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.
You've already ignored. You've already ignored a petition of 835,000 signatures and you've done that deliberately you've now curtailed. This debate curtailed my speaking time. I'm telling you now I personally will go into the electorate of every member of this house who votes for this bill at 16 and campaign against next selection. I personally will do it. And if it's the last thing I do, if it's the only thing I do and accomplish in this house in the 11 years I've been [00:00:30] here, that to me will be sufficient because I am telling you now. I'm not talking about the God people and the Christians, God save us from them. I'm talking about the average normal New Zealander, the father of the families, the guys out there in the workshop whose signed that anti homosexual law petition by the thousands and you've been conned by these people by the news media by everybody to say that there's 10% 20% of the population. We know it's 2% and I'm not going to talk about AIDS. All I'm gonna say we're talking about 57,000 people [00:01:00] in this country already who could have the virus. 20% of them will get the full AIDS condition and 20 per and 80% of those who get the full age condition will die and what you're doing, you're doing that to the people of this country in the name of the honourable George Gere. The amendment, which stands in my name and is set out in supplementary order paper number 70. And the essence of this is to change the, uh, those relative, uh, relevant passages [00:01:30] in clause three, clause four. And clause five of Part one is where the expression 16 years appears to one of 18 years Now, sir, in moving this amendment, I readily recognise that there's no magic in any particular age. But I would suggest that 18 in the circumstances of the environment in which this is being debated not only in this chamber but throughout the country is a preferable [00:02:00] age to 16. Those who would argue 20 any any age, whatever it might be, is an arbitrary age. It is an arbitrary age. Uh, those who would argue in favour of 20 I would suggest, are arguing for an age that is pitched so high that it will not resolve the problem, and it will come back to Parliament next year or the year after. Those who argue in favour of 16, I believe, want the whole loaf, the whole loaf with the icing on it. And I do believe that if [00:02:30] in fact the house were of a mind to pass a bill with the age of 16, there would inevitably be a counter reaction. And we would have amendments or a legislation pressing for change in the next year or two. What I am seeking, Mr Chairman, in proposing 18, is quite honestly, a middle course with all the imperfections that go with trying to find the middle course. I realise there are some some complications [00:03:00] that this raises, and I realise that there is no there is no a point of order. Doctor. Mr Chairman. There is a long established convention in this house that members on the crossbenchers do not interject. We've had a continual stream of interjections during the speech from a member, the on and I. I would like the honourable member on his feet to be given the chance to speak without those interjections. No no necessity to speak at the point of what a member, as ever said. And it is a clear, clear under [00:03:30] convention that members on the left of the chair and the crossbenchers do not interject on each other. If they've been doing so, they will refrain. The honourable George Gere, Mr Chairman, Uh, as I say, there is no magic about 18 years, and I make no pretence that there is. I accept. I accept the fact that one is entitled to vote at the age of 18 years. One is entitled to, in fact, marry. Providing the parental consent applies before the age of 18. 1 is not yet entitled to drink below the age of 20 years. [00:04:00] There are a number of inconsistencies we have built into this age business in the law. But in the circumstances of this bill, I plead with the House either not to reject the bill or to reject it in its totality because are just as unreasonably defying the reality that this bill offends many people. So what we should be doing, sir, what we should be doing is trying [00:04:30] to find an honest middle course, and I propose the of 18 because I believe the house should have the choice of this age. I freely confess that there's no magic about the age of 18, but those who are 18 in times of general warfare have been presumed old enough to fight for their country. Those who are 18 this house is determined by previous legislation are old enough to vote and decide who should govern [00:05:00] this country. And I believe, sir, I believe, sir, despite the problem, the technical problem that is raised and acknowledged in the explanatory note that this would mean that in the case of anal intercourse in a heterosexual relationship the present well, there is no age at the moment. There is no age it would not. It would in fact, create an age of 18, and one could well say, this is This produces an anomaly. [00:05:30] I would humbly suggest that this anomaly is small compared with the anomalies that will be created if we choose another course. In the passage of this legislation, an amendment stands in the name of the honourable Stan. Roger, Mr Banks, that the honourable Stan Roger doesn't want to speak in this debate, but, uh, he's got his amendment here and, uh, I'll be opposing [00:06:00] that as well as I'll oppose every amendment. But that's before the house, addressing clauses 34, and five of part one of this bill and I'll be I'll be opposing that members there, that member's amendment, whatever it is, if it supports in any shape or form the ability for 16 year old boys to sodomise each other. Now. I just heard an incredible speech from my old friend, the member for North Shore on his on his amendment, Mr Chairman, and [00:06:30] give me the opportunity because this is very important in this Parliament after all, Mr Chairman, and he suggests that his amendment is the right amendment because, he says, society has been terribly divided over this issue, and that's correct. And 13,800 people in have sent me down here sent me down here to stand up in this chamber, not outside in this chamber to say that 18 years is wrong. 20 years is wrong. 40 50 99 If you like, it's all wrong because 13,800 [00:07:00] people in the seat of Ware have said legalising sodomy between males is wrong. So go down there and tell them So that's what I'm telling the member for North Geor tonight that yes, it has divided society. He is 100% correct. Divided it this way. The majority of the population in particular in my elector of do not want this bill to legalise [00:07:30] sodomy at any age at any age. That's what they've told me, and I am sure that the vast majority of the members who support that who support that would agree they don't want it at any age. It's no good saying so. Society is divided on the issue, so let's give them a compromise and make it 18 because they're old enough to go and fight wars at 18, so they should be old enough to sodomise each other at 18. What a nonsense! [00:08:00] For heaven's sake, wake up! Who in New Zealand really wants this bill even given the polls, Mr Chairman, that 2% of the population only indulge in homosexual activity? Who wants this? Why the obscene has to ram through this amendment the so-called, the anti defiance of reality amendment of 18 [00:08:30] years. Who wants it? I haven't had anyone write to me in recent days and say it's so urgent it must be rammed through Parliament at every opportunity. I haven't had anyone that says to me that anyone who doesn't support the amendment to 18 or the amendment to 20 should be hurled out of Parliament because they are not in line with the sponsor of the bill. No one's saying that. So Mr Chairman, 835,000 New Zealanders [00:09:00] have told me they don't want any part of this bill, not 20 years, not 18 years and certainly not 16 years. And my fear is that next year, when this bill goes onto the statute book as law, there will be an amendment probably probably wheeled in here by the member for Wellington Central supporting 15 years or 14 years. [00:09:30] What is the difference between a 15 year old boy and a 16 year old boy or an 18 year old boy or a 19 year old boy? I say that this is an evil bill, and this part of the bill is very filthy. The local member, the labour member for Wellington Central, who has sponsored this bill, is in charge of it in the committee stages. It is not her [00:10:00] right to interject in a strident, let alone loud voice, strident voice using the microphone before you by way of interjection upon the member for Ware. Now you conveniently looked the other way when I got to my seat member for Wellington, the of the bill in order seat. Mr Banks? Yeah. This is a further point of order, Mr Chairman, [00:10:30] and I'll add to it. I'm well, I'm sure you are. I raised a legitimate point of order when I was a minister for six years sitting in that chair during the committee stages of the same point of order. Point of order. You haven't ruled on it. His seat. You have not ruled the member. Will. Would you rule on the point of order? The member will his seat. Will you rule? I will rule. The member has no point of order, Mr Banks. That [00:11:00] is this a fresh point of order? I would I would caution maybe we the seat for a moment while I explain a Matt. You hear me out to him? Order. I will explain a matter of order to the member to this effect that he has already trifled with the chair by raising under the guise of a fresh point of order the same point of order. If he does so again, then he will be subject to the standing orders of this house and this community. [00:11:30] Frankly, that Wellington bother me terribly except to say, Mr Chairman, that five minutes ago in this debate the member for Hawke's Bay who is seated three away from me raised a point of order which you heard with courtesy which you ruled upon and you asked me to desist from interjecting. I suggest to you the same with the member who has the advantage of the withdraw and apologise. He is trifling with the chair. Mr Wellington, [00:12:00] what do you require? The member will withdraw an apology. You explain for what? Try and bring with the chair. In what way? The member is trifling with the chair. Further If he does not instantly withdraw and apologise, he will invite further harsh. You have to adjudicate on the member will withdraw and apologise or you will be required to leave the chamber. And you haven't ruled on the point of order. I, I have ruled on the point of order the member has raised in what manner? He is trifling with the chair in raising [00:12:30] and apologise. You are with the committee because you will adjudicate on by the government of the chamber. You will not adjudicate on points of order raised by members up to leave the chamber. I beg your pardon? The member is called upon now to leave the chamber. Right. [00:13:00] The member is inviting more serious action. I call on the sergeant at arms to escort the member for Papakura from the chamber. We I have already done so. No, no, no, no, no. Mr. Mr Chairman, Point of order. The honourable Mr McClean. Mr. Chairman, I wasn't present in the chamber. I heard that the exchange commence on the air. And I simply ask, sir, whether in the circumstances [00:13:30] or if this isn't a matter that has escalated to a point where as a result of the action that is about to be taken, sir, for the second time in a week, a member is going to be excluded from the chamber on what is not a party vote bill and therefore a member is going to be denied the opportunity to vote on a matter of considerable importance to all of our constituents. Now, sir, I realise that [00:14:00] the feelings in this chamber can inevitably in certain circumstances, reach a stage where incidents such as this arise and it behoves all of us. And I mean that as parliamentarians, to try and avoid that situation if it is at all possible and the circumstances. Sarah, I wonder if this is one of these matters where we can't retrace our steps just a little bit and see whether, in fact the matter can in fact be dealt with satisfactorily. Speaking to the point of order, the honourable right honourable Geoffrey Palmer, unlike the leader [00:14:30] of the opposition, I was in the house when these events occurred. There can, in my submission, be no excuse for the behaviour of the member for Papakura in the occasion, not once, but several times he deliberately flouted the authority of the chair. But there is no doubt at all that the leader of the opposition is mistaken in one matter. As I understood, Mr Chairman, your ruling You were invoking standing order [00:15:00] 1 91 where the speaker or chairman of committees may order any member whose conduct is highly disorderly to withdraw immediately from the house. You were not suggesting that the member be named and suspended under standing order 1 93. Now, obviously, that course was open to you. But as I understood it, it was standing order 1 91 that you were invoking. And that does not place any great difficulty in the face of the member for papakura voting on the measure. [00:15:30] Well, I'm happy to confirm that point. The member may have other wishes to No, no, no, sir, I really appreciate that the action you sought to take is understanding order 191 rather than the procedure that was followed previously. And I do not in any way challenge. If that is finally your wish, sir, you challenge your right to do that? What I am seeking, sir, is an attempt. Because I believe, as I said earlier, that it behoves all of us in this chamber to ensure that if at all possible, members have the right to exercise [00:16:00] a vote, particularly in the conscience vote circumstances that we have. And I'm wondering whether in those circumstances why I intervened before you actually had the sergeant of arms come to deal with the matter whether this isn't a matter that we might be able to retrace a few steps on and see whether, in fact, we can get all of us back on the rails again, because I think that would be the wish of members on both sides. Now we can stand on technicalities as to what happens. What is more important is that if we follow through the course of action, that is [00:16:30] foreshadowed at the end of the day, for whatever reason, a member will be denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of his constituents. Speaking to the point to the right, Jeffrey Palmer, the speaker, the point that the leader of the opposition made in his second intervention was precisely the same as the one he made in the first. He has not sought to excuse the conduct. It was deliberate, clear and blatant defiance of the chair, and indeed it in the bill of this character, it's most important [00:17:00] that it ought to be preserved in this house. It cannot be preserved in the face of behaviour like that. I think that I'm very happy indeed to No, I don't. I don't wish to hear anybody any further on this because the member will resume his seat. The Mem, the member for Papakura, the member for Papakura will not be heard on this point, he will resume his seat. I, I have a point of order and and And it's been raised by the member for by the by the leader of the opposition. I must deal with it, [00:17:30] uh, what he's asked for. And I'd be happy to come to, uh, to other points of order once once this has been dealt with. But the but the particular point that the leader of the opposition raised was whether or not we could retrace our steps. Uh, and, uh, ensure thereby that, uh, while while preserving, uh, due order that first of all, uh, some assurance will be given about the members voting rights. And I'm very happy indeed [00:18:00] to give an assurance that the member will not be denied the opportunity to vote under the standing order that I'm in the process of invoking on the member. I hope that that does indeed satisfy the point that, uh, that the leader of the opposition has raised Now the now. No, I'm sorry. No. On the on the on the point that the member seeks to raise the member for Papakura has been asked to [00:18:30] withdraw and apologise. Carry on. Uh, we were fresh. Point of order. A fresh point of order, Mr. Banks. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could help me and give me some guidance. I've been looking through Speaker's ruling and standing orders, and I can't find out where where I can get some information. Mr. Chairman, In the interest of fairness and decorum and democracy in this [00:19:00] very important debate, how do we go about having the chairman of committees replaced by the deputy chairman of committee? The member is out of order. The member is, uh that simply is not a question of order. And the member is not entitled to raise it. The question is that, uh, a further point of order, Mr. Lee, Mr Chairman of my my point of order relates to, in fact, the speech timing in the house. Can you form the house? Indeed, whether it's your intention to signal [00:19:30] the by bell at the end of every five minute speech, sir, some speakers here are not sure as to indeed the time that they have had. And I wonder if you could confirm that there will be a bell at every five minutes. Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Banks. Uh, Mr Chairman, how many minutes have I taken? Mr. Banks has one minute. One minute of what? One minute to his bill. What is it, a five minute bill or what? [00:20:00] The member has one minute, Mr Chairman. You know, I get very, very cross when I'm speaking to this very, very reserve seat. The member has one minute of speaking time remaining for the first call. Is that the Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you very much. We're very, very cross over a lot of matters in this bill in particular, the way the Labour Party is railroading this private members bill through this [00:20:30] house and the way minority members and opponents of this bill are being treated in this house and in this committee. But it's not going to stop us from speaking at every opportunity against the provisions of this bill. And even if we are thrown out of this parliament, we'll come back fighting because the majority of New Zealanders don't want it, Don't want it. And no wonder members get frustrated at the chairmanship and this [00:21:00] committee with what is happening here, the member will withdraw and apologise for that reflection on the chair. Mr Banks, Me, ira and apologise, Ma, uh, I stand to, uh, move the supplementary order paper and the amendment in my name, and I So do Mr Chairman, This is a relatively simple amendment, and [00:21:30] it's one which I believe, if considered carefully by members of the house, will in fact, get the unanimous support of the house. Well, I think the member is premature. We are still debating the, uh uh, the questions that have been introduced in supplementary order papers relating to clause three. Then we have to deal because we're obliged to move through. Then we have to deal with with those which are grouped under the heading of clause four. When, when? When [00:22:00] we come to the point of the part that we are dealing with that the member wishes to move amendments to I will I will invite him to move that amendment a point of order, Mr. Uh, East. Mr. Chairman, is it your intention to try and move through? Uh, a paragraph by paragraph through the paper that you have circulated because, um uh, or or our members free when they take the call. Now that we're dealing with with it as one part to, uh, to traverse, [00:22:30] uh, amendments that have been suggested previously, or are on the order paper to come up at a later date? Uh, no. The the member. Um, I appreciate the member raising the point because it gives an opportunity to clarify just where we are. The the The point that we have reached is that having proposed the question that the that part one stand part Mr. Gere, the honourable George Gere has moved the amendment, which stands in his name to clause three. [00:23:00] That is the amendment which affects the age of consent and proposes 18 in substitution for 16 in clause three. Now, that is the that is the question. Now, before the committee, Does this not apply through all the clauses that were, uh, that were listed, uh, as we're taking it part by part. Uh, clause 34 and five are all affected by exactly the same proposals. [00:23:30] So is this not, uh, or was I not? I thought I was under the impression that I was moving it in respect of all three clauses, and I actually mentioned that so that when each clause is formally put, uh, the amendment is in fact, before the committee of the whole speaking to the point of order, Dr C, I understood that you were suggesting to the committee I don't think [00:24:00] we ever, if you like to leave the committee or the understanding of the Committee that the amendments were not to be actually moved at the time that the proposed of the amendment stood but were to be foreshadowed and then to be moved at the end. And this would enable all members of the house to speak to any amendment and to any part in any part of part one, any clause or any sub clause in part one. Otherwise, I think so. If we adopt [00:24:30] what is the strict procedure of moving the amendment and then speaking to the amendment, we are going to get ourselves in some difficulty in terms of the form of the debate, and I think it would be much more helpful for the House if we followed the suggestion which I think was on the original paper that we simply foreshadow the amendments rather than move them. And then members of the committee are free to speak across the whole of Part one. As they see well, it it's in the hands of the committee. The government [00:25:00] senior whip is correct. This would make make it possible, sir, for the sequence of amendments to be placed finally in terms of the order of age, with the amendment moved by the member for Island Bay to my amendment as being the First Amendment to be put and giving the House the opportunity of addressing the question of the age of 20 and then depending on whether or not that was was carried or not [00:25:30] if it were not carried, uh, my own amendment would then be addressed at the question of 18 and the event of that being defeated. It would be 16, and the House would have a a logical sequence in which to address the question of age and I. I believe the member for Saint Kilda is perfectly correct in the way in which he suggested it should be handled. I I'm sure that, uh, the honourable in my point throughout the evening, the matters were never clarified. [00:26:00] The matters were not clear in the minds of members of the committee. We had a three page type written paper. We've had it some time. And at the time that it was placed before us, I asked two questions. Who put it together and when was it put together? And even after all that, Mr Chairman, the committee is still in a stage of confusion. I mean, Hamilton, you hear the member of the West is the North Sea and so on. [00:26:30] Come on, we can clarify this matter very quickly if the member will Well, we've been waiting two weeks at least. Clarify. Clarify the matter for the member. I understand that the member for Saint Kilda, supported by the member for North Shore, has a suggestion for the committee for for the Committee to conduct its way through the various amendments. Now, the amend the proposal that he has, [00:27:00] uh is a proposal which I understand, was originally uh, given circulation of the paper produced in my name so that it's a question now of whether or not that is acceptable to the Committee for the Procedure that has been outlined by the member for Saint Kilda and supported by the member for North Shore. For that procedure to be adopted, it is a matter for leave and if there's any objection to it, then it can't be proceeded with. So I will now call on members of the committee to indicate whether there is [00:27:30] any dissent from that course of action. Is there any dissent? There is dissent. In that case, we will not proceed in that way. We, uh we are. We are now, as as we were with the amendment which had been moved by the honourable George Gere. A point of order. He's been dissent. Can we have it clear? Does that mean that now a speech may only be to the amendment that has been moved? And I think [00:28:00] that is going to cause considerable difficulty for members if they are only to have four. I'm not sure that all members of the house understood that by, um dissenting they Now, if the standing orders are strictly applied, I would suspect are only able to speak to a particular amendment. And as there are more than four amendments, there may be some amendments that members wish to speak on that they will not be able to speak on if they only [00:28:30] have four speaking opportunities. And I just want to make sure that all members, I think I'm correct. And that assertion am I Mr chairman of the committee. They will be able to speak, even though there are only even though there are many more than four amendments, they will be able to speak on the whole range of the amendments and won't be tied strictly to speaking to the amendment as it's moved, because I would have thought that a strict interpretation would require them to do that and that some of the members may lose the opportunity of speaking over the whole range [00:29:00] of the first part of the bill. Perhaps I could, speaking to the point of order, the honour of being young, Mr Chairman, it's absolutely essential that you clarify the proceedings that the House is following. The house has determined, sir, that we will take the bill part by part now. It's been quite properly pointed out by my colleague, the member for if then we are required within that proceeding to [00:29:30] consider the, um, the bill amendment to that part by amendment to that part, then it will become really an untenable situation for members who want to speak in a wide ranging manner over the whole party. I would suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the course that we are to follow, having decided to take it part by part, is to be able to speak to amendments that are foreshadowed, [00:30:00] all of which we have notice of speak to any of them. It is up to those members whether or not they they speak to them themselves at this stage, or whether they move them formally at the end of proceedings when we're ready to deal with the whole part. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Perhaps it would be helpful if I explain to the House that all of the people who had all of the members who had previously tabled SOPS or circulated SOPS did actually [00:30:30] agree on a procedure which would have suited them. And they were all of the people from both sides of the house, regardless of their point of view. On this bill, there was there was some discussion which amounted to um, a a general consensus, that we should have a full debate on the part covering any of the subjects encompassed by the amendments or the, uh, what is in the bill now? And the clauses members [00:31:00] foreshadowing their amendments so that other members could also speak about those particular proposals, but that the amendments would not be formal, be moved until the end, when they would be done in the sequence as outlined on your paper. And that would make sense because the House would then be able to have the sort of debate which the member for North Shore and Rotorua and ST Kilda have suggested we have and which I certainly think we need. And it would not be restrictive. But [00:31:30] it would enable in the end the votes to take place in an orderly sequence. And that was, in fact, the intention of the House. I suggest when the House moved that we consider the bill part by part rather than clause by clause. If we're going to consider it, uh, with the restrictions that you have now suggested, Mr Chairman, I think we're we're back to a clause by clause consideration, not a part by part consideration. Well, let me just make it clear before we proceed, and I'm happy to hear the member, but it's not a it's not a procedure that I have suggested. [00:32:00] It is a procedure that is set out in standing orders that we will proceed along, Um, unless there is, unless there is an agreement to do otherwise among the members of the committee. That's that's really where we are. The honourable Mr Wellington. We are, in effect, back where we were two weeks ago, when the committee was considering the paper. Under this time, it's not the signature, but under the name of the chairman of the committee, and I questioned then [00:32:30] who were the members of parliament who were party to what the member for Wellington Central now calls a consensus. There has been a little bit of clarification on that in in that the member for Wellington Central has said, Well, it's those members who wish to move an amendment. Now there are not many of those Mr Chairman and indeed one of the prime movers. The minister of Labour is absent from the house tonight and I mention that only in passing as a private member he is not here to move his amendment. Now the second point, Mr Speaker is [00:33:00] that the course of actions are suggested and I appreciate it's only a suggestion in the three page document is not, of course, incorporated in standing orders. Now, if that is the case, when there is objection to a suggested procedure, standing orders take precedence and therefore we should. Mr. Chairman, in my view, we should consider the measures or measure before us clause by force. Now, just add a quick PS to [00:33:30] all that we have had tonight a very important document placed on our bill boxes by the minister of defence. Now I would have thought that of all at least recent documents, given what has stated within it power one act as a caution to this house if it deals with the security of the country and against all that, I suggest that we deal with the measure more slowly clause [00:34:00] by clause, and that the standing orders of the house, um, bind us all I. I think it is important to hear any member who who does have a contribution to make to this because it will finally settle how we deal with this important measure in its part by part stage Mr Chairman, Doctor Cullen. I want to suggest to the committee that the member for and and others who who are suggesting that we abide [00:34:30] by the standing orders and not take leave to adopt the procedure that I suggested earlier will in fact possibly be defeating their own ends in terms of the nature of the debate on part one I, I wish members would listen because it's it's not my purpose in this to do anything which way constrains the debate. But the fact is, I have a very mixed ancestry, but Greek is not part of it. I think [00:35:00] the point I'm making is that if we stick to the standing orders, the debate from now on will be on the amendment moved by the member for North Shore. Now, if members take multiple calls on that particular amendment, then the possibility arises at some stage. After many hours of debate on that amendment, that a closure motion may be put and may be accepted, [00:35:30] and if that motion is then passed, there will be no further debate on part one at all apart from that single amendment, because all other questions then before the house on part one will have to be put. And what I'm suggesting to and and others is that in order that the issues can be properly traversed. It is sensible that any amendments are foreshadowed [00:36:00] and put at the end so that members are not constrained in what they're speaking to in part one so that they can cover the entire range of issues. The amendments within part one. I'm suggesting to them that they think very carefully before they proceed down the track, they're going on because I don't think it will lead to what they actually want to do. Mr. Williston, which the member for ST Kilda has made, um, I've [00:36:30] in the time in which this particular discussions are going on, have been looking through standing orders and Speaker's rulings and confined no no explicit guidance in standing orders. As to the procedure the committee should follow when it decides to consider a bill part by part, Uh, it seems to me that the best method would be for the committee to reflect, first of all, on what the situation would be if there were no amendments, because then it seems to be quite clear that a member having the call could in 15 minute [00:37:00] speech or several five minute speeches if they were granted, cover all the clauses in that path. So it seems to me, therefore, that if those members who have foreshadowed by way of supplementary order paper amendments propose not to move those amendments until late in the debate, then there is no question of needing leave of the House in order to allow members to range over all the amendments. Uh, it seems to me that that is the proper course to follow. That leave is in fact not required and that the amendments [00:37:30] be formally moved and put at the end of the debate on part one. Mr Lee, the debate simply underlines the fact that the amendments to the House were correct and that we have made the wrong decision. And we're now at the expected situation because we are really in a vice group now, sir, the amendments that have been moved, uh, in our position it would seem to me that therefore, whilst we [00:38:00] may move clause by clause and direction from the chair, that people speaking may have the right to speak wider than the Immediate Context Act clause because the amendments have been foreshadowed, they are in the position of each member and correctly. You should ask for any further amendments at this point in time before we proceed such that any further member of the house may then be taken into account by the house now, sir, by proceeding clause by clause but allowing [00:38:30] in the context of the limited debate entirely wrong. But within the context of the present limited debate that would allow people not only to address the clause in a chronological manner, but also to take in account the various amendments that we have in our position. Speaking to the point of order, the right honourable Deputy Mr. Speaker, the House has decided to consider this bill part by part. Well, the House has decided to do that. It wasn't [00:39:00] a decision of the chair and whether the minority who voted against that accepted or not that is the fact of the matter at the moment. And no amount of interjection from the member for Bonga is going to change that fact. The government decided nothing. Now, Mr Speaker, we are in the situation where if people opposite actually appreciate the procedural consequences of what they have produced, let it be on their own heads because the result is [00:39:30] going to be extremely serious and quite the opposite of the one that they wish to bring about. As long as they understand that, then the house can proceed. On the course of debating at length the amendment moved by the member for North Shore and debating nothing else. And that is what will happen. And I don't believe that is what they want. But that is the consequence of what they have produced. This is the Mr Laxton, [00:40:00] Uh, as far as this area is concerned, the decision has been made that it be taken part by part. It has normally been the practise that all the person that has got the First Amendment in the part gets the gets the first call. After that, it has generally been the practise that any member can speak across the part and foreshadow the type of amendment that he would wish to talk to and take four calls and speak on any matter [00:40:30] in that part that he wishes to. Now the chairman is the full judge of what is relevant. And, uh, he is able to judge. And after all, we're talking of a part and every amendment in that part, Uh, has, uh, is part of the whole of that part. And for that reason, it had been a past practise to take the calls that are necessary. Foreshadow further amendments. But you can deal with the amendment that's before the house. If the committee [00:41:00] proceeds quickly, that amendment will be put. There'll be time for the next amendment if a closure is taken. Of course, people have foreshadowed what has happened, and they must be put through in a ripple form came, uh, sir Robert Muldoon, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we're not really in the difficulty that's been foreshadowed by some of those who've spoken, including the leader of the House who seems to have the idea that this is somehow [00:41:30] a party matter. Uh, talking about the members opposite bringing something on their own heads. Uh, Mr uh uh, Chairman, it seems to me that if the chair takes account of the fact that in considering this part, we have in front of us a considerable number of important issues and because of that does not [00:42:00] readily accept the closure until all of those issues have been canvassed, we have no real difficulty. The only difficulty that arises is if it is not realised that we have a number of important issues in front of us and a closure is accepted if you like in the way it might normally be on a different measure that we would find [00:42:30] that we haven't properly canvassed all the options that are going to come in the form of amendments. So what I'm really saying is I think, Mr Chairman, that if we proceed normally from where we are and you act in that fashion, we won't have too much trouble. The right honourable Jeffrey Palmer, the defect and the position put by the right honourable member for Tamaki is very substantial, and I think it should be drawn to your attention. [00:43:00] It is, in fact, if amendments are moved, the only things that are relevant to that on those five minute calls are the contents of the amendments and nothing else. And it is not possible, in fact, er to have therefore a wide ranging debate of the sort that is desired. I appreciate the desire for that wide ranging debate. It seems to me that that wide ranging debate is the desire. If members want to bring that about, they will foreshadow their amendments and not [00:43:30] move them. It's it's as simple as that. And I think if if if the house adheres to that practise, there will be no trouble, right? Honourable Sir Robert Mulder, the leader of the House, has commented on what I said. Uh, I see no difficulty arising from this. If members take the First Amendment and in debating it, say I am opposed to this because I believe that such and [00:44:00] such an amendment moved by someone else is preferable. That speaker is entirely within the rules of the House and quite capable of discussing the alternative merits of if you like, two different ages. There is no difficulty arising at that point at all, because essentially, those are the amendments at which we will be looking. And I believe that on the First Amendment it is entirely possible [00:44:30] to discuss alternative ages in saying that a member does not support the First Amendment because he or she supports a different age for the following reasons. And I just go that far because I think the leader of the house is wrong in saying what he has just said. And I see no difficulty at all providing you do not readily accept a closure until all of those members who wish [00:45:00] to participate in the debate and support different points of view have the opportunity of doing so. Uh, yes. Uh, Dr Cullen, I think the problem with what the right honourable member for Tamaki says is that the amendment, which is before the House, is a relatively narrow amendment. It deals simply with the age of consent. It is, for example, possible that a member would support the age of consent at 16 and support the member for island bays amendment relating [00:45:30] to defence forces or support the amendment of the member for North Shore, but oppose the member for Island Bay Amendment there. There is nothing in the member of North Shores amendment in the member of North Shores amendment, which contains within it grounds for debate relating, say, to the member for island bays amendment or the member for Hamilton West amendment relating to the mentally retarded, or indeed, to a number of other amendments before the house. Indeed, the only other amendment that it clearly [00:46:00] relates to is that from the member for Dunedin North relating to an age of consent at 20. So the entire debate must become focused within that area of the age of consent. Now, what we are simply suggesting is that to avoid that, we simply have all amendments being foreshadowed, including that from the member from North Shore, and then the entire debate can proceed on a broad basis across part one. And I really do ask members to [00:46:30] take a different view, uh, to myself and a number of others on the contents of the bill simply to consider that matter of convenience. Indeed, in terms of debate Yes, Mr Norman James was already for I've completed one of my four chances. Now there's an amendment for the house, and if we stick strictly to the standing orders of the debate and I speak to that, I've got to confine myself to that particular amendment. I I'm I'm inclined to accept the [00:47:00] view of the leader of the House, except there's only one thing about that. If I If we forego out for five minutes speaking to the part one as a whole, and and and and and even though the amendments are only foreshadowed when the amendments are finally then put and every member has has a part from the mover, and if he's exceeded his four speeches, he won't be able to put it either, that it means, substantively, I cannot speak to the amendments unless I do so [00:47:30] in a foreshadowed way. Now that's the only flaw in your argument, the right honourable Geoffrey Palmer. As I understand the position, it would be this that every member in the house has four calls. Every member could devote those calls it either to the substance of the part or any of the amendments or all of them or some of them. But there would only be a total of four calls. Then, at the conclusion of the debate, all the amendments would be put prior [00:48:00] to the part being put. There would be no debate at the time that they were put. That's my understanding of the position, the point of order, yes, to the point of order. The only difficulty we have in following the course that now seems to be the common intention of members of the House uh, is the fact that, uh, on your invitation the member for North Shore moved his amendment. [00:48:30] Now, if the member for North Shore could be given leave to withdraw the moving of the amendment and just leave it merely as notice that the amendment is to be moved, then we can proceed with a wide ranging debate. And I suggest we follow that course. Well, it's in the hands of the of the committee. I understand there will be two options before the committee. Uh, we, uh, adopt the procedure that we already speaking, Uh, Mr uh, that the member for man has commended to us [00:49:00] that's been adopted in the past, where we consider the the question that the, um the part one stand part that members then foreshadow their amendments but not actually move them. Uh, this gives the opportunity then for debate across the whole of the range of issues that are canvassed, uh, under part one. By contrast, we could adopt the other quest, the other option. And that is a what has been described as a clause by clause consideration the [00:49:30] one that we are embarked on. In fact, because of the uh presence before the committee of the of the, uh, amendment to Clause three. That's that's been moved by the member for North Shore. Now the disadvantages of each course of action have been pointed out. Um, if we if we were to adopt the member for matter matters, uh, procedure, I think it will be incumbent upon the chair not to accept the closure motion too quickly. Um, and and that's the most important [00:50:00] point that that the Honourable Vin Young has raised as well that it would be necessary for the member for North Shore to seek the leave of the committee to withdraw the amendment, which is before it.
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