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.
Uh, the honourable, the 20 this stage was chairman. See the assistance of the chair? Bit of debate. And in so doing, Mr Chairman, refer you point of order, Mr Mallard to Speaker's rule to clarify whether it is a speech or a point of order so we can get to [00:00:30] the point of order. Point of order, Mr Wellington. Uh, under the speaker's ruling, 1384, which refers to private members, bills and states a private member's bill clauses Have you got it, Mr Jim? A private member's bill clauses of which may and that's the operative word involve an extra charge [00:01:00] on the people in the way of rights reliable into the public account requires the recommendation of the crown and is therefore out of order. Now, Mr Chairman, I raise that at this stage. For this reason, we have concluded the committee stages on part one of this bill homosexual law reform bill, and it is clear from the voting, and I'm not referring to them per se. But it is clear, as a consequence of the [00:01:30] voting, that there is now a strong prospect of the measure put simply being passed, which in my view does raise the question proposed or indeed answered under 1384. Now, Mr Chairman, I could elaborate on the manner in which this measure, if passed, could, in the words [00:02:00] of Speaker's ruling, 1384 speak a statement in 1929. Volume 221, Page 828 involved and I quote him an extra charge on the people. Uh, I don't want to refer to the submissions we've had, in particular from the Department of Health, but I think it is becoming apparent that indeed there may be a charge should this measure [00:02:30] further proceed now. The other part of the speaker's ruling Speaker Statham's ruling of consequence in considering this issue is whether is whether, if there is to be an extra charge, the crown, which of course, means the Cabinet recommends that this bill further proceed. But there are two parts. If there may be a charge, it is out of order. [00:03:00] That's what Speaker state and ruled. It is therefore out of order unless the cabinet representing the crown recommends that it proceed now if one reads on further two speakers ruling 1391. There is reinforcement of that old ruling by a yet older ruling by Speaker O'Rourke. And I appreciate [00:03:30] that he was talking about a specific, taxing bill. But he nevertheless concludes in the second and final sentence, it is not competent for a private member to propose additional taxation. Now, Mr Chairman, I haven't raised this earlier because one had to be fair to the private member and see what likely course this bill was to take. [00:04:00] It is my belief that this measure, should it further proceed and indeed be passed May. That's the key word I did not say Shell or Will. Nor did. Speaker Statham, he said, may involve an extra charge on the people. Now. I think the committee, Mr Chairman, can resolve this issue in a number of ways. [00:04:30] But I would like to suggest two. I would like you to consider the relevance of Speaker Statham's ruling. In the context of this private members bill, there are only four speaker's rulings in respect of private members bills. If there is doubt, I believe it's to be the responsibility of the crown in this case, the Cabinet to indicate, perhaps through [00:05:00] the leader of the House and I have checked back on the speeches given. At the time the bill was introduced, the leader of the neither the leader of the House, deputy prime minister nor the prime minister spoke. And in so doing or not doing indicated the crown's, I mean the Cabinet's position on this matter. Now two things can happen. There can be a ruling from the chairman in accordance with Speaker's [00:05:30] ruling 1384 private members, Bill. And if that is a difficulty for the chair, and I appreciate that it is difficult, very sensitive, very delicate, that it might be of assistance to the committee if the prime minister or the leader of the House came down and indicated whether indeed the crown or the Cabinet [00:06:00] is prepared and I've nearly finished. Eddie is prepared or not to back this bill with public money. I think we've got the point. Well, I think I think the member having spoken now for about five minutes, his his his uh, His point is clear enough, but I think there are other members who may may wish to comment about uh, Mr Chairman did refer to a speaker's ruling, but in no way [00:06:30] indicated to the committee or really appeared to seek to indicate to the committee in what way he considered that this bill may in fact involve an extra charge on the people. Uh, it seemed to me that that that there is no point of order in that the speaker's ruling to which you referred bears not at all on the bill before the committee. More important than that, it bears even less on the matter which is before this committee. If in fact, there were somewhere in [00:07:00] the bill something which could be construed as involving the possibility of involving a charge on the people that would necessarily have to be raised in the House and would be a matter for the House and the speaker, not for the committee and certainly not for the committee when it is seized. Of only one part of the bill, that is part two of the Bill clauses eight and nine, dealing with with amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act, the member who raised this point. And I think it is a spurious point that the member who raised the point should properly have [00:07:30] done so at the time of the introduction of the bill. Having failed to do that, I think he could properly seek the advice of Mr Speaker outside this chamber. I fail to see how he can in any way seek to raise a point of order of this nature in the committee of the House. I thank the Well, I think I think this matter is is, uh, very quickly dealt with by stating to the committee that it can't be dealt with at this stage. Um, I uphold the, um the interpretation of the situation, which we are [00:08:00] in That has been, uh, that has been set out for us by the member for Nelson. Uh, what we have is a is a wish on the part of the member for papakura. Member for papakura to, um, have the question of the bill's acceptability as a whole taken as a whole, uh, decided upon by the chair. Now, it's not the chairman's function and committee to decide on the acceptability of the of the of the bill as a whole. The only function that I have is for is [00:08:30] with relation to amendments, uh, the proper course, therefore for the member for is to raise the point if he wishes to. At the point where the bill is next considered as a whole, that is just, uh, in the course of the bills being read for a third time back in the house. Do you have a further point of order? Uh, Mr Lee, Thank you. I take note of your comments, Mr Chairman, but, um, 16 2 of the speaker's rulings states, while [00:09:00] the House has its own standing orders so far as allowing by unanimous consent a private members bill, that is an appropriation bill to pass through certain stages, it would be unlawful to pass that bill. Now, the issue then therefore, is a question of the appropriation. And, Mr Chairman, whilst I accept that the time more correctly for this matter to be referred to would be now, at the beginning of the third reading, the question of appropriation [00:09:30] is clear. So the point then in retrospect, is at the time of introduction where this should have been established. If the speaker accepted it as, uh, not an appropriation bill and he ruled that way. And Mr Chairman, perhaps you would care to indicate to the house If he did so, then there is grave concern by many of us as to the relevance or the correctness of that ruling. And we would also want to seek from you [00:10:00] in the context of that ruling, whether or not that is now correct from the knowledge that there is an appropriation that is relevant to part two and certainly in measure to part one part two being the reference to the of course the extended activities of the Human Rights Commission in line with their powers to have to deal with a an expanded and extended role in the acceptance of sexual orientation. The part one, of course, [00:10:30] would be representing the cost that would be incurred by the health Department in the additional cost that would arise from administering a a act that would arise from the I don't want to cut the member up unnecessarily. But I, I just have Yes, I'll hear the member in a moment. I just want to point out in reiteration for the for the sake of the member for that, um, I appreciate what he is saying. Um, but this is not [00:11:00] the forum for a discussion on it. Um, I'm I'm not attempting to rule one way or the other. I'm saying that it is not part of my, um, position to say Rule and Central Point needs to be made. And that is, even if one accepted the case that it involves an appropriation. All the standing orders provide in 2991 is that no bill may be passed, may be passed, and that is repeated in Speaker's rule in 16 [00:11:30] 2 unless there is a message. Passing a bill, of course, does not occur in the committee stages of the House. Even if Part two is assented to by the committee, the bill is not passed at that point. There is a further stage which has to be gone through, and clearly it would be appropriate to obtain a ruling about whether the bill involves an appropriation. If it doesn't, a message will be required before the third reading. Speaking further to the point of order, Mr Freeland, despite [00:12:00] what the senior government whip has said, what we're really looking at is the practicality of whether the house should devote a considerable amount of time to further considering the detail of this legislation. If the government has no intention of providing the message to this bill to proceed into legislation and therefore all that is required quite simply, rather than awaiting or carrying out further work in the committee stages. [00:12:30] If the government has no intention of doing that, we should know. But the easiest way to have this matter resolved would be for a minister, the leader of the House or the prime minister to simply say that the government will adopt this bill as policy if that's their intention. I mean, if that's their intention, because that will then ensure that the appropriate monies are voted by the crown as such with the speaker. But otherwise we would be asking the House to be wasting their time dealing with [00:13:00] many hours of debate, possibly on the detail of this legislation. When if the government is not going to provide the, uh to support the bill that we would be waking up, I would suggest to the member for New Plymouth for you that that is an extremely dangerous suggestion. If he is suggesting to the House unless the government indicates in advance that an appropriation will be available for a private member's bill sometime before [00:13:30] the last stage. Otherwise, the house or committee should spend no time on the measure. The government, of course, could obviate introduction debates on all private members bills which involve an appropriation merely by indicating in advance that there will be no appropriation available. And I suggest to the opposition who may want to introduce, shall we say, private members Bills was not totally bills of conscience sometime in the next few weeks that they would not wish to adopt that as some form of ruling to come from the chair, though the government, the government might not necessarily be unhappy [00:14:00] with such a ruling. Given the time it will save over the next few months, I can, uh, I can appreciate. I think perhaps before we go any further on this, we should give the member for New Plymouth benefit of of a ruling. And just to say that I can appreciate the point that he is making, um and to say, as I've already done, we've got a difficulty, which is that we're the creature of the house and we, uh, we in the committee here can't Yeah, can't do any more than just to, uh, proceed on the basis the house [00:14:30] has already decided. Uh, is this a fair point of order? Well, no, I'm seeking your guidance. So in in that, um, no, I do want your assistance. Because in ruling, you did say it would be within the competence of the committee translated into the house, uh, to deal with the matter I originally raised under [00:15:00] Speaker's rulings. 1384 and 1391. Now, Mr Chairman, could you indicate, I assume you mean at the commencement of the third reading I? I assume that when the committee reports back in essence, uh, to the speaker on the proceedings which took place in it IE the committee. Now, Sir, I would be grateful for your assurance on that point that we can indeed [00:15:30] traverse this matter. Uh, perhaps with the assistance of the Prime Minister. Um, and secondly, might I just respond to a point I think, raised by the chief government whip? There's no doubt that 1384 does caution the house in respect of private members bills where there and I quote, may end. Quote be an extra charge on the people. [00:16:00] Now I wonder if we missed that going through. I wonder if both the committee and the House in the initial stages, in fact overlooked the fiscal implications of this measure. And if so, it might be the wish of the committee. At this point, it may be it may be the wish of the committee to seek the guidance of the speaker, if, perhaps by some special [00:16:30] dispensation, the committee can temporarily dissolve. We can get the speaker back and and deal with the matter here and now. I think so. It would make the deliberations in the committee, which are the fine print, which will involve long term the dollars and cents. I think it would make it easier for individual members to make up their minds because responsible ones, if in doubt, might find the revenue implications [00:17:00] of this measure the persuading factor in voting one way or the other, particularly if the minister of finance or or the associate minister of finance or the undersecretary for the minister of finance. But to be fair to the member for Palmerston North, he has spoken at some length as one who's trying to to balance the books or bridge the gap between in the internal deficit. I can't understand a support for measure which might indeed, I believe will increase government expenditure. Now, I think it's important, [00:17:30] sir, that the committee steady up, talk to the speaker about it. Because I repeat whether the government spends or not whether the government has to spend extra may influence individual members in their voting on specific clauses in the committee states. I think the members who have taken part the, um the first point I suppose that one [00:18:00] should make is that the matter of whether or not this bill involves an appropriation has already been, uh, decided on It was declared in the, um uh in the house, Uh, on the eighth of March. Now, I'm just saying that various members have made the point that we that we are in fact in some kind of limbo. But it's not clear whether we're debating a bill for which an appropriation, uh, has has has been granted. And I want to refer members in case there's any doubt about that, um, to, uh Hansard, Page 351 of the eight of the eighth [00:18:30] of March, where it's made clear that the bill does not involve that's 1985 where it's made clear that the bill does not involve an appropriation. That was a matter that was clarified at the point where the bill was introduced on that day. Secondly, the question of the timing of any, uh, point of order raised in respect of the speaker's ruling, uh, rulings on page 138. Um, I would take it at the appropriate time for any member who wishes to do so to raise [00:19:00] a point on that would be when the, um uh when the speaker was back in the chair, obviously. But prior to the bill actually being read a third time, Um, I think that, um now the the member member has asked when that will happen. And of course, it will depend entirely upon when we, uh, when we conclude this stage. The committee stage, um, the the further question that was raised and whether we should seek leave from the from the, uh, uh committee for the speaker to to, uh, come [00:19:30] back as, of course, a matter for the committee. And, um and of course, if there is any objection to that course, well, then we just we just proceed. Um the question then is that, um part two stand part. And when this matter was last being discussed, Mr O'Flynn had, uh I believe four minutes and I appreciate you have another point of order. Well, does he have another point of order? Point of order? Point of order, Mr Welling. Just a matter of clarification. You said it is in within [00:20:00] the competence of the committee to determine when the speaker, uh, deals with this particular matter. Matter of life. Pardon? It's a matter of life. Yes. Well, sir, I, I thank you. That's the the little bit of, um, assistance. I appreciate I seek the leave of the committee that Mr Speaker do now return and deal with the matter raised under standing order 1, 384 and 1391 in respect of an appropriation or [00:20:30] levy on the people, the question is that course of action be agreed. There's any objection. Well, no, no. If there's any any objection to the point of order. Mr. Chairman, what we're being asked to do is to recall the speaker to rule on something he's already ruled on. He is already raw. The bill does not involve an appropriation. And I would suggest very carefully to the committee that they would be wise not to recall the speaker to question the ruling he's already given. Well, I take it there is Objection. [00:21:00] The question now is that part two? Stand up, Mr Lee. The new point of water, sir. Uh, new point of is I, I believe of the committee of the House to consider the path to clause by clause. So I do this conscious that we have accepted the motion and that the house has been governed [00:21:30] by the part one and part one has been voted on as a whole. Now, sir, I'm asking the house to set aside, uh, and return to the to the normal rules. Because, Sir, in addressing part one, it was clear that the motion that the House accepted did inhibit and restrict the opportunity to speak on what finally was a series of nine amendments and seven clauses. [00:22:00] And sir, in a similar capacity, Part two also has a further eight amendments. There is only two clauses but eight amendments now, Sir, in addressing in this particular request, I put to the chair. There is two clauses only. And sir, I believe it should be considered as quite different from the request that was sought by leave for part one because of the rest of the [00:22:30] is stricter number of clauses. But the fact that there is so many amendments to those two clauses only served, I believe requires, in fact, demands that the house grant on this part two the right to debate those two clauses in separation, Mr Lee. Thank you, Reserve Chairman. The the the important point, sir, is that we have had limited opportunity [00:23:00] to address what has become a very complex committee stage. The amendments in total are now 19, and, uh, we probably have hardly seen in the house a bill that has had so many members for those limited number of substantive clauses. And so we're just asking and I'm seeking from leave the house and the concurrence of the house of the whole committee that these two remaining clauses therefore there's only two clauses in effect to address. But by [00:23:30] agreeing to that, we will have the opportunity to fully examine the total framework and implications of the eight amendments that apply Clear my mind Whether that was moved as a motion or or that leave was still point of order. Point of order, Mr Lee, By clarification, I rose to seek leave of the house. I believe that's the only procedure that I have of Al. [00:24:00] Um well, we'll put that matter to the committee. The question being whether or not the, uh the bill should be considered clause by clause. Uh, there is an action. That course of action, uh, will not be followed. The question now is that part two? Stand up, Mr Norman Jones. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to this part two of the [00:24:30] of the bill, which, to my way of thinking, is the most obnoxious part of it. It seeks to, uh, decriminalise on the grounds of sexual orientation and bring this in under the Human Rights Act and make it a crime for people like myself belonging to 98% of normal New Zealanders who we are now having our rights violated to play homage [00:25:00] to 2% of New Zealanders who declare themselves to be homosexually inclined. And we talk about this sexual orientation. Mr. Speaker, if sexual orientation is going to be declared legal by the passing of this part two of this bill, then this parliament is telling all New Zealanders that because sexual orientation, namely homosexuality is legally right, is now to become legally right. Then it must also be morally [00:25:30] right. That's what they're saying. Mr Chairman, most people in this country, most people in any country believe that when something is declared legally right by act of Parliament, then it's automatically follows. It should be morally right. Most people think that way. They agree that that's pass, people pass legal laws and that's what this that's what this Parliament is about to do. Mr. Speaker, Well, I've got news for politicians in this Parliament if they're declaring sodomy at 16 [00:26:00] years age to be legally right and they've already done that and they're now going to declare that if you discriminate against people practising that legally, you are going to be morally wrong. I'm going to tell you now that if you think that 98% of normal New Zealanders are going to accept that, that the that the discrimination against homosexuals is morally wrong, because this law is only protecting and giving extra rights to 2% of the country, then you've got another thing coming and you're going to regret ever having [00:26:30] passed this bill and passing part two of this bill is virtually saying to 98% of New Zealanders that homosexual behaviour is not merely legally acceptable but morally acceptable. That's what this part two of the bill is saying. There's nothing else that can say that's as simple as as falling off a log. Not only is homosexuality legally and morally acceptable, but it has to be encouraged, but it has to be encouraged. That's what that's what the bill is saying because I'm not allowed to get up in this house and speak against it. If I was [00:27:00] a preacher on the pulpit, I'm not allowed to talk against it. If I was an employer under this bill, I am not allowed to discriminate. Otherwise, I'm contravening. I've read the bill more times than the member or Glen Fields read it. And if she wants to vote for this bill, she's a goner. She's a goner from this house. I'll personally come up and campaign and electorate and see that she is quite frankly, that's right, and it has And not only that, it has to be encouraged, but indeed it's going to have to be financed by the government and the government is financing. [00:27:30] There's no question about that. That's the That's the point that the member for Pa Pa Pa. Was trying to make. If 98% Mr Chairman of normal New Zealanders aren't allowed to discriminate against legally recognised homosexuals, then it must be become lawful. It must become lawful. If we're not allowed to discriminate against it on other grounds of human rights, then it must become lawful for practising homosexuals to teach that sort of [00:28:00] thing. In the schools, it has to be lawful. If they're legally entitled and morally entitled to do it. And as they are on the path to this bill, it must become lawful for them to teach it in the schools And anyone opposing teaching homosexuality in the schools will be breaking and contravening the Human Rights Act and able to be taken to court. I will be take if I went throughout the if this, if this bill is passed and I go throughout the country opposing it like I did prior [00:28:30] to it coming in, I will be contravening the law of this country and I'll go to jail. Well, I'll tell you what, I probably will. I probably will, Yes, I can be taken to court, and I probably will be any preacher that gets up on a public platform or on a pulpit. Any preacher that gets up and preaches what the Bible says against sodomy will be contravening the act. No question about it. Furthermore, furthermore Mr Chairman, under this bill's definition of sexual orientation, [00:29:00] and I you know I don't have to read it out, but I will. Sexual orientation is related to any person with a male or female, means the heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual preference of that person and includes any characteristic that's been imputed to the particular it goes on and on in the window. What I'm saying since homosexual orientation, Mr Speaker Mr. Chairman Mr. Chairman, I I've called Mr Chairman before the member got up. Point of order, Mr Chairman, [00:29:30] Point of order. Point of order. Uh, I take it that I have entitled to five or four or five minute bursts and I took the call because nobody else was there. I called Mr Chairman another time we got three more to go. Thanks very much, Mr Chairman. The speech we just heard from the member of For Cargo deserves a full reply because it really summed up all the prejudices and misinformation and myths that have been promoted around the country by those opposing [00:30:00] this bill. I think it's very important, firstly, to say that the bill will not prohibit in any way the bill will not prohibit in any way anybody talking or preaching anything they like about homosexuality or about heterosexuality or about any other form of sexuality. That is the first fact, which the member for Inver Cargo had wrong. When he said that any preacher who gets up in his pulpit and condemns sodomy [00:30:30] will be liable to be imprisoned, he is actually quite incorrect. And if he believes that he is right, then I would suggest in the 15 minutes he has left to him after dinner that he tells the house which section of the Human Rights Commission Act, which is to be amended by this bill, actually will provide that penalty on a preacher who gets up in the member for Invercargill. I'll be listening with great interest after dinner to hear what he has to say on [00:31:00] that, he said that it will forbid people to talk about homosexuality in the way that he has talked about it. And in fact, he has threatened to go into the electorate of the member, Paul Glenfield, and campaign against her. Well, I would say he's just threatened to come into my electorate, too. I would like to tell the member through you, Mr Chairman, that he is most welcome to come and campaign in my electorate any time he wishes. I'm sure, in fact, that it would be no end of help for me in the next election campaign. [00:31:30] In fact, I would consider it an honour to have the member running against me. Perhaps he'd like to give up Invercargill and come and run in Wellington Central instead of an Invercargill. If he thinks he's so sure. I notice he's not so anxious to do that. Mr. Chairman, The member is quite wrong when he says that this bill will stop people talking and preaching against homosexuality. It was very carefully drafted so as not to do that. It was in fact, drafted to eliminate discrimination on the [00:32:00] grounds of sexual orientation in areas such as the provision of housing and employment and goods and services. I'm just telling the member what it means. Perhaps he should listen. And then he will be able to hear more. Mr. Chairman, I'll be interested to hear in his next few calls whether or not in fact, he is able to, um, give us any evidence to support his assertions. I don't believe that he can, but I'll be giving you plenty of evidence. Uh, in the rest of my course that I have left to the contrary, time [00:32:30] has arrived. We leave the chair, and, uh, when this matter was last in discussion, Fran was speaking. She still has, if she wishes it two minutes. Uh, point of order. The honourable winning. Um, Mr Chairman, Prior to the T recess, I raised a point of order under Speaker's rulings. 1384 private members bills. It's a ruling by Speaker Statham, Volume 221 of Hansard, page 828, [00:33:00] which said a private members bill clauses of which may involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rates payable, which is tax. Of course, into the public account requires the recommendation of the crown and is therefore out of order. Now, Mr Chairman, you ruled on that, and I accept it. But during the the tea break, I have further consulted Speaker's rulings and, contrary to the point of view, espoused, [00:33:30] I think about 5 15 17 by the member for Nelson. I have not sought opinion, uh, beyond Speaker's rulings, and I have not sought the views of the staff of the Legislative Department. But I want to refer Mr Chairman to Speaker's ruling 17 1. Interestingly again by Speaker Statham, he must have been an extraordinarily busy speaker. 1935. Volume 242 page [00:34:00] 473 and yes, precisely. The member for Tamaki says it is an extraordinarily busy time. As we try and correct a few things, sort them out and get them back onto an even keel. Well, the member for Hastings will be the first to go to redress the ballots. Now, Speaker Statham said, 17 1, a private member. And I quote a private member's bill, [00:34:30] which would enlarge the scope of the state's liability by providing for the expenditure of public money is an appropriation bill now. So it's really as simple as that. This bill implies the appropriation of public moneys at the time of its introduction to the house is distinct from the committee which we are now addressing. It was ruled not to be an appropriation bill. [00:35:00] We have since, however, despite the protestations of the member sponsoring the bill the junior government whip now backed by the leader of the House, we are now confronted inescapably with the fact having heard over the past year evidence here and there mainly in here that the state, the government or the crown will have to appropriate money. No, no, I haven't finished [00:35:30] yet. I have. No, you can't interrupt me if the Honourable member would Just for a moment, this is you gonna be help? Yes. OK, we'll give it a go if if the honourable member will recall. This is a regurgitation of the subject matter that we've already, uh, explored in the point of order that he raised, uh, earlier. Um, I. I take it from his point of order that what he wishes to do is [00:36:00] to question whether or not the ruling that this is not the appropriation bill that is properly given. It's quite different. And, uh, if that's the case, then uh, I can only repeat my ruling that that, of course, the member may raise that question. But this is not the place to do it. That the chair during the House and committee can rule on the admissibility of amendments, but not on the question of the status of the bill as a whole. That is, that is a mandate for discussion by the House as a whole. And if the member wants to, then [00:36:30] of course, he can raise that question. And it's a perfectly appropriate one for him to raise. But in the house and not in the committee. Yes. Well, uh, my name is Mr Lee. Mr. Lee, is it not under standing orders the province of the chairman in the committee of the House to seek a speaker, uh, ruling in respect to a matter like this. And I repeat that the point in which this matter comes back before [00:37:00] the house at this time having already been aired in the earliest earlier part of this debate, is because we believe there is a substantial influence now by this matter uh, bearing on this debate tonight we are addressing part two of the bill, which refers to the Human Rights Act question. It is clearly the question that is to do with the appropriation we believe members of the House would want to take into [00:37:30] account. And therefore it is proper that it is now decided before this debate continues. Well, being the point of order, Mr. Williston, the member who just presumed his his seat is, is really seeking not only to challenge the ruling you have just given, but but is is really saying that it is legitimate in some way in the committee to seek to overturn a ruling given by the speaker on the introduction of this bill. Can I put it to you, Mr Chairman? There was no way that the [00:38:00] committee can even entertain discussion of that matter. I can't. I want the didn't hear the early part of this before the break. But it does seem to me that it can be contemplated that in the committee stages of the bill, uh, we could make an amendment which causes the original ruling to be no longer valid. But quite apart from making an amendment. [00:38:30] It does seem to me to be within the bounds of possibility that in the detailed discussion of the bill in committee, something is disclosed, which also makes the original ruling no longer valid. And if that is so and that is what I take it, the member for PAPAKURA is saying, would it be appropriate for me to move to report progress in order to get a further, um, ruling from Mr Speaker on this matter? [00:39:00] Uh, you see, if we were to go right through and take no further ruling and find that in fact, what the member for Papakura says is correct, uh, we would have been out of order in passing this part. And indeed finally, the bill, without the necessary further procedure because of the requirement of an appropriation of some kind. And it seems to me that the proper course might well be to simply move to report progress, to get Mr [00:39:30] Speaker to make a ruling and then come back into committee speaking to the water. Fran, we chairman. I understand what the member for Tamaki has said, but in fact the member for Papa has not given us even one example of where he thinks Speaker's ruling 17 1. The criteria there have been fulfilled, as he was unable to give us an example of another speaker's ruling that he tried, uh, this little trick on before dinner and I would suggest that in fact, we are wasting [00:40:00] the time of the house. The speaker has ruled on this. The, uh, bill was very carefully looked at at the time when it was introduced. The speaker has ruled there is no appropriation involved. And unless the member for Papakura or another member of the House is able to give us to tell us where they think there is an appropriation involved, then I suggest that there is just no case for this point of, uh, speaking further to the point [00:40:30] of order, Mr Wellington, to be brief in response to the member for Wellington Central and to be precise at about 5 p.m. tonight, I said I did not think it in order for me to traverse the manner in which, under a point of order, I believed an appropriation to be implied. And you will recall that Mr Chairman, I desisted from expanding I. I can now refer if the member for Wellington Central so wishes and and indeed has requested [00:41:00] to the Department of Health's head office, uh, statement of the 30th of April 1985 the Statutes Revision committee of this Parliament, uh, which is a document number 954 and which quite clearly refers in passing, at least in going back to, uh, speaker's ruling 1, 381 which states a private members bill [00:41:30] clauses of which may involve. And that's the key word may involve. Now, let me pick up the Department of Health's memorandum to this Parliament, it says, And I quote, a DS has followed an epidemic course in both the United States, regrettably, and Europe. Equally regrettably, since it was first reported in 1981 stop, there is every reason to think it will do the same in New Zealand. Now, Mr Mr Chairman, [00:42:00] it is obvious that the dealing with or a dealing with a matter of the type encompassed in the homosexual law reform bill must inevitably imply, or, in the words of Speaker, Statham in 1929 may involve an extra charge on the people. Now, I am prepared to table that document But as I said a minute ago, I didn't think it proper to refer to such a document in the course [00:42:30] of raising a point of order. Now, the member for Wellington Central says, I haven't used enough speaker's rulings. Well, let me go to 103 109 1, which, well, what did you say? Well, here is the Department of Health Memorandum number 954 dated the 30th of April 1985 which I am happy to, Table says. It says it all. No, no, she must sit down. She's had a fair go. She's had a fair go Well, and I'm told. I'm told, she mutters into that microphone [00:43:00] a bit. And any minister who once sat there knows about that microphone. Let me go to 1391. It is not competent, and I quote Speaker O'Rourke. Volume 32 of Hansard, Page 489 and I'm sorry. 486 and 497. It is not competent for a private member to propose. In effect, he says, additional taxation. Now that's what it's all about. Now how many more speakers rulings does she want [00:43:30] now? Mr Chairman. No, no, no. She's getting up again, which is a pity. Now, Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, you are in, I believe, and we've Was that the member for Hastings again? To Wellington. Thank you. I believe, sir, that you are in an invidious position. And I believe, sir, that when this bill first came in, parliament did not totally [00:44:00] appreciate all the ramifications of the measure, particularly the appropriation side. And as I said before the tea adjournment, there may be members in this house who are waiting, in balance or on balance, to make their minds up on the fiscal implications of it say, for the budget deficit and who have did not quite naturally hear those implications or, um, comments relevant [00:44:30] upon the introduction of the bill. Now, I'd say that because the Prime Minister didn't talk about it on the introduction of the deputy Prime minister. Didn't talk about it. The Minister of finance didn't talk about it. But a year later, we've heard a lot more. We've heard a lot more, and I think to be fair to the committee and in particular to you, the chairman, it would be sensible for the committee to say this is a bit bigger than we first thought and therefore, let us dissolve the [00:45:00] committee. Go back into Parliament proper under the speaker who cannot challenge or not override what you have determined in that sense. But who can assist Parliament in fully addressing the issue in a manner that it has not been able to thus far? I, I think that that well, we've had a succession of points of order which are on the [00:45:30] well, uh, I I should before, before members seek to take further cause on this I. I think that it should be made clear to them that we're really rehearsing arguments that it's not appropriate for me to rule on one. Can I return to the member the member for Taki's points? Uh, which seem to me to be important, have any power to rule on that question? A ruling on this matter from Mr Speaker? [00:46:00] That's the motion. And I take it that, uh, well, understanding order 289. Any any member may move that way, we will accept that ruling and, uh, seek, uh, the speaker's guidance in this matter. I'll put the motion, uh, those in favour say I to the contrary. No, the eyes have it. So yeah. Uh, Mr Speaker, [00:46:30] I've been asked to, um, draw your attention or to seek your ruling on a question that that has been raised in respect of the, um the question of whether or not the homosexual law reform bill involves an appropriation. Since I wasn't in a position to give a ruling on this myself. Um, and a motion has been moved. It's been agreed to by the committee that your ruling be sought on this question. Uh, yes, [00:47:00] Uh, they are, Mr Wellington. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this issue first arose earlier tonight prior to the tea adjournment when in the committee I requested. And there's been no challenging of, um, the member for Western Huts chairmanship of the committee. None whatsoever, as the journals of the House will testify. But, sir, as I said at about five o'clock, the difficulty [00:47:30] I believe the committee has got itself into is that following the debate discussion of the amendments and voting on there in and part one, it has become clear to the committee and therefore to the house as a whole that there may be may be revenue implications in this measure, which the committee and Parliament had not originally [00:48:00] contemplated. And Mr Speaker, that I believe was foreshadowed in Speaker Statham's ruling in 1929 Volume 2 to 1 on page 8 to 8 when he said a private member's bill. Clauses of which, and here is the operative word May, mate. I am not saying, sir, that it will or even shall, but as foreshadowed in one [00:48:30] of your predecessors rulings, a private member's bill clauses of which may involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rates or taxes payable into the public account. The consolidated Fund, as we would put it today, requires the recommendation of the crown and therefore or is therefore out of order. Now, Mr Speaker, when the bill was first introduced, none of us frankly, [00:49:00] I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I I I'm requiring straight, isn't it? I'm requiring advice, not sounds. I'm obliged to you. I'm obliged to you might I, um, given the, um, given the interval, ask how long a member has to speak on this particular issue. No, no, II. I want [00:49:30] to hear the member. Uh, sure, he has raised on a point of order and quite correctly, and I want to hear him to state this case. The only requirement that there is is that the matter should be put to Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. I was referring to Speaker Statham's ruling 1929. Volume 221, page 828 and he said for the member [00:50:00] would I'm sorry to interrupt the member, but the member is quite obviously referring as well as properly to the volume of the parliamentary reports. But he is also obviously referring to the volume of collected speaker's rulings, and I would be obliged if he draw my attention to the number of that speaker's ruling at The Times. I beg your pardon, Mr Speaker, it's Page 138 um, Speaker's Ruling four on the same page, [00:50:30] subtitled Private Members, Bills and Mr Speaker. It is bracketed sea, a private members bill, clauses of which may involve and this is this is the purpose of my raising it and I repeat, I have not stated that it will or shall. But as speaker Statham foreshadowed, uh, a long time ago now may involve an extra charge on the people in the way of rates, [00:51:00] which he obviously meant to be. Taxes payable into the public account, which we would say today is the consolidated fund requires the recommendation of the crown and is therefore out of order. If I may come back to that, sir, But in or for the moment, refer you to 1391, which says Second sentence. It is not competent for a private member to propose [00:51:30] additional taxation, which I believe, sir, and that's Speaker O'Rourke in 18 79 Volume 32 pages. 486 and 497. Well, I wouldn't, um I wouldn't, um, go into that too much. And there was a further ruling. Mr Speaker, Page 17 Speaker's ruling. 17. Yeah, one again. [00:52:00] Speaker Stat in 1935. Volume 242 page 473 A private member and I quote Bill, which would enlarge the scope of the state's liability by providing for the expenditure of public money, is an appropriation bill in simple terms, Mr Speaker, Given those three speakers rulings, I believe we have reached a point in the committee where we need to go back [00:52:30] and establish clearly, and perhaps the prime minister or the deputy prime minister or minister of finance can assist the committee or indeed, the house as a whole at this stage, to what extent shown the homosexual law reform bill be passed. To what extent there may be an impost on the people as foreshadowed in Speaker Statham's ruling. That's the question. Will this cost this hard pressed people more in tax or not? Order? [00:53:00] Or, I would remind the member of his obligation to express this matter tersely. Mr Speaker, I'm happy to do that and by way of evidence in the belief that there may be a burden on the people with your. By your leave, sir, may I refer the house to the Department of Health Paper Head office of the Department of Health Paper, signed by Doctor R, a. Barker, [00:53:30] director general of health. May I refer the House to his paper to the Statutes Revision Committee of Parliament on the 30th of April 19, assistance to the member here in advancing his case. The question that, as I understand it, is that up to date, the House and the committee has been working on the assumption that the speaker's ruling, which was given [00:54:00] on the introduction of this bill that it did not involve an appreciation, was a valid, uh, assessment. Now, my understanding of the situation is that that that remains the rule of this house until there has been an alteration in the bill in some way, which would alter the validity of that ruling. [00:54:30] Now, I would ask the member if he has evidence that would lead me to believe that that is so that he would produce that evidence. Firstly. Well, sir, Well, sir, well, I II I can in the sense that Speaker Statham foreshadowed it. And I choose my word. I choose my words with caution, for he said, mate. And I believe, sir, that he meant that injunction to act not as a break on [00:55:00] the committee or parliament, but to act as a caution, to act as a caution And, sir, no one. I'm sorry, but he seems to misunderstand what an actual fact is. The argument is the matter at issue before the house quite see the matter at issue before the house. And I presume before the committee is whether the bill has been altered or is being proposed to [00:55:30] be altered in such a way as to make the ruling given by the speaker in ballot because otherwise what the member or the committee is attempting to do is to overrule or speak a ruling that has been given by the chair. Now that, of course, is not acceptable, and so that I would ask the member to quite [00:56:00] quickly come to the point and explain to me in what way the House or the committee has embarked on a procedure which was not envisaged when the ruling was given that this bill did not involve an appropriation I'd ask him to quite specific draw the attention of the House to the proceedings that the committee are involved in which were not foreseen in that ruling. [00:56:30] Yes, I give way to the member and traverse something that was put to the chairman before you were recalled. There is another circumstance, as it was another circumstance. It was felt, uh, rather than an amendment to the bill, which is one possibility. As you have said, the other circumstance is evidence arising during the debate, which was not in front of you at the time you made the ruling, but [00:57:00] which nevertheless indicates that if the bill is passed in its present form, there will need to be an appropriation. And that is the evidence that the member has put before the committee. It was not in order for the committee to consider it because it was a speaker's ruling. And therefore, you have been asked to return to listen to this evidence and see whether it in fact, would [00:57:30] have altered your ruling had it been in front of you at the time that the bill was introduced. Right? Well, I would ask the member to arrive at that point clearly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Speaker. May may I therefore refer to the Department of Health's paper number 954, which is obviously an effective ministerial paper must go through the minister to be received by the appropriate committee of Parliament in this case, uh, the Statutes Revision [00:58:00] Committee. I said whilst no specific dollar and cents terms are added by way of addendum to this paper, it is clear to frankly, any member and if I may say so, anyone who has been a spending minister that the passage of this bill would although I repeat not emphatically state, it would mean a further appropriation by [00:58:30] the government of or by the people. And my evidence, sir, is in it is it is in fact an addendum to the substantive paper, which reads AIDS. It says many things, but it says in my view, this, uh, critical things AIDS has followed an epidemic. Now remember, this is the director general of health who is not given to using emotive words. He is not [00:59:00] in that mould. But he said, Oh, don't get restless. He, he States, has followed an epidemic course, not a course an epidemic order. I would remind the member again of the obligation to express his point of order tersely and well. So my submission is this that in the absence of a specific revenue spending pattern for the current financial [00:59:30] year and as was the customer in New Zealand government the two subsequent years. In the absence of that material, the Minister of Health, the minister of finance, who keeps a close eye on these sorts of things, and his colleagues should come back to Parliament or a committee of the House and fill out all the detail because this bill is passed as the Minister of Defence knows, as the Minister [01:00:00] of Education knows, as I believe the Prime Minister knows as the minister, uh, you you're history. I mean, you really are history, as the deputy prime Minister knows, does involve a very considerable extra expenditure, if only for advertising the changes in the law, if only if only for that. But in in addition to that, sir, to combat to combat the insidious effects of the law [01:00:30] should it be passed or the bill should it be passed Now, may I come to 1381 Speaker's rulings 1381. So that is quite clear that if there may be an extra charge on the people in respect of taxes. Mr. Speaker Mr. Speaker, if there shall be an extra charge that requires the recommendation of the crown, we have not had a crown point of view on this [01:01:00] matter. Uh, order, uh, as I take it, and I I'm trying to be assistant here. I take it from the, uh because the does seem to be unable to comply with standing orders, which is that a point of order must be expressed test and relevance and the opinion of what members, various members of the houses were obviously not within it. Now, if I may, uh, assist the member by saying [01:01:30] I understand his point of order is that because evidence has been presented to the committee and to the house that their er that AIDS is a reached epidemic proportions overseas and will reach epidemic proportions in New Zealand. Therefore, the passage of this bill will involve an appropriation, because I take it that that is his argument. Is it [01:02:00] Now? Right now, I have correctly. And if I may just finish it off. Sir, it is not the wish of the committee or indeed of the house to overrule your decision. Because, Sir, at the time the bill was introduced, Mr Speaker did not have that information or or I'm sorry, the member is not speaking relevantly to the point of order. The point of order. Uh, what? The wishes [01:02:30] of the committee may be irrelevant to the ruling that you're asking me to give Well, Mr Speaker, if I may just conclude and I appreciate your your tolerance and No, no, no, no. There are members who are muttering that, sir, I do. I am obliged to Not for my own sake, but for the sake of the issue. I am obliged to you. And I appreciate what you have said, sir, There is no determination. There was [01:03:00] none in the committee to overturn decision embarking on matters which are not well, you raised it Not relevant to the point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to the point of order, Um, the the member from Paak has in fact, presented as his so-called evidence the, um, [01:03:30] the Department of Health submission to the select committee on this bill. Submission number 954. He has quoted very selectively from us. And in fact, the house should know those of the house who have not read the, um, submission and you yourself, Mr Speaker, that the health Department, in its submission, actually did outline the AIDS um, education programme and um, prevention programme. They are establishing, and in fact, they have already established. [01:04:00] And there is nowhere in that submission which, in any way suggests that the costs of that campaign will increase should this bill be passed. In fact, quite to the contrary, the department said, and I'll quote from it that it is unlikely that the passing of this bill will negatively influence the effectiveness of the proposed AIDS campaign. It considers that there could be some positive benefits from the campaign, which would depend for their success to some extent on good communication and the effective and open dissemination [01:04:30] of information. In other words, it was the public environment which this bill would create, which was important not that it would require the expenditure of extra government money. The government already does have an AIDS programme in place. I would have raised this some time ago, but it seems to me that as a distinction from the your prior ruling that changed circumstances could occasion an increase appropriation over a period of time. And if one looks [01:05:00] at the chronological evidence in respect of this matter, I think a very strong case can be made out to begin with, sir, that, uh, since the bill was introduced, we have seen an appropriation of something like $3 million. In respect of this, uh, programme that's accepted, I would ask the member to come to the point I am at the moment, he has been totally irrelevant. Well, sir, I if I could come back and give you the legal distinction that I sought to draw to your attention from the word go. It is this that not only may [01:05:30] there be an emerging from the committee evidence suggesting an appropriation has to take place, either inside the house or outside, but changing circumstances can also provide that evidence which may lead you to change your your ruling. Now, sir, what I have said is simply that there has been an appropriation. So there is the first standard there is likely to be because of the increased incidence of AIDS, a further increased appropriation that is supported by overseas evidence [01:06:00] where the liberalisation of the law saw an epidemic or order, Order, order. The, uh, ma member is trying to, uh I have had both sides of that argument trying to introduce some sort of argument about the effects of this, uh, on the instance of AIDS as an argument of whether the bill is an appropriation. Now that is not really appropriate. I want him to produce [01:06:30] evidence of the question that's in front of me. And that is whether the situation is any different from what it was when the ruling was given that it did not involve an appropriation. Now that is the only issue that's in front of the House. The difference in the evidence that was available at that time as compared with what is available now, not what the evidence may be that is [01:07:00] irrelevant to the situation. It's the altered evidence explanation of what would distinguish the ruling now, as opposed to then. But I'm asking you, sir, to turn your mind if you can in a legal way to, uh, what you might regard as evidence in all the circumstances rather than the provision of evidence right now, which you will know. Well, sorry, but it's because the speaker's [01:07:30] ruling was given in the light of the circumstances that were known at the time to the speaker. And we're widely known I am, and I have been requested to make a ruling on the fact that there was certain evidence that was unavailable to the speaker at that time, which has since become available to the House, which would justify a reversal of that speaker's ruling. Now that is the question that's in front of the House. No other question not [01:08:00] that that evidence was anything else, but why that evidence is now available and was not available before. I'll give it to you in a nutshell, and the claim sir, has been provided. I will give you the evidence in a nutshell. And the evidence is provided by the member for Wellington Central, who is on public record as saying, When this bill is passed, the gays from overseas are going to come to New Zealand for a holiday to celebrate. [01:08:30] That's my evidence. That's my evidence, order, order and what more and what more decisive evidence Could you possibly need order? I withdraw and apologise. He could not produce any evidence that I have ever said that the member for Southern said that they [01:09:00] it. It's obvious that the matters which can be seriously raised in this point of order have already been raised. And the question in front of me, the question in front of me is, unless matters members have matters which are relevant to this very narrow points of why the evidence, not what the evidence is, but why the evidence was [01:09:30] not available to the speaker at the time. Original decision was made and to the people who advised the speaker. Yes, Yes. Speaking my speaker, I will be relevant and stick to the facts. The facts are these, sir, that when you ruled on this bill when it was first introduced, I believe and I believe the majority of members thought that your ruling was correct. It certainly was for part one, sir, because [01:10:00] there is no appropriation on decriminalisation. But the evidence which has come before this house, in fact, before the whole of New Zealand, is that there have been such an overwhelming, uh, anti this bill A the an overwhelming cry against it. This parliament, which you would not have known so when the bill was introduced, was subject to a petition the largest in this country's history of three quarters of a million. Mr. Speaker? Uh, yes. I would remind the member of the obligation [01:10:30] to speak to the point of order and turf. This bill, if it is passed, will affect the Human Rights Commission which is funded by the taxpayer, sir. It is paid for by the crown. There will be a whole stream of submissions to the Human Rights Commission. Even if there is only one and there will be thousands. That in itself will cause a huge increase in the expenditure and vote [01:11:00] for the Human Rights Commission and a petition of over three quarters of a million. So, in my view, proves that there will be an awful lot of extra work for the Human Rights Commission. They stopped Callum speaker. What I would suggest to you is that the member for Napier's contribution has in fact clarified the issues fairly well for the house in that, as [01:11:30] he said, there is no appropriation involved in part one of the bill, which is the only part which has been passed by the committee. It has been suggested to you on the basis of evidence which cannot be adduced, that there may be some involvement in an appropriation in Part two, and indeed the quest, the part one has been passed in the committee in the committee that is all and that is agreed. I think, by the House that that is all that has happened. [01:12:00] Part two has yet to be considered by the House, let alone voted on with any amendments. If there is anything which happens in the debate on the part two of the bill and the committee. I would deal with it. I would remind the member that he, along with the last two speakers, is not addressing the question that's in front of me. The changed circumstances. The speaker before him did not include the changed [01:12:30] circumstances. He and I do not intend to allow any further contribution unless I hear some argument which is directed towards the circumstances that I have to deal with. And up to date I've been not at all, Mr Speaker, I apologise. What I'm trying to say is that there are no changed circumstances since you made your ruling. Well, the only changed circumstances which could occur have yet to occur in the committee. And the point [01:13:00] which should then be raised should be raised after the committee stage, uh, be before the committee. You may then have new evidence and new matters to consider, depending on the nature of amendments passed in the committee. But at this point, there is no new evidence which would suggest you should change your ruling. Let's raise a further point again. I would remind the member because when I'm not the unjust member, but my experience up to date is that members are not addressing themselves to the point [01:13:30] of issue. Speaker. I remember it is the new evidence which was not available to the speaker at the time, and to reverse the nature of that evidence is out irrelevant. And the member will not do that. Thank you for your request. And I suggest to you the one change which has not been brought before you is that the evidence which the member for papakura [01:14:00] has made his claim upon is based upon a paper which was presented to the select committee subsequent to you making that ruling. And in doing so that that that fact has already been drawn to my attention. And unless the matter has some new evidence, I would ask him to resume his seat. I just make one more point. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that evidence having come forward, it should be studied by you and the clerk to see if it has applications. [01:14:30] Mr. Speaker, I want just to make one short point which might be of assistance in your dealing with the allegations that there have been some fresh evidence. All that has been suggested, sir, was neatly summarised by you in connection with the suggestion that there might be some increase in the spread of AIDS and some increase [01:15:00] in the health vote to deal with it. All I want to say, sir, is that is a highly debatable matter. There is some suggestion that it might equal suggestions that it might not, and it is a highly debatable matter. It isn't fresh evidence on which the chair should rule or deal with its previous ruling. It should adhere to that evidence I believe is specific and is different between that. [01:15:30] That was available at the third of March 85 and to what we have tonight and that is contained in a written answer to the minister of Health. And it's only 10 days old, sir. And as a question put to the minister of health, requesting the cost relating to, in fact, the AIDS epidemic as relates to issues in this last passage of time that I quoted in the figure, sir, and it's in my folder here. My desk is 9.9 [01:16:00] million, sir. That is a specific figure that I suggest to you is as a determinant. It answers the question as to the nature of the change of the status of this bill and sir, it must be considered by the chair as being directly related to the matter of the bill. Because 73% of homosexuality is related. Question was available to the speaker or advisors before this decision was [01:16:30] made. Come on, I, um sorry, the it that I did not say that all this evidence was available to speakers said to the speaker or his advisors [01:17:00] and one of those who are available to advising the speakers are the very people who have been quoted in this matter. Now their position, as I understand it, is that no one in this House is trying to overrule the original ruling given by the chair. There's been no suggestion that that should be done, but that what it has been suggested is that because of new evidence which was not available [01:17:30] to the speaker or his advisors at the time, it has become apparent that an appropriation is involved, which could not have been foreseen at that time. And my understanding of the situation is that, uh, it is alleged by those who are raising it, that the inevitable consequence of the passing. This legislation will cause an increased incidence of, uh, the disease of AIDS and [01:18:00] that because of that, uh, a further appropriation of public moneys will be involved. The those who are involved in the counter argument are saying to me that the evidence that has been presented from them from the same source is that not that it will unequivocally produce that effect but that, er it may produce that effect and that, but that it also may allow a more effective public [01:18:30] health campaign to be carried out. Now, uh, that and we then come to the question that's been raised as to whether the actual question of a public health campaign in involved because of this legislation is an appropriation. Now an appropriation has already been made for that, with presumably all the contingencies involved in that. Therefore, the incidence of [01:19:00] that appropriation does not fall more heavily because of the passage of this legislation. We come then to the question that was raised by the member for nature about the whether the in expected increased incidence of the work of the Human Rights Commission, in actual fact, involves an appropriation now there would have to be evidence and proved to me that [01:19:30] the actual passage of this legislation involved not just the more active engagement of those employed by the Human Rights Commission in their work, which might be one result of this, but that in actual fact, further staff would have to be employed to deal with the matter. Now there has been no evidence brought to me. [01:20:00] There has been no evidence brought to me that in actual fact, that would be the result, and so that under the circumstances that because the evidence has been brought forward, the House is equivocal. And for the House for the chair to make a decision against the advice that he has been given up to date and that advice [01:20:30] is quite extensive, would be to enter into the argument because it would be to make a decision which favoured one side. Contrary to the advice that had been given to the chair and for that reason, I do not intend to alter the original decision that was given by the chair that this bill did not involve an appropriation, [01:21:00] a further point of order to the extent that, uh, the current legal situation is this that a person who wishes to allege discrimination on the grounds of homosexual preference may not, I believe, bring a case to the human rights commissioner. I wonder it would be of great help to me if the member who, after all is legally qualified, would draw my attention to the particular standing order, which [01:21:30] he is raising this point of order on. Because his words up to date do not indicate to me that there is any standing order or speaker's ruling to which I should draw my attention. Mr. Speaker, it's, uh, the the most recent order standing order, which I'm raising or Speaker's ruling, which I'm raising is the one you've just given. No, sir, No, sir. I can I can substantiate on the ground of the ruling. You you just gave a ruling and you said that the Human Rights Commission part of this bill will not be not not [01:22:00] be occasion extra appropriation by its passage, I will prove categorical that it will be or order that there is. What I have given is not a ruling about the what the activities will be in the Human Rights Commission, not at all. What? I have given us a ruling that this bill does not involve an appropriation. And that and I have given a ruling that my to form a particular judgement one way or another. And the evidence that's been presented to me would be [01:22:30] to fly in the face of the advice that has been given to me by dispassionate people and to take part in one side or other. The argument here. Now, if the member is raising as his point of order the most recent ruling that has been given from this chair for the purpose of questioning it, I would remind him that that is a most disorderly procedure. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm relying, Mr Speaker. I'm relying entirely on the words [01:23:00] of your ruling to justify this point of order. Uh, so the member So what is the? I would again ask the member to draw my attention to the standing order, which the house appears to him to be in breach of. No, sir, I'm relying on this point of order on the basis of a speaker's ruling. That was your ruling. Just given. And, uh, do you intend to bring that ruling into question? No, sir. No. Uh, what is your purpose? Well, this [01:23:30] is the point, sir. Your, uh, had the clear, uh, explanation to the house that if it could be proven evidentially that the passage of this bill would require greater appropriation. I'm sorry. The member is without a question of doubt. And every member of this house must be aware, is bringing the my ruling into question. Well, have you been voiced by your own? [01:24:00] It is your problem. Order the member there. There is a machinery available to question my ruling, but that is not to be done by the procedure. The member wishes to raise that. I have given my ruling. And that is final. A point of order. The right honourable for Robert, for the benefit of the house and later the committee. Can I take it [01:24:30] that as a result of your ruling, if some member is now able to produce concrete evidence of the matters that have been alleged, which is acceptable to your advisor, then you are prepared to, at a later stage of the bill again rule on this matter. That is a reference to a Mr Speaker Statum ruling involving an appropriation, in other words, that we carry on with the the [01:25:00] committee. But if those members who claim to have solid evidence that has not yet been put in front of you and your advisors that you would at a later stage of the bill, if necessary, reconsider the matter Yes, This is a matter that can always be raised until the final of the third reading of the matter. It can be made that subsequent to a ruling of circumstances has now changed. But because [01:25:30] of the decision of the committee, uh, that, uh, circumstances changed. But I would remind the member that the, uh, type of evidence that would be needed to overall the speaker's ruling is not one that is based on opinion that it would have to have facts to substantiate it. Uh, yes, but not opinion. Point of order. A fresh and entirely different point of order. No, it's not [01:26:00] entirely different, sir. No, no, no, no. Well, they giggle, but sir, it it. I believe in this matter. We are very much paving a way for subsequent legislation of this. Also, it would be of great help to me if you would draw my attention to the standing order or the speaker's ruling, which you want to discuss. And it may not [01:26:30] be the ruling, which is just immediately given by the speaker. Well, sir I, I shall do so as briefly as I am able and in so doing, refer once more to speakers ruling 13, 84 now. So I believe the difficulty we have is foretold by Speaker Statham, who said it's not a matter, sir, of producing hard evidence at [01:27:00] a particular point, which was the difficulty for the house when the bill was introduced. And so there were only 13 speakers out of 95 when the bill was introduced and one can work the percentage out. And and I believe there was not sufficient evidence for the Order. Order, order. I am being forced to the opinion that the member is intending that I should reverse my ruling. Uh, well, when I would ask him [01:27:30] to tell me at this stage because he's had sufficient time to switch it Firstly, what remedy he wishes to achieve. Mr. Speaker, I Yes, thank you. I believe, sir, in respect of your ruling on the ninth of April 1986. That that, sir, of necessity now has to be? Yes. Uh, that I'm asking him what remedy he seeks. Yeah, Well, Mr Speaker, simply [01:28:00] this. No, no, no, no, no. There they go. You see? There they go. They would spend the taxpayers' money, like pouring water out of the tap. And that's the point of issue tonight. Well, I interjected, sir, Uh, my, my, my. The remedy I seek, sir, is an assurance that the matters raised in Speaker's rulings 13841391 and sir in 17 1 are not [01:28:30] yet concluded. And that the matters serve for the moment. And I'm obliged to you for your indulgence over the past hour that the matters encompassed in those speakers. Rulings are left in advance and are not finally determined. No, no. The matters in, uh 138421391. our final decision turns this because if you look at the context and they are all to do with taxation [01:29:00] bills, private members, bills, yeah, our private bills affecting tax taxation of one form or another and so that they are not relevant, I would advise the member to look at the context of those rulings. Uh, I'm I. I have already taken the trouble to make myself familiar with the situation. [01:29:30] I have already taken the trouble to do so, uh, but, uh, that is I declare the house in committee point Point of order. Mr. Peters, just, uh, uh, seeking your clarification on the standard of evidence. And so it's not in any way challenging any ruling you've made. I would like to know now, given the, uh, expressed use of the word implied that is implied an implied appropriation. [01:30:00] What is the standard of evidence that you would regard as being sufficient in respect of the ruling? I'm sorry. It will depend on the circumstances. But the speaker does not make decisions such as this on without guidance from the appropriate authorities, so that I am not in a position to say now. What if the evidence that's brought forward me by appropriate authorities may be that the speaker [01:30:30] on this matter is always guided? Yes, that I declare the House in committee on the homosexual law reform bill. Oh, the homosexual law reform bill, Fran Wilde has two minutes before I was replying [01:31:00] to the member for in McGill, who appeared to be under the misapprehension that the passage of Part two of the bill would somehow stop him or any other person in New Zealand from expressing their views about homosexuality and for his benefit. I'd like to run through the provisions in the schedule of Part two to explain to him that none of them whatsoever have anything to do with speaking or preaching [01:31:30] from pulpits or having meetings or public applications for professions, trades or callings, vocational training bodies, access to public places, provision of goods and services, land housing and accommodation, educational establishments, discrimination by subterfuge and charitable instruments. Mr. Chairman, I cannot find in any of those places, and I've looked through the Human Rights Commission Act, any reference at all to what people say. [01:32:00] And I have a feeling that the member for Cargill has either got deliberately or inadvertently confused with the Race Relations Act, which is in fact a piece of legislation which deals with what people may or may not say. Unlike the Human Rights Commission Act, which only deals with actions and the provision, as I've said of things such as goods and services. The problem is, of course, that the argument put by the member for Invercargill has been one which has widely been around [01:32:30] the community, not only by some members of Parliament, but by other groups of people who purport to be telling the truth. And in fact, in this case, they are wrong. Because that is not what the bill says. And I would suggest that they should read the bill because they might learn from it what we are actually trying to do with Mr Chairman. I raise a point of order, a point of order, Mr Lee. Mr. Chairman, I [01:33:00] seek your clarification on two points, and I think they are appropriate that they be raised at this point of time. Firstly, sir, uh, in the light of the fact that at the beginning of this debate tonight, I unsuccessfully moved that the debate be carried through on a clause by clause basis as opposed to the whole or the part. And sir, in the context of that, [01:33:30] though that has been inhibiting to the discussion in the debate of the House. Would you confirm whether that now means that under standing order 286. The speaking time is limited to 45 minute periods to each member of the house. And can I ask your ruling on that at that stage? You? No, sir. That's correct. Secondly, sir, I draw to your attention to the fact that we have a interesting procedure difficultly tonight. So in the second part, [01:34:00] again dealing with the Human Rights Commission, there is two clauses and there is nine amendments now. So those nine amendments cover important issues such as accommodation, armed services, traffic officers, penal institutions, education, youth organisations and, in fact, religious bodies. Now, sir, the point is this that in those amendments they are applicable only to cause eight and nine. If those [01:34:30] two courses are passed now, procedurally, Sir, I put to you there is a difficulty facing the chair that should cause eight and nine. And the motion before the house Now, is that the part two as the member stand part? If that is, in fact lost, the amendments then will in fact be null and void. Now I just put to you there's a technical difference of facing the chair and I want to ask you if you'd care to comment on that matter. [01:35:00] Uh, speaking to the doctor is saying correctly, it is if the vote on the main issue that is part two as amended or if not amended, depending what it is by the time we get there is not passed, then the amendments. If they are passed before they get there, well, that's because part two won't be passed. And that is absolutely correct. In other words, sir, there will be no amendments to the Human Rights Commission Act if part two is not passed in the main vote. [01:35:30] And I had understood that was the intention then for in terms of his approach to part two, Mr James I I in the first five minutes, I was saying and the member for Wellington Central disagrees. What I'm saying is that the labour, if this bill is passed what this bill does part two of this bill does is to amend the Human Rights Act of 1977. [01:36:00] I know that the member for Wellington Central knows that under under existing under existing Human Rights Act, it is unlawful to discriminate for employment reasons and a variety of other reasons against people because of race colour religion or sex that's already there. But there are exceptions. For example, even under the existing Human Rights Act, I cannot get a job as a warden in a girls boarding school, and there'll be a very good reason for that, [01:36:30] too. Yeah, well, at least I'd be chasing girls. I wouldn't be chasing boys, that's for sure. That's right. Yeah, and so and no. And also I couldn't expect to get a job as a leader for a girl guide that under this act, if it's not amended this act, you are going to have to accept. You are going to have to accept leaders in girl guides. But leaders in orphanages, wardens and orphanages who are known homosexuals, [01:37:00] and unless it's amended at the moment, the sexual orientation is quite clear. It's there. It says. Sexual orientation in relation to any person, whether male or female, means heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual affection or preference of that person, and includes any characteristic, and their provision to this act is to enable those people not to be discriminated against. Now, as I'm saying, if 98% of normal New Zealanders [01:37:30] who aren't bisexual, 97% because according to the Highland Poll, 2% of New Zealanders are are are homosexual and 1% is bisexual. So let's take 97% of people in New Zealand are having their rights violated because they have to accept these people in into their homes. If you've got a a house mate or a point of order, Mr Wellington, point of order under standing order 410 hm Which [01:38:00] relates to press representatives infringing standing orders. I'm referring to Mr Harman, who has My gosh. He left smartly, was frankly imitating the member for Invercargill whilst the latter was making his speech. I found that offensive. It may well be that Mr Harman of TV NZ has a point of view on the matter may well be it is not his place under standing [01:38:30] order 410, to use his position in the press gallery to indicate which point of view he shares one way or the other. And may I may I read the standing order. Any organisation whose representative infringes the standing orders of the house may be excluded from representation in the press gallery for such time as the house directs. Now, now, Mr Chairman, they they? I appreciate you can't see it. You'd have [01:39:00] to look behind you. Come down. You have to look. But my gosh, at th feet 37 you can see a lot. My gosh. And you can in 38. 38. My gosh, you can. And Mr Harman of PV NZ has indicated to the rest of the public gallery and this house what he believes in. And I assume what his employers believe in. Now, sir, might I ask you No, no, no, no. His employer is in the first instance. Of course, the Minister [01:39:30] of Broadcasting, who is a member of the government. And of course, we have the government Junior whip introducing this bill so one could go on. Mr. Chairman, Recourse! Has this house standing order 41? Oh, in respect of the media representatives, um, who inhabit the place? Mr. Peters, Chairman, uh, much as I don't want to go against [01:40:00] my colleague from I have to confess and admit that, uh, I made a face myself at the, uh, honourable member from, uh, the member of the press gallery. And I think that there may be some uncertainty in this that he was making a face back. To be fair to him, Mr Harman may not have had a good week for the last couple of weeks. Uh, and I'd hate to see him [01:40:30] be malign, uh, maybe unfairly. And if it's a guilty party, it may well be myself. And I would ask you to take that consideration to the right Jeffrey Palmer. The contribution that has been made by the member for Taronga to this seems to be a graceful, a graceful sort of way of suggesting that the member for the of the press gallery against whom this point of order was directed was, in fact, that that [01:41:00] member of the press gallery may not have been guilty of the offence, Uh, with which the member for Papakura was charging him. Now, er no utterance was heard from the press gallery on the matter. And as I understand the member for papakura, what he was suggesting was that certain gesticulations were made or certain or certain gestures which, uh which somehow indicated to the member for papakura that er that that particular person may not have agreed with what was being said, but I think [01:41:30] it's well known in this house that members of the press gallery sit there. They frequently smile. And when a member of the house, as the member for Tarana has done, uh, perhaps makes a gesture, uh, in a friendly way, uh, to a member of the press gallery that he might get some response from that. Now, if that is, if if that is the well, the member for Tauranga tells us that it was that he was being friendly and one can assume that it was reciprocated. But in that instance, it seems [01:42:00] to me, Mr Speaker, that really there isn't a point of order and that really the matter should be taken no further and that we should proceed. I think that yes, I think that that's the situation that we have. And I'm at a disadvantage because I can't actually without sitting around and and not paying attention. Uh, keep an eye on what's going on. But I thank the member for Tauranga for actually, I think, providing an explanation for which we would otherwise have had to search elsewhere. [01:42:30] Mr. James was speaking. He has three minutes, three minutes. So, Chairman, Under the bill's definition of sexual orientation since homosexual orientation is to become lawful is to become lawful and can't be discriminated against. Then so must the man boy homosexuality relationship become lawful? [01:43:00] Uh, what consent that is. And that was already voted for that sodomy at 16 years of age for consenting adults and 12 years of age by consent that's already been made legal. Uh, so So also, if we are going to have this homosexual sexual orientation, uh, no longer to be discriminated against and I'm not going to be able to employ, uh, if I find I've got somebody coming into my law practise and I've given him or her a job and find that they're [01:43:30] either a lesbian or a homosexual, I cannot sack them without discriminating under the human rights. Or if I've got somebody in my household as a domestic servant or a nanny to my Children and find that they have got this newly newly legalised sexual orientation, which can mean anything, it can mean a man boy relationship. It can mean a a woman girl relationship, and it can mean all those sorts of things as long as they've got it and they're gonna have it. Alright, [01:44:00] there's no question about it. We'll become the mecca for all those already got it. All the old all the old homosexual perverts will be coming here flying in the Concord, and a lot of them can afford it, too, into the new into the new country where we've got 12 year old boys and 60 year olds who are now doing it legally and lawfully. And if I discriminate against them in occupation or profession or anything like that, then I, as one of the 98 normal New Zealanders heterosexual [01:44:30] New Zealanders are having my rights violated because if you legalise homosexual or sexual orientation, which in essence is homosexuality. If it's legalised by this parliament, then surely people will say, Well, if it's legally right, it's got to be morally right. Most of us, the attorney general general, that doyen of constitutional purity there who's who's voting for this [01:45:00] bill voted for the 60 year old I want to ask him, Does not every New Zealander who accepts the legal interpretation of this parliament in its administration, the laws as being legally to be obeyed now say OK, if homosexuality is not to be discriminated against, it must be morally right not to discriminate against it and morally wrong to discriminate against it. And I'm one of the 98 New Zealand of New Zealand who will be discriminated and get my rights violated [01:45:30] to pander to 22% of perfects, Quite frankly, in the community, Mr. Chairman, I rise to speak to part two of this bill and to oppose it. I oppose it very strongly. In part one, the bill told people what they could do. In Part two. The bill tries to tell people how they should think and react. I find it totally repugnant, Mr Chairman, to find that we are trying to [01:46:00] sanitise an act of gross indecency. It has been an act of gross indecency for many people for many, many years now. We are told by part two of the bill that you must not discriminate against these people. I will tell this house that if people who have lodgers or people staying in their property, they are no longer allowed to say, Look, I don't want you now as a tenant because I think your ways are disgusting. That is now they and themselves are going to find [01:46:30] that they are acting unlawful, I tell you now, decent New Zealanders will not accept it. They will not accept it in spite of the mutterings for the member for Sydenham. I also want to tell you that Mr Speaker, that it would be outrageous if if I would find it outrageous if this is allowed in the Oh, don't worry about it. A twin right Christchurch somewhere Anderton is his name. So I been for Christchurch [01:47:00] Central. Is it Sydney? Sydney is interjecting on his colleague, the member for Napier within 3 ft. I can hear him from here. Would the member for Sydney mind leaving the chamber? We know his views on homosexuality. Leave them outside and allow the member for Napier to finish what he's saying. I hadn't. I was aware the member for Sydney was interjecting. I hadn't been aware that the member for Napier found it. If he doesn't, [01:47:30] uh II, I assure the member for the chair will take action appropriate to protect him if he requires it. I hope you had my time, Mr Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it would be a tragedy for this country if this bill is introduced and I believe the introduction the in the the proposal of the bill, said that it would be unlawful to discriminate in our schools that, to my point, is one of the most dangerous things that this house could do. I'll tell you now that if [01:48:00] we allow school teachers to practise homosexuality with their pupils, there will be an outrage in this country and an outro that will drown even the noise of my colleagues at the back, because it will be lawful for people of young boys of 16 if they are willing in schools, especially boarding schools, to practise homosexual acts with members of the staff, I find that utterly repugnant. And to that end, Mr Chairman, I have introduced a [01:48:30] an OP which stands in my name, and I would like to formally introduce because I think that heaven's above. If we're crazy enough to pass this stupid bill, let us at least keep it out of our schools. And don't let the sodomy and perverted acts go on in. The educational institutes of this country also introduce the sop in my name regarding the armed forces, police, traffic officers and officers of a penal institution. I have spoken to all four groups of those disciplined bodies who are [01:49:00] responsible for law and order and defence of this country. I can tell you now that the vast majority that I have spoken to view it with utter repugnance that they should have to accept practising homosexuals, boasting if if they wish that they do that sort of thing within their mist, it would cause more trouble than this country or this house could ever imagine. Believe you, me In penal institutions, for instance, a homosexual warden or a homosexual penal officer could use [01:49:30] the influence which they can bring to bear on inmates in order to procure them for acts of sodomy. It could happen. And I have spoken to prison officers in my own electorate who are utterly appalled at the thought that they could have working with them prison officers. It has happened before, but it was then illegal. It will become under this bill, quite legal for a prison officer and an inmate. If you wish to practise sodomy in one of Her Majesty's prisons, [01:50:00] for heaven's sake, let us at least if you must pass this repugnant bill, keep it out of our prisons, our schools out of our police, our traffic officers and our armed forces. Mr. Chairman, this bill has raised probably more heat than light. I wish to God it had never, ever been introduced. It has divided New Zealand like no other bill in this century has done. It has divided cities. It has divided political [01:50:30] parties. It has divided families. It has even divided churches. It is a bad bill. And I urge you that if we've still got a long way to go, But at least let's mend a few fences. I consider part two of the bill to be the most repugnant part of the bill because it tells people how they should think. And I find that absolutely unforgivable. Uh, Mr Banks, [01:51:00] Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for for that, uh, contribution, Mr Speaker. It's interesting, isn't it, that the minister of education has just arrived in the house? The member for Wanganui, the member who supported the legalisation of the act of sodomy for 16 year old boys? Or, if you wish, adult schoolteachers and 16 year old boys in schools up and [01:51:30] down this country. He voted in the eyes lobby for the age of consent to be 16. In other words, he condones homosexuality between 16 year old school boys and 16 year old boys and their school teachers with consent. Of course, Mr Chairman, with consent. And I remind those listening and those in the gallery that this Parliament, in its wisdom so called wisdom, has legalised [01:52:00] the act of sodomy for 16 year old boys and over and over. And opponents of that on this side of the house voted against 20 voted against, 18 voted against 16, And next year we will vote against and the following year, 40 and any other time that this matter is a raised again in this house. It costs $2600 a minute to run this house. And four weeks this parliament has [01:52:30] been dealing with what age can young boys sodomise each other? And in the case of the minister of education, what age can school teachers legally sodomise young pupils? That's what we've decided. And part two and part two of this bill now legitimises the act of sodomy, the perverted business of sodomy. Legitimises we've legalised it and now [01:53:00] we're going to legitimise it, and I want to know from the minister of Education, the member for Wanganui. If he's going to support this part of the bill, that will mean that schools up and down the country can and must hire on me other American practising homosexuals in that school. They'll have to hire practising homosexual school teachers who turn up for a job to look after young boys [01:53:30] in boarding dormitories. That's what they'll have to do. They will not be able to discriminate them because of their so-called sexual orientation. And we know how promiscuous many or most of these homosexuals can be. And we know how important it is at the tender age of 16 that young boys are protected and this parliament should have been protecting those young New Zealanders from this kind of filth. But no, [01:54:00] no. The vast majority of Labour Party members voted for the age of consent to be 16 for the act of sodomy, and now we have just about on the statute books, and all it needs is the third reading. But tonight we're discussing the legitimization of homosexuality in our society and, as the member for nature rightly points out, the very, very worst part of this bill. Socially [01:54:30] evil damaging and a threat to democracy by the family unit that stands to be crippled by this thin edge of the wedge. That Parliament is working its way through at the expense of people out there in serious economic difficulty is what Parliament should be dealing with not at why can you sodomise the fellow next door or the school teacher with the pupil as it would be for the minister of education, [01:55:00] who supported the legalisation of the act of homosexual for 16 year old boy? That minister of education has a lot to answer for, and his conscience is pricking. He's three shades of red, and I invite him to get up and stand up next and tell this house. Does he want to legitimise the act of homosexuality in schools by not allowing school boards of governors not to [01:55:30] hire, practising and in some cases, highly promiscuous homosexual in schools? He's got a lot to answer for. If he wants homosexuality in our society practised openly and in our schools, he should not be the minister of education. At least his colleague, the minister of defence, had the decency to come in this house and exclude the armed forces. But no, not the minister of Education, nor the [01:56:00] Mr Chairman. I would like to draw members' attention back to the the principles that we're faced with with respect to part two and the key aspect and most of the members who have spoken so far haven't gathered. This point is that this part two deals with sexual orientation and not with sexual behaviour. There is nothing whatsoever in the proposed part two of the bill which would prevent educational institutions, [01:56:30] the armed forces or any other body prescribing rules about inappropriate sexual behaviour among adults in the care of others or in those institutions, it is quite clear, and most schools, of course well, in fact, all schools have got very clear rules now about teachers engaging in sexual activities with their pupils about heterosexual teachers doing that, that is quite clearly laid down, and it would [01:57:00] continue whether or not Part two is carried. I have found in my mail and in public opinion surveys that there is in fact, more support for part two of this bill among the public than for part one, because the people who who do have a concern many of them about the behaviour that they are concerned about. And certain types of that behaviour do have a care about people who by reason of for whatever reason, have the sexual [01:57:30] orientation are cared about and are concerned in this community. And they recognise that there will continue to be bans against inappropriate behaviour in the institutions concerned. And for that reason, and I look through the various amendments which have been suggested, I find that there are very few that I can support because they don't deal with this question of being concerned about the orientation rather than [01:58:00] the than the behaviour. And I think that in fact, looking through all of these, uh, and Mr Bray will be surprised. But his amendment to number 11 is the only one I can support because that is dealing with the question of activity and making it quite clear that in fact, what this bill will do will not in fact, uh, prevent school boards having rules against inappropriate and oppressive behaviour in a sexual way. And I'm quite happy for that to be explicitly stated [01:58:30] it's not doesn't need to be, but to clarify the doubt, I'm quite happy for that. But in terms of the rest of them, they, as most of the speakers have done, have failed to make that distinction. And I think as caring people, we should be concerned that this is a group which has been oppressed and discriminated against on the basis of an orientation, and and that that over which that they have not chosen and which has been developed, and that we should have a concern about that. And I in [01:59:00] fact support the fact that we should be able to recognise that there are some homosexual teachers and there are some homosexual generals and there have been many, many very famous and effective ones in the past. And for people who do end up having a homosexual orientation, to be able to look up to and to say, there have been some great people in who've helped to build human civilization who share my orientation. And for that reason I'm very keen that we should in the law, say that that continuing discrimination and oppression of people [01:59:30] because of an orientation over which they have no control should seek, and that is something which I have found. The vast majority of the people who have contacted me share that concern. As I said, even some of them who are reluctant about the age of consent share a concern for homosexuals that they should not continue, continue to be oppressed. The people here are proposing the continued oppression of celibate homosexuals, of which, of course, there are many because they wish them to [02:00:00] continue to be allowed to be oppressed, picked on and discriminated against purely because of their orientation. I'm pleased, strongly pleased to support Part two because it does nothing to harm the legitimate interests of people who are concerned about the behaviour of people in authority over them that continues to be protected. But they do recognise the right of all people, regardless of their orientation, to have a decent chance of getting a good job, appropriate [02:00:30] accommodation and a good start in life and decent respect in this community. And part two of that bill will assist this to happen. The Honourable Sullivan, Mr Chairman, I rise to move an amendment to Clause nine of part two of this homosexual law reform bill. As the bill stands, it makes an offence to discriminate against a particular person [02:01:00] on the grounds that that person is a homosexual or a bisexual. In other words, this bill makes it an offence to discriminate on the grounds of one's sexual orientation. With respect to what has just been said by the previous speaker, I want to quote the German sociologist and homosexual Duer, who bluntly declared that. And I quote, the fateful homosexual friendship is a myth. The [02:01:30] myth may have its utility in a custom society to the phenomenon of homosexuality. The lofty, durable friendship sells easier. But by now we should accept the phenomenon in all its full reality and have the masses accepted also. And this reality is that we are after many partners by force of our orientation. I return to [02:02:00] my amendments, which I'm foreshadowing in these comments Now. My amendment claims that in certain clearly defined circumstances where certain types of homosexual male job applicants apply, that they should not be appointed, particularly where they would be in a position of authority over [02:02:30] boys. If this bill is finally passed, then that would apply specifically to those under 16 years of age. My amendment also suggests that it would not be unreasonable for a person offering accommodation to deny that accommodation in certain circumstances, to a certain type of homosexual. That certain type of homosexual [02:03:00] I refer to is the predatory and promiscuous Sodom and the sadomasochistic homosexual who brings brutality and cruelty to his particular type of homosexual behaviour. I refer. I remind the house of a reference I made earlier that in San Francisco, the coroner's office is reported to have organised a workshop for sado masochistic homosexuals [02:03:30] on how to have their preferred variety of sex without injuring one another. The reason apparently offered was that 10% of the homicides of the murders in San Francisco are the result of sado masochistic homosexual practises. That course, incidentally, was paid for by the San Francisco taxpayers. Now there are many levels of homosexual behaviour resulting in deriving from the orientation. [02:04:00] And I am referring in particular to the right of New Zealanders to discriminate against this type of homosexual. And that is exactly the type I am referring to, as well as the predatory and promiscuous Sodom. New Zealand parents who do not wish to see their young sons at the mercy of such a homosexual male should not be charged as having committed an offence against the law [02:04:30] for seeking to apply such discrimination in protection of their sons. New Zealand parents with a spare room in their home should not be charged as offenders under this law, assuming it goes through if they refuse that spare room to a person whom they understand is a predatory Sodom when the aim of such discrimination is to protect their Children. The point of my amendments [02:05:00] is to give New Zealand parents this right. If this part of the bill gains the support of the majority of members in this house, as did the first eight clauses of part one, then such New Zealand parents will commit an offence by discriminating against a predatory Sodom or a sadomasochistic homosexual. By claiming as this bill does, that no homosexual may be discriminated [02:05:30] against, such decisions by reasonable parents will make them offenders under this act. As it stands as this bill and my amendment seeks to Mr Chairman, my amendment seeks to protect thank you. My amendment seeks to protect them by giving them the right to apply discrimination in such specific circumstances. Otherwise, this bill would make [02:06:00] them offenders against the law if passed unamended. This bill would make protective and caring New Zealand parents offenders against the law. Now that is unacceptable and untenable, and this house must therefore oppose this part. But if it is of a mind to pass it as it did part one, then at least it must support my amendment. [02:06:30] The second reading of part of this part means that any 16 year old of whom it may be said he was a consenting partner. I beg your pardon? I refer to the first part of this bill may legally indulge indulge in homosexual sex. My amendment is aimed to stop such an extraordinary set of circumstances which would effectively take away the right of parents to protect their [02:07:00] sons from a predatory sodomy being in a position of authority over their son. My amendment also gives a householder the right to prevent a predatory Sodom from being accepted as a border in their home in a household with young sons. Mr. Chairman, when homosexual behaviour, even though it is conducted in private, offends other [02:07:30] occupants of the same building, then it becomes a public affair. And in such circumstances, for this house to deny the right of those immediately involved finding such behaviour repugnant to deny them the right to discriminate against those of the orientation which produces that behaviour is to remove justice and to the measure [02:08:00] is out of all balance with the concept of human rights. It grants human rights to a minority. And if I am to take the Hale poll only 2% of the country and thereby removes the right of the parents who comprise part of the majority population from discriminating in their desire in their duty in their responsibility to protect [02:08:30] their sons, their Children. Uh, Mr Chairman, this is really untenable. And I appeal to this house to see the inordinate occurrences that would be discriminated against. I mean, the behaviour of parents if the bill goes through as it is in my own surveys of the of opinion on this as I move around the country, which I do a great deal, particularly on weekends [02:09:00] uh uh, I have learned that Part two of this bill is the most unacceptable, and I bring that information for what it is worth to the house. In view of what the previous speaker has said, this house is entitled to note that I have advocated against unwarranted discrimination against an ethnic minority. Yet here I am arguing for discrimination against active homosexuals. In fact, [02:09:30] my objection and I underscore it again is to predatory, promiscuous Sodom. They are male, Mr Chairman, they are homosexual. And I believe I can cogently make the point to validate my amendments so that they do not appear inconsistent with my earlier earlier stands on issues for the people I represent. In fact, I conclude this part of my foreshadowing of my amendment with [02:10:00] a real case on my books relating to a constituent of mine, uh, a constituent in the city. Some of her household hold are on my role, and some are not. They're on the role of the member for Wellington Central. This woman, who is a lone parent with several sons, takes in borders to help bring in an income to help her raise her family. If one of her sons has been brutally [02:10:30] sodomised and is in such a trauma that his only desire is to kill that person who sodomised him, who was a person who held authority over him, she will not be permitted, Mr Chairman to discriminate in future if in advertising and seeking a border. And she is an impeccable mother and housewife seeking to give her best to her Children. She will be, uh it will be an unlawful act [02:11:00] of hers and an offence if in the future, understanding her experience, she discriminates against an applicant to take up that spare room because he is a homosexual now, it would be a totally reasonable thing for that mother to discriminate. However, if this part of the bill goes through in view of her experience with her son and his trauma and it is a problem that will continue through much of his life, I believe, then she will [02:11:30] be made an offender. If this bill goes through, I bring that current case on my case load, and it doesn't rest alone in many cases. And I bring it to this house as an example. And I would say that that mothers within the precincts of this parliament tonight, for she has given her permission for me to refer to the specific case. Why should she become an offender under this part of the bill? If in future, she refuses [02:12:00] the spare room as accommodation to an applicant who is known to her as a homosexual. I believe that the member for Southern Maori has put her finger on the fatal flaw in this part of this bill, because what this part would do if it became law was [02:12:30] would be to make it a form of offence to take the kind of precaution that someone in the circumstances that she just referred to, would in surely all conscience be entitled to take. And that's the fatal flaw in this and it applies in other areas. I am much more opposed to this part of [02:13:00] the bill than I was to part one, and for that kind of reason, and this goes over into other areas, it is not the question of an act of violation which will remain an offence, whether it'd be homosexual or heterosexual. But it is [02:13:30] the act of the aggressive homosexual who may initially be attempting a homosexual seduction. But in the case stated the parents, the family will have the fear even that it might succeed, [02:14:00] but certainly that in the event of resistance, it may go further and become an offence. But it is an offence if this bill is passed that they should discriminate in order to prevent the possibility and the same problem goes over into other fields. It's been brought to my notice, and I've been asked to raise it in the House. And I do that in the Boy [02:14:30] Scout movement and with Cubs. Inquiries are invariably made of males who are proposed as leaders as to their background in this area And certain, of course, they're volunteers. Uh, the the member interjects, If he wants to answer this, he should get to his feet and answer [02:15:00] it because it is a very important matter, a very important matter. But it would, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, be an offence to make these inquiries and act on them. And I understand that the Boy Scouts movement gets official cooperation from the police in making these inquiries. Now, um, if the bill is going to permit [02:15:30] that and there is no question of discrimination, please tell me because as I read it, it does not as I as I read it, it does not Now I move then to the question, as another member has raised it of the boys school and the boys school where there are boarding facilities. Is the bill going to permit known [02:16:00] homosexuals to be live in house masters in boys schools? And is it going to be an offence to say no? We discover that you are a homosexual and we can't keep you. You'll have to go now. These are very real questions that I think the committee has to concern itself with. Sure, they are impediments to the person who has this affliction, [02:16:30] but which is the greater right that's being infringed, the homosexual or the boys under his jurisdiction? Not that he may commit an offence after this bill is passed that is a criminal offence, but that he may engage in homosexual seduction now. There have been occasions in the recent past [02:17:00] where a public issue has been raised in at least one of our universities in connection with the Mr Chairman, uh, Doctor Bill, I believe that the member for he should be resuming his seat now is making a mistake.
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