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.
By an independent body. And I certainly believe the member for Napier made a very reasonable suggestion when he suggested that a royal commission should in fact look into the issue of homosexuality and bring down a report such as the Wolfenden report came before the British Parliament. And I refer to the new dimension in society today. That was not apparent in those days when the [00:00:30] WOLFENDEN report was introduced to the British Parliament, and that new dimension is is, of course, that of AIDS. Whatever course of action is taken, I would have preferred the the House to have such an authoritative document to debate so that the public could refer to it and members of Parliament could certainly debate it in those circumstances. Mr. Speaker, although I support a degree of reform and I will support an amendment [00:01:00] to the bill replacing the age of 16 with 20 if it is indeed moved in the committee stages, I cannot support this bill. The second reading of the bill as it is the bill I'm afraid at this stage is far too extreme. You? Yeah, and this, uh, Neil Aton. Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset, sir, [00:01:30] that I oppose this bill in all its it's all its forms and whatever amendments may come before the house. Sir, I cannot find it in my makeup to support any aspect of it. I want to tell the house, sir, that I reached this conclusion the day of the introduction of this bill. I did not serve. [00:02:00] Although I appreciated the letters of support from within my own electorate and from many areas of New Zealand when the public you just learned by way of the news media that I oppose the introduction of this homosexual law reform bill. In other words, Mr Speaker, it has not taken public comment [00:02:30] private letters to me or any other form of conversation spoken, written or whatever to persuade me that there is any. The point in my mind or any good will come in my mind if this bill is passed in whatever form it might take, sir, I am my [00:03:00] own best friend and I am also my worst enemy. Sir, I have to look at my image in the mirror every morning when I shave. Sometimes, sir, that image I see of myself is a bit clouded. but never, sir. Have I been afraid to look at myself and say, Well, I believe you haven't done [00:03:30] so badly the day before in the stand that you take on whatever issue and in particularly sir, on this moral issue, I can, quite truthfully can honestly say that that mirror I look into each morning is as clear as I would hope it to be. It is, to my regret, Mr Speaker, that I cannot quote the scriptures [00:04:00] at length. All right, cannot quote chapter and verse to support the reasons why I oppose this legislation. There has been much talk in this chamber well intentioned, sincere, well meaning from both sides of the argument. I too, sir, am sincere [00:04:30] and well meaning when I say, as I said, it's the introduction of the opening of my few words that I will not support this legislation, uh, in any form. It is comforting to me to know, having made that decision, sir, without the pressures, without the advice, if I can put it that way of any person [00:05:00] in my electorate. Although I acknowledge subsequently to me making to my making that decision that I have had dozens of letters, some people throughout the country, the ones that I value particularly are those from my own electorate supporting my stand in opposition to this legislation. [00:05:30] Public meetings I have attended not only and spoken at not only in my own electorate but in other areas of New Zealand on topics that don't have any relationship at all to this legislation. Inevitably, sir, the question has cropped up as to what the public's [00:06:00] attitude is, what the nation's attitude is to, in my view, lowering the moral standards of our nation. Sir, I am not prepared to be party two, this imaginary code line of conduct moral conduct beneath which I believe as a nation we dare not go on. [00:06:30] None of us, sir, have exactly the same argument. None of us have exactly the same discussions, indeed, opinions as to what that imaginary line of conduct below which we as a nation, we as an individual they are not. Do you not fall under or go under, [00:07:00] sir, I have, as I say, had public meetings on many topics in my electorate, and I refer now to my electorate. I am proud to say, sir, that not once did I get threats or any adverse comment as to my particular judgement on this issue from any person [00:07:30] attending those public meetings, whatever that public meeting was. But I am rather distressed to report to this house, sir, that I have received one or two letters, only one or two letters from people who have suggested that if I let my support to this legislation, then possibly my political future in this chamber could be in jeopardy. [00:08:00] Sir, I say to those one or two people, or half a dozen at the most who wrote to me in that vein, I value my integrity for what it is worth, beyond the question of whether I support this issue, that issue or any other issue, whether I should remain a member of this chamber for me, sir, too, to subjugate [00:08:30] my own moral standards. And those are my own sir, imposed on me by no one for me to subjugate those standards, those ideals of mind to the demands and the suggestions of those who suggest I would be out of public office unless I supported their particular point of view. Mr Neil said to elect [00:09:00] and I say to this house, sir. I would try soon to be out of public office than to do that, which I know very well, sir. I could no longer look myself in the mirror each morning. As I mentioned a few moments ago to me, sir. And individuals stand, and we're discussing this issue at the present time. An individual [00:09:30] stand on a moral issue is their decision and theirs alone. Some members, sir, have assisted themselves or assisted in formulating that opinion by having or taking opinion polls by testing the water. I make no criticism of them for taking that attitude or that line. None whatsoever. [00:10:00] But I make it quite clear, sir, that I did not have to or did not think it necessary for me to do just that. And as I say, sir, I have been supported in that stand, which I took. And I reiterate, sir, that that stand of mine was taken before the pressure built up by way of petitions to this house [00:10:30] or by the progression of this bill through this chamber. My decision was made without that advice in inverted commas, which was tendered to me. I am pleased to say, sir, that I have had many letters of support from within my own electorate, and I want to refer [00:11:00] particularly to those many letters of support in the attitude in the opinion, in the decision that I have made, there's one particular letter of support I have here, which I value as much as letters of support I have had from individuals. And this one that I have here happens to come from my own hometown of Kaiko, the Kaiko [00:11:30] Union Parish Church. They, sir, conducted a survey amongst their members, and I quote from the letter of the session clerk to me, the response to our circular requesting opinions we consider was significant. And also the resulting correspondence is very interesting and indicates that many people and congregations have given a lot have given a lot of consideration to this subject. [00:12:00] Can I say to this house, sir, that I am not a particularly good churchgoer? I say that, sir, with a degree of sorrow. If I wished, I could make all sorts of excuses as to why I don't attend a church regularly. I don't propose to do that, sir, but I do say that I am not what might be called a good church goer. [00:12:30] I claim, sir, that, in my estimation, and as I say, I have to live with myself. In my estimation, I do not have to 10 church and prayers to know, in my estimation, that I am doing or or conducting myself as I would wish as my my wife [00:13:00] and family. Except that that is my moral standards of conduct. Sir, I have also received letters from almost every locality within my electorate supporting me in that decision that I made that decision I made literally in isolation, as I said, from [00:13:30] the pressures from the advice of good and well meaning people and served. Having made that decision, I was encouraged by the number of people who signed a petition circulating through my electorate opposing this homosexual law reform bill 8742. [00:14:00] Not one of those people who signed that petition, Mr Speaker, have written to me Sorry. One person only who signed that petition wrote to me and and told me that they had not supported their signature on that petition and asked that I have it removed from the record of this petition. [00:14:30] I wrote back to that person, sir, and advised them that I was more than happy to advise the organisers of this petition to have that name removed. So that means, sir, that there were 8741 not 42 8741 Citizens of my electorate signed that petition in opposition to [00:15:00] this homosexual law reform bill. Sir, I am also particularly pleased. Perhaps Humble would be a better word to use to receive letters from the Maori people of from within my electorate, I might add, sir Maori people who are not on my electoral roll [00:15:30] Maori people who are on the roll for Northern Maori supporting me in that decision that I made, as I say before any pressures built up. And I want to quote I would like to quote sir from just one of those many letters that I received from my good friends, the Maori people of and it says addressed to me. So [00:16:00] many of our Maori folk and pakeha folk feel about this homosexual law reform bill which we believe if passed, could spell disaster to this small country of ours. New Zealand most Maori folk feel that this bill if passed, and most Maori, if passed, would negate much of the teachings many of the teachings that [00:16:30] we have learned in this last 150 years from the Christian faith. It also goes on to say that if our Maori ancestors who signed the Treaty of Waitangi had realised that there would be legislation before this house lowering the moral standards [00:17:00] and the moral teachings that they were taught by the Christian faith, many, if not most of those Maoris would not have signed the Treaty of Waitangi. That is how so many of my Maori people my Maori friends regard, regard the prospects of the lowering of our moral standards. [00:17:30] If this bill is passed, sir, in conclusion, I say and I repeat to any who I wish to take note of what I say. I would far rather sir be out of public life that, in my view, my moral standards, whatever others may think of them, if I have to lower my moral standards [00:18:00] to support the lowering of the morality of this country. If this bill were passed, sir, I oppose the introduction of the bill. I propose opposing this legislation every step of the way. As we OK? Yes. And Mr Paul? Mr. Speaker, uh, I've listened with interest to the speeches that have been [00:18:30] made in the second reading of this legislation, and I have to say that it is, uh, on these vexed conscience issues that this parliament hears some of the best speeches from the members. And, uh, I don't doubt for one moment the sincerity, uh, with which the speeches on both sides of this argument have been delivered to this chamber. Mr. Speaker, I voted, and I'm not going to speak for any great length. But I feel that members should [00:19:00] explain to the chamber and to their constituents why they have reached certain conclusions with respect to this legislation. I voted for the introduction of this bill because I believed, and I still believe that the decriminalisation of homosexual acts is a subject which this Parliament should properly consider should properly study, and that we should all inquire [00:19:30] at this time whether these acts should be legalised. I sat on the Committee the Justice and Law Reform Committee, formerly the Statutes Revision Committee, month after month, listening to the submissions that were made on this bill. In fact, I was, uh, during the whole term that this legislation was referred to the committee, the senior opposition member present. And having heard all the evidence, [00:20:00] I believe there are grounds for the decriminalisation of homosexual acts. Well, there we were. We're getting the immediate reaction one would expect from the more vociferous proponents of the legislation. And I would like to clearly set out my views irrespective of their behaviour, which now they have raised. It is a matter that I feel [00:20:30] I must deal with now, Mr Speaker, I will, at the appropriate time seriously consider supporting the amendment that my colleague, the member for Pendleton, proposes that homosexual acts between persons of 20 years of age and be decriminalised. It's my own personal view that homosexual acts should not be punished [00:21:00] by the law. But I must say that the legislation that the Select Committee has studied and that was brought before the house goes far further than that, and the areas in which I disagree strongly with the legislation turn on two points. First, the age. In my view, the age limit of 16 years is far too young boys of 16 [00:21:30] years are still struggling with maturity. They, in my view, are not of an age where they can properly consider whether they should indulge in homosexual behaviour. And I disagree strongly with the provisions in the bill that would, uh en which that would enable youths of 16 years of age to engage in homosexual [00:22:00] practises. Mr. Speaker, I also strongly disagree with the human rights provisions contained in this legislation. In my view, those provisions imply total acceptance of homosexuality by the public. And I, for one, am unconvinced that New Zealanders totally accept homosexuality. And I don't think this parliament should, by legislation, force that acceptance [00:22:30] on a society that is not ready for it and does not want it. Society is simply the New Zealand Society is simply not in the position at this stage to accept such a dramatic change to our law. We are not just seeking decriminalisation in this legislation, but we are seeking acceptance by society and in that respect this legislation goes too far and I may say it goes [00:23:00] far too far when one looks at other human rights legislation and realises that with respect to age, race and religion and sex. There are discriminations. The police, the armed forces, the prison service and churches are not required to comply with human rights legislation in certain areas. But there are no exceptions in this legislation. So what that means [00:23:30] is that our police force, our armed services and our prison service will be required by law to accept unemployment active, visible, practising homosexuals. It also means that organisations such as the Boy Scouts will be required to accept and to full time employment active, visible practising homosexuals. It also means [00:24:00] that church schools, churches that may have very strong fundamental beliefs about homosexuality will be required by this legislation to accept and to employment act of visible and practising homosexuals when that would obviously cause considerable problems. For those organisations, there are not the normal human rights exceptions that are that we are aware of as they relate [00:24:30] to race, religion, creed and sex. Now, Mr Speaker, this debate has seen extreme points of view on both sides of the argument and that has not helped this parliament reach a conclusion on the legislation. On the one hand, we have had extremist statements made in the name of religion, and on the other we have had the activities of the homosexual community [00:25:00] we have witnessed on television members of the Salvation Army being abused and molested on their way to churches. And I simply say that with respect to both sides who have acted in that manner, they have done their cause and this parliament a grave disservice. And they should know that their actions have not convinced any member of Parliament to support their cause, but in many cases have driven reasonable, sensible [00:25:30] members of Parliament to think again about the legislation. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons when we have one, when we have a whole bill and a member finds himself an agreement with perhaps 25% of it and 75% of it is something that the member can't support and those views in that matter And in that way, Mr Speaker, I believe that the member should vote against the second reading of the bill, and for that reason, I will. [00:26:00] And I am particularly reinforced, in my view, by the manner in which the Select committee has handled this legislation, and I take the strongest exception to the manner in which the government members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee dealt with this legislation and I refer particularly to the Select Committee hearing on Wednesday, the second of October, which must be recorded as a black day [00:26:30] in the history of this parliament with respect to a select committee hearing submissions from concerned members of the public. Because it was on that day that the two opposition members of the Justice and Law Reform Committee came to Parliament came to that select committee hearing prepared to hear evidence from the considerable number of people who still wished to make their point of view known to this parliament [00:27:00] on this very important legislation. But I have to report Mr Speaker that it was obvious to the two opposition members present the member for and myself that the government members had already met and had already decided as to how this legislation would be disposed of and member for Rotorua, that the committee deliberate immediately on the legislation despite the fact that there were some 70 or 80 [00:27:30] groups, organisations and individuals who had taken the time to present submissions to this parliament and who still wished to make their point of view known to that select committee, Mr Speaker, that was an affront to our democracy. And we denied the government by exercising the government members by exercising their majority and overruling the two opposition members. We denied those [00:28:00] citizens, groups and organisations their democratic rights to come to this parliament and present their views to a select committee. And not only did we do that, but the government members, again by weight of number, again over the vigorous protests of my colleague, the member for wa and myself moved that a large number of parliamentary petitions on the issue of homosexual [00:28:30] law reform. In fact, I have the list in front of me now. Some 20 petitions at least be reported back without even hearing any evidence whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, I'm told that there were 34 petitions that were dealt with in that cavalier fashion, and that is one of the most ancient rights of the citizen in New Zealand to petition this [00:29:00] parliament and to present to this parliament their views. I don't mind what side of the argument those petitioners should be on. The simple fact is that it is their right to sow petition this parliament and they have been denied that right, Mr Speaker, the submissions were dealt with in a disgraceful way, and as a parliamentarian, I was ashamed. [00:29:30] It's a matter of convenience to the committee. They could not produce one valid reason as to why the committee should stop hearing evidence and report back. The only reason they could produce was a matter of convenience to the committee that had been sitting for five months. That was long enough. We may as well pack up the hearings and report back, irrespective of the poor people who had taken the trouble to prepare submissions and still wished [00:30:00] to be heard simply a matter of convenience to committee members. And then, to make the matter even worse, this move to deliberate after only hearing part of the evidence. And I must say that the committee did not discharge its duty to this Parliament because when a bill is sent to a select committee, it is sent to a select committee to hear all the evidence, not just the evidence that a gang who who [00:30:30] who jacked the committee up and wished to steamroll their views over other men members you are supposed to you are supposed to consider all the evidence and the fact of the matter is that we were given the job by this parliament and we did not fulfil it because we didn't consider all the evidence. And even worse, the committee then moved straight into deliberation without even going through a period of consideration. [00:31:00] And what is wrong with that, Mr Speaker, is not only did we deny many worthwhile organisations and groups and I think the National Council of Women was one whose views I particularly would have liked to have heard and who were denied the opportunity of being heard on this matter, not only did we do that, we also denied our departmental advisor from the Justice Department who had been sitting through committee hearings for five months. We denied them the opportunity of [00:31:30] discussing these matters with the Select Committee. There were two Justice Department reports prepared. We received one on the first half of the bill at the time that we moved straight into deliberation and had no opportunity to consider that the second Justice Department report on the bill came to members of the committee after the committee had already been forced to deliberate and report back to this parliament. And I say, What use is that having government officials sit [00:32:00] there for five months and be denied the opportunity of discussing these matters with committee members, And not only that, we then had an ad, our advisory officer to the committee prepare a massive report which again the committee members had no opportunity of considering before we deliberated. And I, for one, would also have liked to have had the opportunity of seeking the advice of the Human Rights Commission and asking the commission [00:32:30] to come before the committee to explore with the commission their views with respect to the second part of the act dealing with human rights. But no, we were denied that opportunity as a committee and to make the situation even worse. Halfway through this Chara, the government members realised the damage they were doing their cause. So do you know what they did in the interests of open government? [00:33:00] They ordered the press from the room and took a vote to exclude the news media from the consideration of the homosexual law reform bill before the Justice and Law Reform Committee. The consideration was effectively held behind a shroud of secrecy because the government members insisted over the wishes of myself and the member for wa A that [00:33:30] the press not be able to remain. And as a result, it is only now that we have the opportunity of advising this parliament of the disgraceful manner in which the Justice and Law Reform Committee was forced to deal with this matter by weight of numbers of government members who had obviously come to that committee with some predetermined course of action on Wednesday, the second of October [00:34:00] for this parliament, for the bill to proceed further in those circumstances. And I would hope that we will vote on this measure by saying to the sponsors of the bill who have a considerable measure of public support, that they should go away, start again and do the job properly in the proper traditional democratic method, not Endeavour to force the measure through the House in the way that they are doing. Having said that, Mr Speaker, I think [00:34:30] I have outlined to this house and to my constituents why I am taking the stand that I am on the second reading of this legislation. They go Mr Matthewson, Mr speaker during the election campaign. Before the last election, I was asked on several occasions what my reaction would be to a homosexual law reform bill. And my reaction to that question was that [00:35:00] I would vote for reform but that I did not consider it a pressing issue beside, uh, such matters as the economy and justice and so on. But, uh, Mr Speaker, since that time there has been some water gone under the bridge. A bill has been introduced. Uh, we have all received a lot of mail, and I have done quite a lot of study on this issue. I end up with no question [00:35:30] on how I wish to vote. But the question is, why would I speak to the matter and not just vote to the matter? Why, Mr Speaker, the reason that I am speaking is because I now see the issues as more important than I did at the time of the election. I see the issues as being those of tolerance versus a morally judgmental view. I see the issue as one of the role of the law [00:36:00] of this land. I see the issue of rationality versus fear, and indeed I see the issue of sexual equality, so I will argue with as much rationality as I can manage. But I have acquired stronger feelings on this issue since the time of the election. Mr. Speaker, those feelings came to a head when the petition was presented the petition against this bill. I watched the presentation of that petition, and I must say that I was offended [00:36:30] by others taking over God, family and country and the national anthem to their cause. Because I feel some affinity for those issues as well as they do. And I do not believe that those those, uh, those items God, family, the country and the national anthem belong to one side of this issue. The certainty in the face of overwhelming evidence that those people's view was not only right but had that moral force all on its own and should be enforced [00:37:00] on others. I frankly found offensive. I accept and respect the fact that many people in my electorate and all the other electorates, of course, are opposed to this bill and that they have that they are genuine in their feelings and that they have very real fears about this bill, but there are not more than 9150 in my electorate. There are not more than 9150 in my electorate because of those issues that have already [00:37:30] been canvassed about the method of counting of that petition. However, sir, that is not the real reason that is not the real matter at issue. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised by the manner of presentation of this petition on the on the steps of Parliament. And one of the issues was that the boxes that were brought up the steps they weren't full. Now, why Why would the presenters of the petition bring a whole lot of empty boxes up the steps unless [00:38:00] they were trying to impress people about how many signatures there were? That is a deceptive thing to do. It is unnecessary if the petition has none of the boxes were even half full, and listeners might be interested to know that fact. And many of them have only an inch or two of pages in the bottom, and any member can go and have a look at them, and any member of the press can go and have a look at them and verify that fact. Now, what is the reason [00:38:30] to be deceptive in that way? If the petition has the force of reason behind it, then it does not need to be. It not does not need to be made deceptive in that way, Mr Speaker. Uh, one of the one of the issues that has arisen is that with regard to that petition, of course, is that that the presenters of that petition have threatened those who vote for this bill with electoral defeat. And I resent the idea that I am here just [00:39:00] because I want to stay here. I am here and I must take notice of my constituents. But in the end, I must vote for what I think is right. And I resent the threat that is implied by pushing numbers at me that I will vote against what I believe for electoral advantage because I won't. Sometimes, in fact, I believe that a law should not be should not be there simply because there is [00:39:30] no consensus on that law. I think it is bad law, if only about let's say, 50% of the people agree that such a law is needed because if only 50% of the people agree that a law is needed, then it clearly does not have the respect of the majority of the people of New Zealand, which I believe laws need to have. We all agree that we should have a law against murder. But we certainly do not all agree that we should have a law against homosexual activity. And I believe that the standard [00:40:00] that is required for us to have a law, especially on moral matters such as this, requires to be a great deal more than 50% and certainly that is not the case. I believe that somewhat more than 50% of the people of this country believe that the law should not be there. The law against homosexual activity, that's my belief. But I believe that if the law should be there, then it should be certainly a great deal more than that, nor Mr Speaker, do I believe that we should have a law just because we have it already? We should start [00:40:30] from scratch and decide whether we need a law which is on the books and really, that's what this is about it's whether we should keep a law that is there or whether we don't need it anymore, or, in fact, whether we should do away with it. Which is the same thing, Mr Speaker. Uh, really, though my principal concern about the role of the criminal law is simply that it is not the role of the law to tell adults what they should do in private with consent when no one else is involved, let alone hurt or no one else apart from those consenting adults. [00:41:00] And in that respect, I would like to quote from the Department of Justice's report, which the previous speaker mentioned could not be considered by the committee. Well, of course, it could be considered by the committee members the West, and the fact that they could not present it orally does not really alter the fact that the report is there. And here it is. And I would like to quote from the report about the role of criminal law. This is the report of the Justice Department, and I think it is quite an important quote [00:41:30] that I make Mr Speaker, This is what it says. By and large, the criminal law of countries such as New Zealand does not intervene in the private lives of citizens to enforce any particular moral viewpoint, a democratic and pluralistic society. It is generally accepted that the law ought to recognise individual freedom of choice in matters of private morality, except where it is necessary to prohibit behaviour which occasions identifiable harm to others. Broadly speaking, New Zealand's criminal code is concerned with restraining [00:42:00] conduct which causes harm to others, protecting public decency and maintaining public order. There are very few offences contained in the Crimes Act, of which it could be said that the principle purpose of the prohibition is to enforce a moral standard. This approach is not really surprising. There are few moral issues on which society at large would be capable of reaching substantial agreement to the argument that the criminal law is an appropriate instrument for enforcing one particular code of behaviour. The question then becomes which [00:42:30] or whose morality should prevail. It would be quite inappropriate to expect the state to make such a choice. If public debate on the bill illustrates nothing else, it illustrates that there is no consensus in the community about the morality of homosexual conduct and the prescription of such conduct by criminal means. In these circumstances, it would be normal for the criminal law to stand aside. To that extent, The continued prohibition of consensual homosexual acts is an exception to traditional concepts [00:43:00] about the proper scope of the criminal law. Mr. Speaker, that is a clear statement of the criminal law. And, uh, and I believe that an understanding of that is necessary for MP S, who must examine the arguments for and against this law. Mr. Speaker, we do not have the luxury that human of having a view which can be held against the evidence. [00:43:30] We must examine the arguments for and against this bill and examine them in the light of the evidence. And I would like to quickly run through the arguments which have been advanced against this bill. The first one is that it's against Christian values. Well, Mr Speaker, we've already canvassed whether one morality should be enshrined in the law or not, But also there is the question of what is the Christian view. And I, like other members, I'm sure have had many letters and communications from Christian people who are in favour [00:44:00] of repeal of the law as it stands. And when I look at both sides of the issue, I see logic from a Christian viewpoint because of the tolerance expressed on the side of repeal, Mr Speaker. One of the other arguments against this bill is that homosexual homosexuality is quote curable. Even if it was, that shouldn't matter. But the evidence says that it is not so [00:44:30] that homosexuality is fixed as a sexual orientation in people before they reach the age of 16 well before they reach the age of 16 or purity. That is the overwhelming weight of evidence, and that is what we should listen to and to say otherwise ignores that evidence, Mr Speaker. The third one is the third argument against the bill is that homosexuality will cause break up of the family, and I find that argument hard to follow because the first, the first element of that argument [00:45:00] is that a change in the law will create more homosexuality and more homosexual activity, and that is not the evidence from countries overseas which have changed the law. But the second is that I cannot see the mechanism for the break up of the family in passing this bill, Mr. Speaker, homosexuals are born into families, and decriminalisation of homosexuality will surely not cause them to lose their mothers or fathers and brothers and sisters. I cannot see that that that that is the case. And, Mr Speaker, all right. If they're not going to lose their mothers and fathers [00:45:30] and brothers and sisters size of this bill, then perhaps it is because homosexuals genuinely, genuinely don't have Children. But surely that could not be a reason to rate them as criminals, because celibacy is accepted as a valid lifestyle. If it's chosen and celibates don't have Children, and we don't therefore decide to make it criminal, Mr Speaker, So that argument cannot be the one. Perhaps the idea is that husbands will all suddenly rush off and become home homosexuals. And Mr Speaker, that simply does not accord with with [00:46:00] the with the sexual orientation of the heterosexual who who will suddenly will not suddenly decide to be a homosexual when the bill is passed. So, Mr Speaker, the rationality of that argument is not there. And we must We must try and examine the thing rationally, and I do not see any argument which says that the passing of this bill will break up families. It's simply not simply not logical, Mr Speaker. The fourth reason against violence against the bill is that homosexuals in indulge in child abuse and homosexual rape and so on. [00:46:30] And I have had a letter, uh, telling me that that there will be hordes of homosexual gangs sodomising innocent citizens if this bill is passed. Well, Mr Speaker, simply the answer to that is that countries which have already had decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour have simply not seen the sort of behaviour described in that letter. And I would like to read for the evidence of the house just some of the countries which have decriminalised homosexual behaviour because there's been the idea of advance that we [00:47:00] should have an inquiry. Well, we're not exactly trying something new and radical, Mr. Speaker. The United Kingdom has been mentioned and and we know that it was decriminalised there many years ago. Mr. Speaker, In Western Europe, let's run through a few of the countries In Sweden, the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals in Norway. 16, the same as for heterosexuals in France, the age of consent is the same for heterosexuals. In Denmark, the age of consent is 15, the same as for heterosexuals. In Austria, the age of consent [00:47:30] is 19. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the age of consent is 18. In Italy, the age of consent is the same as for heterosexuals. In Italy, they've never had a criminal law against homosexuality. In Switzerland, the commission has been set up, which recommends the liberalisation of the law. In the Netherlands, the age of consent is 16, the same as for heterosexuals. In Belgium, the age of consent is for homosexuals is for 18 and heterosexual 60. In Spain, the age of consent is the same as heterosexuals. If this is not new and you know this, then why does the member for re seem [00:48:00] to indicate that we're doing something strange and unusual by having such a bill? Because I am reading out and I intend to continue to read them out, to emphasise the fact that we are not doing something new, strange and radical compared with other countries in the world. Mr. Speaker, the Council of Europe in 1981 a committee on social and health questions, adopted a draught recommendation on the elimination of discrimination against homosexuals and in particular recommended that criminal liability for homosexual behaviour between adults should be abolished. [00:48:30] And Mr Speaker in the United States, over half the states have decriminalised private homosexual conduct. Australia New South Wales has done so and, uh, the Australian Capital Territory South Australia has done so since 1976. And interestingly, Mr Speaker, South Australia uh, at least a month or two ago had not had a single case of AIDS reported. And they have had decriminalisation of homosexual activity since 1976 [00:49:00] and haven't had a case of AIDS reported, whereas Florida whereas Florida, which in which it remains criminal, is the third highest level of AIDS in the world. And those and those facts are contained in the Department of Justice report. So they are. So they are. They are fairly, fairly, well, fairly well documented facts. Mr. Speaker, we are not doing something. We are not doing something. Uh, something very strange, Mr. Speaker, The fifth argument advanced against [00:49:30] the bill is the question of AIDS. I don't expect that any member in this house would argue against the need to contain AIDS, of course. But one should look at the evidence about whether AIDS will increase with decriminalisation or indeed decrease with decriminalisation. And I've already noted the cases of Florida and South Australia, and the director general of health in New Zealand says there is no reasonable correlation between the incidence of AIDS and the law, and I take that [00:50:00] to be an authoritative opinion. I am not sure Clive Matthew Dunedin of AIDS less But my view is that it will certainly not make the situation worse. Because if the threat of AIDS itself will not cause people to refrain from Adal intercourse, then the existence of an act which is hardly enforced will surely not. And that's a logical argument, which I invite someone to try and answer. Mr Speaker, the question of age, the question of age. The only the only [00:50:30] question really that we have to decide, I believe, is what should the age be accepting that accepting that consenting adult behaviour should be decriminalised, it is it is logical to have the same age as for heterosexuality. Otherwise, there is a discrimination both between homosexual and heterosexual behaviour, and between male and female and 16 is the age I will go for Mr Speaker, Part two. I understand the reasoning behind those who support [00:51:00] the first part, but not the second. I understand their idea that personal freedom is the motivator, the freedom to hire who one likes, et cetera. But but personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. For example, we do not have the freedom to drive on the right hand side of the road for very obvious reasons, and personal freedom must sometimes be curtailed. And in this case, I must say that I regard discrimination against homosexuality as not different from discrimination on the grounds [00:51:30] of race or sex. People who apply for a job have a right to be treated on the characteristics relevant to the job and not on a prejudice against what they do privately. And I will be voting for the second part of the bill. Mr. Speaker, Morality has been mentioned tonight and other nights quite a lot, and I regard moral moral values such as honesty, justice and caring for others, including intellectual honesty as moral values. And they indicate to me that the moral position to [00:52:00] take on this bill is to support it, and I do not regard my view as being less moral than the bill's opponents. They are entitled to their view that they are more moral than me. But I do not accept that, Mr Speaker. This law will pass, I think, and I hope it will. It will lift the weight from maybe 10% of our male population. But perhaps even more importantly, it will signal maturity and tolerance in our society. I feel pleased to be able to endorse [00:52:30] this bill, and I encourage my colleagues to do so. It's Mr Norman Jones. Mr Speaker, We've heard this story about the homosexuality and AIDS being prevalent in Florida, where it's non decriminalised, where it's still illegal in Florida, in Florida. The reason being, of course, that Fidel Castro got rid of 207,000 of his criminals [00:53:00] and his prisoners, including including 70 70 72,000 homosexuals he let out of out of Cuba into Florida. And that's why they're full of aid. That's why they're full of age. Now we know Mr Speaker, I want to give notice of an amendment at the second reading stage under standing [00:53:30] order 213. I intend to move that The question be amended by admitting the word now and adding at the end of the question, the words this day, 12 months. Would you like to say that that's the amendment? I intend to move, which opens up the second reading for anyone that wants to have a second go. And that will give the member all these members here who think this is a good idea to carry on. I'm going to give the reasons why. I think [00:54:00] this bill should lie on the table for another 12 months before we do anything further before it before we do anything further with it. And I can assure you that we'll have plenty of members to get up and keep going now. The homosexual community of this country received one hell of a shock in March when they brought this bill in. They thought this bill was going to come into this Parliament and be passed as indeed it did in the first reading by 51 votes to 24 with 20 absent. And [00:54:30] they had planned that if they brought it in with the connivance of the Labour Party caucuses. No question about that. No question about that. There wasn't one voice raised against bringing this homosexual bill in by the member for Wellington Central. In the later talk, no one voice raised against it brought it in for a diversion eight months ago. Thought it would get through this house. Thought it would get through this house in a few short weeks. Well, here we are, eight months [00:55:00] later, eight months later. And we're still not through the second reading. And of those people that are that are missing out on something outside this house for coming here the last three Wednesdays, the last three Wednesdays. Better all get back to work because they're missing out on the because they're not gonna make any here, is he All right. They didn't anticipate the massive opposition that would be generated to this bill. I thought [00:55:30] it passed through its introduction stages. As indeed it did. 51 to 24. That was early march. Well, here we are way back in now, in November. They aren't very overjoyed about that today. They aren't very overjoyed about that today, and they'll be even less overjoyed because I can assure them by the time this bill gets through all of its stages and I can take a bet now and I'll take a bet of a dozen of whiskey with any member of this house that this bill will not pass. That this bill will not pass [00:56:00] through. This house in its present form will not pass through this house in its present form. I am confident of that. I I I've been doing my accounting. I haven't stayed here throughout the three nights, looking at the speakers and having to say, I've been doing my homework. There's about 36 probably 36 members in this house who will vote against this bill. At every stage. There's probably 34 or 35 who will vote for it at every stage, and the homosexual task force are under [00:56:30] instructions that it's got to be 16 years of age. There's got to be 16 years of age or nothing. There's already been amendments telegraphed for 2018. Well, I can assure you that we'll be in the lobbies. My life will be in the lobbies, with the homosexual group voting against 20 years of age, voting against 18 years of age and then the members of this house can have some real agonising to do, because finally, what you're going to be voting for is 16 years [00:57:00] of age or nothing. And I'm picking that this house will vote nothing. So it's not over yet. It's not over yet. The bill will probably go through its second reading stages after we've all had another go at it after we've all had another go at it in the amendment by seven or eight votes by seven or eight votes. I've already got a dozen of whiskey with the member for Hamilton West. He's a gone. He's gone. Yeah, he wouldn't be Mr Speaker. There's been an international organised campaign [00:57:30] amongst the homosexuals amongst the homosexuals. Well, I can assure you that if you think 835,000 New Zealanders was organised, I can tell the member for S, the buddy MP for Invercargill, and every time he comes down and opens, he's trapping Invercargill. He puts another 500 votes in my pocket, so keep on coming. Keep on coming, Keep on coming. He's the best. He's the best buddy [00:58:00] you can have. He's the best buddy you can have and long may remain the buddy MP. I can assure you that if you think that 835 was organised and you're criticising the petition of having X number of school kids and being people being pressurised, I can assure you that the day this bill passes through this house in any shape or form at all, the repeal referendum petition will start the very next day based on computerised [00:58:30] electoral roles based on computerised electoral roles and every elector, every voter will be given the opportunity of signing the repeal bill, which I will personally or somebody else move in 12 months' time. So it's not going to go away. It won't go away, I promise you that. And if you think we can't do it, don't don't adopt on anything at all. I can see both sides, and I've always seen both sides of an argument seen both sides [00:59:00] of an argument. But and as far as I'm concerned on this issue, it's either right. It's wrong. I am not going to be me. And so I agree to disagree with people on this. It is wrong and it's wrong and I am say, as far as I'm concerned, I do not distinguish between the sinner. I'm no table thumping, Bible banging Christian, I might tell you that I'm representing at least three quarters of those 835 people like myself. Don't [00:59:30] even go to church. Don't even go to church, Mr Norman Jones. I'll go to my Lord on Judgement Day, and I'll say to him, Lord, I drink whiskey. I drink whiskey. I swear. I used to chase women I used to chase. That's right. Well, there's one thing for sure. I never chase blokes, that's for sure. [01:00:00] I don't go to church. I go down to the savings and watch my horses work out. I'm going to have a puppet. I'm going to go down there and I'm going to have the company of the Anglican, all the Anglican pastors and the Presbyterian pastors and the Methodist pastors who go to their congregations and say that sodomy you can condone it. It's not a sin. Now they're getting paid to preach the Gospel. Now they're going to have more [01:00:30] trouble with the Lord. They're gonna have more trouble with the Lord in their judgement day than I'm gonna have I'd like to be a fly on the wall when they and they're making their excuse. I want to get back. I want to get back to the seriousness of this. It's no laughing matter when the whole of our heterosexual population not only the five or 4% homosexual population and [01:01:00] are at risk from a homosexually induced venereal disease, a fatal disease of AIDS and deliberately so the non homo. There's an internationally organised campaign amongst the homosexuals in every country in the world, and the member for energy is more in danger of senility than anything else legalised [01:01:30] in every country to pressurise right throughout the right. Throughout the homosexual international community, there's been a campaign in every country to pressurise the non homosexual population to legalise sodomy to prevent the spread of the homosexual disease AIDS. That's what they've been doing now. It's quite obvious it became obvious to homosexuals in the UK [01:02:00] and in America and Europe and all over the world, years five years ago that the homosexuals were killing themselves by the thousands with AIDS, and it was quite obvious to them that no government, no major multinational corporation, was going to spend millions of dollars on research just on a homosexual disease, when homosexuals only make up a small percentage of the population. They weren't going to get the sort of money [01:02:30] spent on AIDS research to stop this fatal disease that other people were getting to spend on multiple sclerosis, cancer and arthritis, and all the rest and all the rest of it. So what do we do? So the homosexual, the international homosexual community, the International Homosexual Committee's only hope was for the world's blood banks to become sufficiently contaminated with AIDS? That's right, and for enough and for enough [01:03:00] and for enough innocent people, homosexual women and Children hoops wives of bisexual homosexual at risk for enough of them for enough of the heterosexual community to be pump contaminated with the AIDS virus to to be poisoned to death by this homosexual Belial disease. That's what it is to have world governments to have World governments and corporations and medical foundation and local governments [01:03:30] start start spending millions of dollars on research into the homosexual disease. That's how it came about. Now that's how it come out by deliberately of those last few were to cut off. But it was just the time when the speaker closed him off entirely and the house rose.
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