for he was talking to, uh, comments that he circulated, which included the amendment that the member for Island Bay proposes to part one. [01:01:00] So but he But he made his remarks all of a piece, or at least I. I understood that that's what he was doing, So it would be better. I think that part that those parts of the member for remarks that were irrelevant having been having been allowed, uh, that, uh, but But in order for us not to stray into further, further irrelevancy that the that the member for Island Bay, uh, restrain his comments until we come to part two. But if he presses the point, I think I would have to allow him the opportunity to comment now if he presses [01:01:30] Sutton. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing part one of this bill, and it's clear that we are finally approaching the stage where we'll have some votes on matters of substance relating to this bill. And I hear applause from some of the members in the House at that prospect. If we consider what was said about part one of the bill in the report of the Department [01:02:00] of Justice, they stated quite clearly that the key policy issue in the bill is the age of consent. They stated that it was their impression that there is a very strongly held conviction amongst large sections of the community that an age of consent of 16 years for homosexual relations is simply too young. There's a good deal of survey work to support that view, including the survey that I carried out in the Hawke's Bay Electorate. When [01:02:30] we consider the amendments that have been suggested by way of supplementary order paper and the speeches that were made in the second reading debate, it is clear that there are two large I camps amongst members. There are those centred around the member for who take a strong opposing stance to the entire contents of this bill, and they have supported themselves in the debate. And there are those centred around the member for Wellington Central who are strongly [01:03:00] in favour of all of the provisions in this bill. There are, in addition, a group of MP S that my numbering from their speeches in this house come to 18, plus a few others who haven't chosen to speak in the debate who have adopted a position of qualified support. They will support some aspects of proposed reform, but not the whole bill, and I am of that number, Mr Chairman, There were more precisely nine members who spoke [01:03:30] who indicated that they were not happy with the age of consent of 16. For part one of this bill but would consider some higher age but not declaring themselves strongly for the highest age suggested, which has been age 20. And I address my arguments particularly to that smallest group, which may conceivably hold the balance in this voting. I argue that of the supplementary order papers, and the amendments [01:04:00] suggested that the major ones are those that stand in the name of the member for Dunedin North, relating to an age suggesting an age of 20 for the provisions. In Part one. I don't support that view because I've heard no convincing argument for the age of 20. It's not an age which is widely used to confirm an age for decision making in society. I believe that the lower age of 18 is now more commonly accepted as [01:04:30] an appropriate age for maturity in regard, for example, to voting in parliamentary elections, Mr Chairman, the member for North Shore, has proposed that the age of 18 should apply to clauses 34 and five that is, to various kinds of sexual activities involving males. That stance, I think, seeks to find that strand [01:05:00] in public opinion, which believes that the age of 16 is too young, too young to allow consenting sexual acts between males, is prepared to accept a somewhat higher age. I don't support that stance either, because because it seems to me to distinguish between males and females performing very similar sexual activities rather than distinguishing between acts. And it's my view that [01:05:30] the public, by and large, is concerned in particular, about the act of sodomy or anal intercourse. That is, in fact, what most members have spoken to in this house when they've been opposing part one of this bill. There's been virtually no consideration, at least in the committee of the whole, of the fact that this act deals with a much wider range of sexual activities than simply sodomy or anal intercourse. I take the view, and I put [01:06:00] that forward in supplementary order paper number 72 which is, however, subsumed under the supplementary order paper number 70 put forward by the member for North Shore, I related I suggested an amendment which would apply purely and simply to Clause five. In other words, I would support clauses three and four as they stand, because they appear to me to be consistent with the Existing Crimes Act provisions relating to heterosexual activities [01:06:30] and because the activities, which are described as indecency, are of a similar nature, whether they are carried out by female female couples or by male female couples or by male male couples, they are of a similar nature. They are, in fact, commonly considered as exploratory sexual activities, and there's a good deal of evidence to show that they are mainly practised by younger aged people engaged in sexual exploration. [01:07:00] Now I believe that that the law should recognise that such activities are of a similar nature, whether they involve only males or whether they involve males and females when it comes over to anal intercourse. I think that that is widely accepted as being a dangerous practise, particularly with respect. Mr Chairman, Mr Ian McCain, Mr Chairman, debates of this kind seem to bring out the best and the worst in the house. Sometimes we get some of the [01:07:30] best speeches that are ever heard here, and occasionally, as in this debate, we get some of the worst speeches. Part one of this bill, which was introduced by the member for Wellington Central, looks to have some clear political purposes, and she's looking for political merit and and and introducing the bill. The speeches in response by opponents, uh, at times, uh, have been extraordinary speeches, and there have been some people in the house who seem to have taken an unusual interest [01:08:00] in certain rather, uh, less uh, familiar sexual practises. Uh, and, uh, I have got quite a few kicks from it. Um, but this bill, Mr Speaker, has been debated a long time, and this part has been debated a long time. I doubt if we've had a new argument in the last four hours. There are some people who are moving amendments, and no doubt the house will want to hear them explaining what the amendments are. But I've been listening intently this evening waiting to hear [01:08:30] when some new argument may be, Uh, may be, uh, advanced. And, uh, Mr Chairman, uh, there there haven't been any this evening, and it looks as though most members of this house are at the stage where they've made their minds up almost all of them, some of them a long time ago. And I suggest to you, Mr Chairman, that's shown by the speaking list by the number of people who in the committee have been able to take a second or third call indicating [01:09:00] that most members of the House have, in fact, made their minds up. Mr. Chairman, beg your pardon. The evidence I have for that is the speaking list where the members have not been actively seeking the call but have been willing to leave, willing to leave the proponents and the opponents of the bill to carry the whole debate, advancing the same old arguments at nauseum. But [01:09:30] well, it may well be that the member for Nelson has not made his mind up. And if he hasn't no doubt the debate could continue for his benefit. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we're getting to the stage with this debate where we're holding back the committee and the house on. No, I'm not moving the closure. I'm not entitled to. I'm speaking to part one. I'm speaking to part one that it is. There are other bills before the house. [01:10:00] I'm not going to refer to them, but that it's time we got on with the business of the country, including other private members. Bills, Mr. Speaker, I would seldom ever if ever urge a speaker or a chairman of committees ever to move the closure. But I would suggest to you that on this particular occasion you should assess whether any new arguments are being advanced, whether the committee has made its minds up and that after those who are moving [01:10:30] amendments have been able to explain them that the House should then decide to go and vote on this This bill, Mr Speaker, there's only one proviso I'd, uh, I'd add. And that is providing. The government would give an assurance that on any closure motion, the whip would not apply. Uh, the Honourable Sullivan sheets of amendments to this bill are fluttering on [01:11:00] our desks like confetti nine. As at a week ago, when we last debated this bill and 18 by tonight. And what does that prove? We have never had another bill in this house. In my experience, it has had so many amendments put by such a wide variety of members in this house. Clearly they are. They are dissatisfied and unhappy [01:11:30] about the principal bill. And I make that case as evidence of that unease. Mr. Chairman, supporters of this bill claim that 10% of our population are homosexual taking the 1981 census. That would mean that there are about 317,000 homosexual New Zealanders. [01:12:00] It is therefore suggested that this bill is for these 317,000 individuals in this country. If this bill is passed, any New Zealander aged 16 years and over could indulge in any aspect of homosexual behaviour with any other New Zealander aged 16 years and over, [01:12:30] and also with any other person from any other part of the world aged 16 years and over, providing both partners consent and that their homosexual behaviour is in private and within this country. What a rare distinction for this little nation that it will provide if this bill passes that legal protection. [01:13:00] If this bill is passed, it would provide a blanket provision concealing such homosexual behaviour from criminal sanctions. Any person visiting New Zealand would also be covered be covered by the law. While in New Zealand, I have referred in earlier debates on this bill to an affluent international jet [01:13:30] setting group with their own travel agencies who already have special visits to this country. Providing this bill passes on their agenda. I speak in in particular of American travel agents for homosexuals poised to come to this mecca of the Pacific, where they can indulge in whatever they [01:14:00] wish to in homosexual behaviour with complete equanimity. Knowing the law in New Zealand will set the seal of approval, there is the promise of new territory and of an unspoiled Polynesian land. I come back to another observation I made during my inquiries in San Francisco last year, where the young [01:14:30] homosexual prostitutes in that city were from the ethnic minorities and I learned of the phrase. Young and black is beautiful, but Brown is better in respect to the specific activity and with respect to prostitutes, homosexual young homosexual prostitutes. So this bill is not actually limited only to the [01:15:00] 317,000 New Zealand homosexuals. The way is opened for the international homosexual tourists. Young New Zealand boys would be more interesting to such tourists than older men. And if the pattern recorded in America is replicated, and I must say, Mr Chairman, that it has been in an extraordinary [01:15:30] number of aspects replicated here in New Zealand. But a few years later than, uh, the programme in America, then young Polynesian boys would be especially choice. Any thorough research on the subject will also reveal the validity. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doug Kidd, Chairman. I move the question being now, put a [01:16:00] point of order, Mr Lee, to consider the precipitous nature of that motion, I think, and to say that there are a number of speakers. Well, I think is is the member. Uh, if if I can If I can just explain the situation the member for Marlborough called, and, uh, move that the motion be put. Uh, that's not debatable. But, um uh I'm not prepared to accept at the point of what I was raising, Mr Speaker, [01:16:30] but I thought the member was talking to the to the closure, which, of course, is not, uh is not a question before the house. Thanks. Thank you for the call. 835,000 New Zealanders average decent people presented this parliament with a petition saying they don't want to know about this bill. They [01:17:00] don't want to legalise sodomy for 16 year olds, 17 year olds, 18 year olds or 20 year olds. They don't want to have sodomy legalised for armed servicemen. They don't want to have sodomy legalised for any sector of our society because they say that legalising sodomy is the thin edge of the wedge, and it's going to destabilise the family unit, destroy this nation and democracy. So I stand [01:17:30] here again tonight, taking my fourth call and not apologising and saying this bill is evil. And while Rome burns, we are back here in the house tonight trying to decide whether boys should be able to sodomise each other at 14, 15, 16 or some other age. And what disgraceful speech, Mr Speaker, we heard from the member for Wanganui, the former minister of religion, now the minister of education, who supports 14 [01:18:00] 15 16 year old school boys being able to sodomise each other if they wish and where they wish. What a disgraceful situation we have. The minister of defence, who's going to support this bill legalising sodomy for 16 year old boys? And he has the temerity the cheek to bring in an amendment saying that the armed services should be exempt. What we say on this side of the House is if it's good enough to exempt the armed services in the name of the Lord, it's good enough to exempt everyone [01:18:30] we don't want. We don't want any sodomy in our society. We think it's evil and we think it's evil that this parliament, sponsored by the Labour Party member for Wellington, should have this evil bill here in this house. Mr. Chairman, what keeps me going is people that come to this Parliament every Wednesday night. Some of them stand out on these steps. Some of them are kneeling on the steps. Some of them are praying and the members and the telegrams of support that me and my friends, [01:19:00] the member for nature, the member for Uber Car Papakura and Hauraki. We get messages of support every Wednesday saying, Keep up the fight. You've got to stop this bill. You've got to do your best and that's what we're doing. And the youth with a mission here tonight in Parliament, youth with a mission out there praying that common sense will prevail and this parliament will say no to every provision of this bill. That's what I'm saying. No to every provision of this bill. [01:19:30] The vast majority of the population, 98% of the population, are not interested. Homosexual activity don't indulge in it and don't want this bill. We are pandering to 2% of the population that are perverted. And as far as I'm concerned, the suggestion that we import a few camels for these people might be the answer instead of wasting Parliament's time. Mr. Chairman, this is a disgraceful bill. It's the thin edge of the wedge. Next, we'll probably have from a Labour Party member a bill [01:20:00] legalising euthanasia or a bill legalising sexual activity with animals. Or next year, we'll probably see from the member for Wellington Central Amendment lowering the age to 14 or 13 or 12. We on this side of the house who oppose this bill say it is evil. The member for Wellington Central knows it's evil. She's only doing it for some sort of cheap political gain to try and resurrect her electoral majority. [01:20:30] She knows it's bad. 835,000 New Zealanders have said It's bad. My people in say it's bad, and every week they send me down here with a message to tell this Parliament. It's bad, Mr Chairman, I hope common sense will prevail, and as I said, I finish as I started while Rome BURNS While this country is an economic crisis, this country is defenceless, Mr Chairman, And here we are discussing this nonsense [01:21:00] of whether 16 year old boys are organise to sodomise each other or whether it should be higher or whether it should be lower. We, the opponents of this bill, say it's not needed, not wanted and quite evil. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity to speak for the fourth time. We make no apologies the opponents of this bill, because we're going to speak again and again on this bill because we think it is thoroughly bad. We heard a shameful speech from the former minister of religion, [01:21:30] the minister of Education and who is supposed to be out there looking after the interests of young boys and young girls in schools. And here he is in the house supporting legalisation of sodomy. Dr. Cullen, Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to respond in the same style to the member for as his speech merely to suggest to him, as I suggested before that this is a matter which should be regarded with some degree of rationality rather than simply bigotry and prejudice [01:22:00] and I say that, sir, because I don't think in approaching this part of this bill it is appropriate for members to base their voting, their approach to legislation on a series of prejudices rather than on the legislation in front of them. I'm quite sure that the great majority of the members of this house share those prejudices which they have had imbued within them through a long process of acculturation and education. But that is irrelevant. [01:22:30] That is irrelevant to the state of the law. And the question before the house on this part is really very simple. The question is whether people who commit anal intercourse, whether indeed heterosexual or homosexual anal intercourse should be subject to criminal penalties if they are of sufficient age to have made up their minds about that and whether they have given consent to that act [01:23:00] taking place. And indeed, we've had problems, sir, in that members, like people in the public at large, have consistently misrepresented parts of this bill to take one simple example. The member for Hauraki state of this bill legalises male brothels because it repeals section 146 of the Crimes Act. He forgot to note that it also amends section 147 on brothel keeping to change the word woman to person. [01:23:30] And he may be so overwhelmed by the mass of feminist literature that he is not aware that men are still people in this society. And therefore sir, if brothels are banned for people, they are banned for both men and women. And the bill bans brothels for men as it does for women. And if only some members would pro would bother to read the bill, bother to get some proper advice. They would not make some [01:24:00] of the stupid statements in this house that they have done. But I come back to the essential matter. What is the purpose? What is the purpose in subjecting to subjecting people who are homosexual to the threat of criminal incarceration for their activities? Is it going to stop people being homosexual? Is it going to stop people committing homosexual acts? Is it going to Is it going [01:24:30] to contribute in one small part or another to the moral or the mental or the physical health of this community? And the answer to that is so clearly no, that it is very hard to understand how people who adopt a rational attitude can oppose this part of the bill. I ignore Part two because there are separate issues there, even though I support Part two. The real issue, therefore, is what the age [01:25:00] of consent should be, and that is a difficult issue because any age of consent is arbitrary. Any age of consent does not apply to every individual in equal circumstances. Some people are indeed mature, both physically and mentally at 16. Others are not. Others are mature before 16. As my daughters get older and I've had people ask me whether I'm worried about my Children, if this bill passes and since my Children are both daughters, [01:25:30] I have no worries at all. I'm much more worried about some of the mad heterosexuals out there in the community. As my daughters get older, I begin to think that 16 is too young for heterosexual consent. But that is not the issue. The issue is that we have to arrive at an age which anybody who is rational admits is arbitrary because it it cannot apply to each individual equally. And therefore, why should [01:26:00] the age for homosexual consent be different from the age for heterosexual consent. Apart from the legal problems that that creates because anal intercourse is not a solely homosexual act, as the member for papakura should know, it is not a solely homosexual act. It creates difficulties because one simply cannot say that young men or boys I do not care what you call them are necessarily less mature, [01:26:30] necessarily less mature than young women or girls at the age of 16. And that is the issue in front of the house. Mr. Lee, uh, chairman, thank you. The last speaker commitment to liberalism was well established in his house. He first of all said that in the establishment of brothels that I was allegedly to have spoken about, he [01:27:00] was first of all, totally incorrect. I said to the house in the earlier stage of this debate that in fact, young people down, in fact, below the age of 16, in actual fact, could be prostitutes boy prostitutes, and they did not need to in fact, have a place of prostitution or a brothel. They could, in fact, by being sodomised and therefore being prostitutes, that being the person sodomised they can in fact, become prostitutes [01:27:30] by virtue of the law change. That's the important point. They can even solicit an actual fact. They can even solicit under the new law, where at the present time, of course, that's an offence. Under the current law, they cannot keep a brothel that's recognised. He misinterpreted that. He's also well astray with the second point when he talks about those being incarcerated. Sir, this house has heard repeatedly that there has not been one homosexual incarcerated over 14 years [01:28:00] for consent in private by the police. And we get this same steer from the members of the government, sir, who are completely trying to confound what we are about. Now I want to repeat also comments about the law that was affected today in the New York state to do with sexual orientation. I believe the move of the bill made first comment about this. What I want to inform the house, sir, is this [01:28:30] that whilst that law was accepted, Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Cardinal John O'Connor has said this today also that he will fight the new law by every legal means not to accept it, he said. If he has no redress through those measures. He will close down the Catholic hospitals and schools in the state of New York. For them, he says, to operate under this law, they would not be Catholic, sir. [01:29:00] That is the response of the archbishop in New York State today in response to that law becoming, uh, effective now, sir, that's the measure of the people response in that state. And I put to you is that the sort of thing that New Zealanders have to also undertake to somehow bring back sanity to the population of this country after these issues have taken place, there's another small side here in that the law [01:29:30] changed today. It said that where more than four families are in one group of buildings, one of the additional accommodation units must then be rented to homosexuals. So I just asked the House to ponder the enormity of that particular appendage to the law change today in New York and sir, that is ostensibly based on the victorious argument that homosexuals will be able to come out, declare the situations [01:30:00] and get treatment. Now, sir, that argument is totally fallacious. It assumes, in fact, that these people are not going to come out whilst that law exists. And in that state, particularly there is already a form of decriminalisation, sir, we indeed know what was what is going to happen. There will be those who will come forward seeking medical assistance because there will be an increase [01:30:30] in aid sufferers and homosexuals resulting from the degree of liberalism that the law will introduce. It runs hand in mouth together now, sir, there's an interesting little side in the Crimes Act that I asked the government whip to ponder in Crimes Act Section 201. It says that there was a There was a penalty of 14 years for anybody who will flee or knowingly infects in other with the [01:31:00] disease. And I asked him, and I asked the move of the bill. Indeed, is it their intention now because they're so, so ready to quote other members other sections of the crime that are they in the light of that knowledge? Anybody who willingly not infects another, which covers a homosexual situation in its entirety. Those people then are subject to a 40.
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