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.
Those will have agonised over this subject at some length before they take part in the voting over the next week or so, which will determine the fate of this measure. I would like to suggest that the excesses of zealousness on the part of the advocates of the extreme positions have not helped the logical debate of this subject as we really need it. Before we come to our conclusions, I would submit [00:00:30] Mr Speaker that one of the reasons why we have this bill and we have this argument is that the present law is clearly seen to be deficient. And it isn't sufficient to say that because the present law is deficient, we must necessarily have the change that is present in front of us. However, I do suggest, sir, that time is long since passed when change should have been achieved. I was [00:01:00] one of those members in the house at the time. My colleague, the member for Wait, proposed his private member's bill about 11 or 12 years ago, and we came from memory within six votes of its passage. Had that bill been pass, uh, been passed, I do believe there would have been no case for the measure we have before us tonight. It is a difficult subject to debate and to explore and to discuss, because feelings are often [00:01:30] felt so keenly and because the diversity of opinion is so wide. I like I'm sure every other member of this house has sought by making oneself available to listen, to be talked to, to be jawed at, to lean the views of one's electors, which all come with their share of prejudice, just as each one of us in this house no doubt shows his or her [00:02:00] measure of prejudice. But we must try, as best we can, to put our personal prejudices aside and do what seems in our judgement to be right. I am not at all sure that because the community is so divided on the subject that polls or petitions help greatly, they do underscore the fact that the community is divided, divided in some instances, very bitterly. Parliament must not only try and solve this problem, [00:02:30] but I believe we have an additional task, which no one has yet addressed in this debate, to try to remove or reduce the polarisation that society is at present suffering in this debate, I have found in the course of discussing this general question with many people, that the evidence which comes from the mothers and wives and the ex wives of homosexuals, to be particularly sensitive and to be particularly revealing. [00:03:00] And I would like to thank those many constituents who have come to see me and tell me their personal stories and so help to build my picture of how I should respond in this debate. Mr. Speaker, this bill has three key elements. The first concerns the matter of the age of consent and whatever age we choose, it will be an arbitrary age. The second matter concerns decriminalisation [00:03:30] and the third, the part two provisions amending the Human Rights Act first with regard to age, I accept that the logic of the age of 16 is very compelling. I accept also that the age of 6 16 for young girls and heterosexual behaviour is in essence an arbitrary age. But society has come to accept it. However, it is my belief that [00:04:00] 16 is asking the country to move too far too fast, and it would be my personal preference for 18, although I willingly accept freely accept that there is no particular logic to 18 any more than any other age. I believe the passage of the decriminalisation provisions are essential. I supported such a measure 11 or 12 years ago. I took the time, the trouble at that time to try and become [00:04:30] conversant with the general thrust of the wolfenden report in Britain, which I believe was a very thorough study and there was a tonne of useful precedents explained there. I am much less happy, sir, with part two and I believe finally I will vote against part two. Fortunately, it will be presented to us as a separate bill at the Stage three procedures. So it [00:05:00] would be possible for a person to support a member to support decriminalisation, but to vote against the question of raised in part two I. I know also there is a certain logic to the to the arguments in favour of Part two, but I do believe that much of it is asking the law to do the impossible. Part two is asking the law to legislate for public attitude, and that has never been very successful in doing [00:05:30] that. And there are many, many examples of this decriminalisation is the essential ingredient, and I will support the bill through its second reading stage to make sure that we have the opportunity of achieving decriminalisation at the end of the day. This bill, sir, is described as a conscience measure. Those who are not familiar with the ways of Parliament will be perhaps a little misled by this reference to conscience. [00:06:00] No doubt there are many members who will view the vote. They make on this measure in conscience terms. But I myself feel that there is something perhaps more important than conscience involved, although perhaps indirectly it involves conscience. And that is, where do we each, as members of Parliament feel the overriding public good must lie? Where does the overriding public good lie? The honourable George [00:06:30] Gear doctrine that I happen to support? I will not vote according to any matter of, uh, of mighty principle or any matter of biblical study, and you can find support for the bill and support against the bill in the Bible. I believe, sir, that the greater good lies in removing the chief mischief, in other words, to achieve the measure for decriminalisation. And if that is achieved, [00:07:00] most will in time, fall into sensible place. Could I make this point also, sir, Because our society is so deeply divided. I believe the house, in the way in which it handles this bill should not aggravate the division, but should do its best to try to begin the process of healing the division. And in this sense, it is my submission that neither side those [00:07:30] opposed to the bill or those who want the bill passed in its entirety exactly as it is, should win, because if they do, the other side is bound to feel rejected. It is possible it is possible that the bill will be rejected at the second reading stage and that, I believe, would be a serious blow to this gesture towards social progress. But if we succeed in passing the second reading [00:08:00] and we succeed in sorting out our our views on the question of what is an acceptable but quite arbitrary age at which decriminalisation should commence, then we will have the opportunity of considering what is, I believe, a much less important consideration. Whether or not we should adopt part two for myself, I would be disposed to vote against it. And so, sir, I would like to thank [00:08:30] those who have written to me. And there are many, many hundreds, those who have taken the time to talk to me and those also are many, many hundreds and give me not only their views but in many case cases, their personal experience. It has taught me that there is a problem to be resolved, a problem that we cannot dust under the RA, a problem that we cannot ignore by rejecting the bill in total. It has taught me also that [00:09:00] there are many people in society who don't understand the problems of the homosexual who are fortunate in not having this problem in their own families. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there, and it doesn't mean the problem will just go away. So, Sir, I would commend to the house that we pass this bill at the second reading stage and that we [00:09:30] sort out the details of age during the committee stage. And in this regard, I would hope that the sponsors of the bill will make provision for the House to tackle the question of age in orderly fashion, because if it becomes 16 or nothing. It may very well prove to be nothing. There will be an age which can find a If the bill is passed at the second reading stage, an age meets a general consensus, providing we find a procedural [00:10:00] way for tackling this with those thoughts. I wish this bill good wishes on its passage through the house. Thank you, Mr Mr Speaker. Like the member for North Shore some 10 years ago. I think it was. I voted for the member for Waits Bill for homosexual law reform and a decade has passed. And in my view, our society has moved along with it since 1975. [00:10:30] And I don't have the same difficulties as the member for North Shore. Over part one and part two and part three of the Bill. I thought about Part one. I thought about the age question, and I wondered about 16. And then I examined the total picture. If you have the age of consent for females 16, why vary it for males? Is there some sort of [00:11:00] male chauvinism attached to having the age of consent for females of 16 easy pickings as against having males, some other age. So in my view, there's a common ground to have an age of consent at 16. But, Mr Speaker, I don't think the sponsor of the bill nor people like myself on this bill would be hard and fast pushing [00:11:30] the age all the way. I think the essential feature of this bill is part two, Mr Speaker and Part two is to decriminalise homosexual. No, I'm sorry. Yes, yes. To decriminalise the the power to decriminalise homosexuality. So, Mr Speaker, I have no problem with that. The member for Tamaki said this evening that he would support decriminalisation [00:12:00] of homosexuality, yet he finds he has to vote against the total bill. And I can't understand that sort of logic. All this Bill is saying in that area is do we as a democracy want to put people into jail because they have a form of sexual orientation with a consenting age that we [00:12:30] may disagree with? For example, the member for Napier, he said he finds homosexuality repugnant. OK, that his total right to find homosexuality repugnant. Does that mean because you find some person's behaviour repugnant, you send them to jail, you get the police. You put them in court. You get the law onto them. You put them into a prison cell because you find [00:13:00] their personal behaviour repugnant. Mr. Speaker, the member for he read out a list of activities from some sort of book, a list of activities from some sort of book that he had. Well, let me tell the member for Kai Mai Hiraki. I'm sorry. The member for hierarchy. That's right. Let me tell the member of Hiraki that when he read out the list of those sort of activities, that's not something special [00:13:30] to homosexuality. There are. These are activities that spread right through the heterosexual world. Are you saying then that because you find a form of heterosexual activity unpleasant, that you're going to make it a criminal offence? Because that's what the member for Hiraki was saying. Mr Speaker, there are many forms of heterosexual behaviour that quite a large [00:14:00] chunk of people who are not homosexual find unpleasant and repugnant. But they would be out of their mind to suggest that they send those people to jail because some of the best manuals on the subject recommend some of these activities. Recommend these some of these activities. And so where do you go in regard to What is you, Mr Speaker? I also find when the member [00:14:30] for said some of the fact that uh uh he made some political comment that, uh, this bill coming in. We are defenceless in New Zealand today. Well, what sort of morality is that? What sort of obscenity? He used the word obscenity. In my view, the much greater obscenity, the much greater immorality is those who want to plant nuclear bombs on our soil. Here in New Zealand will bring nuclear [00:15:00] ships into our harbour. To me, that's a greater immorality. A greater obscenity than behaviour between consenting adults. Behaviour between consenting adults. Does the member for Taronga really want to send them to jail? Does the member for Tauranga really want to send people who behave in a particular way to jail because he doesn't agree with their behaviour? You know the essence, the hallmark of [00:15:30] a great democracy is to embody all forms of human behaviour, embody all forms of human behaviour as long as it doesn't in any way harm life, limb or property. It is with this bill for me. Society has moved since 1975 when the member for Toto brought in this legislation. We've gone a long way throughout the world. They've gone a long way. The member for Pai said [00:16:00] that this bill is being watched with great interest by the worldwide community of gays. I never saw them active in New Zealand. I did see another group coming in. I saw them on television. I heard them on radio. I think they became before the committee and they were a group known as the Moral Majority. They certainly moved into New Zealand attempting to condition New Zealanders in regard to a piece of legislation [00:16:30] that in my view is long overdue. And Mr Speaker, I don't want to prolong this debate in any way. In regard to my views in this area, there's one point I want to say. The member for Haa did say that the junior government whip, whose private member's bill, this is, was trying to ram this legislation through this house. Well, I can't see any evidence of it whatsoever. Every member in this house is allowed to get up and have a go on this bill. [00:17:00] No one's going to stop them and you should get up and give your viewpoint on it because your electors want to know where you stand and you should be able to say where you stand. I respect your conscience. You should respect my conscience on this issue. It is a conscience issue. I feel strongly about the issue. I believe it should be decriminalised. For me, a crime Is murder a crime? Is rape a crime? Is burglary a crime? [00:17:30] Is theft, but not a form of human behaviour that I might disagree with as long as it's not doing me any harm. So, Mr Speaker, I certainly hope that when members do get up and speak, when members do vote on this legislation, and even if they disagree with the age part, all right, let's have some amendments, increase the age. I'm sure most members must agree with the decriminalisation of homosexuality over [00:18:00] a certain age, and I think most members should agree with that. For goodness sake, let's pass that aspect of the bill. And in regard to the human rights area, I've always felt that it's wrong to damage someone personally in regard to their human rights because you disagree with some sort of behaviour of theirs. I think all people should have the right to a job the right to earn a living, [00:18:30] the right to associate within our society, without being compelled to lose a job or to lose something within their life because of their sexual orientation. I think it's a question of human rights, and I'm sure that all members uphold human rights in New Zealand, and we should go along with that sort of philosophy. Just one point. Mr. Speaker, the member for Hai, mentioned [00:19:00] AIDS. Most medical authorities I've read on the subject say that a bill that we're discussing tonight, the sooner we decriminalise homosexuality, the better it comes out into the open and the easier it is to tackle the problem. The medical problem of AIDS the easier it is to tackle the medical problem of AIDS. If you decriminalise homosexuality, [00:19:30] it's the weight of having guilt always in regards to your own activities that helps us spread the whole serious disease of AIDS. The member for Iraqi used it in the same context. Mr. Speaker, when he spoke about we're developing a community of promiscuity. Well, I don't know. Are we going to make promised guilty a crime Now. Are we gonna make promiscuity A crime? Is that he Has he has heterosexual promiscuity. [00:20:00] Is that a crime? I mean, it's a question of your attitude of mind to a particular form of human behaviour. And the only plea I make, Mr Speaker is that members all right will have differences about the age question, but a question of decriminalisation. If a member wants to get up and say he does not favour decriminalisation, is he saying that he wants to send them to jail? Is he saying he wants to send them to jail, send them to prison? Because [00:20:30] that's the alternatives. There's nowhere else between. And I would suggest, Mr Speaker, that all members in this year of 1985 move along with most of the Western world and support this bill. Mr. Graham, OK, found the debate tonight quite enlightening. And I think that the various points of view have been put very clearly both from [00:21:00] the extreme of the liberalisation movement and from the extreme of the conservative movement. It is, of course, a moral issue, and as such, we as members of Parliament have to exercise our own conscience in so doing, we bring to this chamber the beliefs, the moral laws with which we were brought up. [00:21:30] And in my particular case, as I suspect most of us in this chamber, I was instructed in the Christian belief, and I adhere to it. To this day, there seems to be some doubt as to what that Christian message is. Some would have it, that is, it is a message of condemnation, a message of hell, fire and damnation, a message that requires people to interfere [00:22:00] with the activities of another in an attempt to save them from themselves. But I prefer the Christian message of forgiveness, of compassion, of love and of tolerance. The message that each one of us, in our own way, has to work out for ourselves our own salvation. That is my personal belief. I accept that others may have another [00:22:30] view. That is the view that I bring to this parliament and put to the test. When legislation such as this comes before this house, what should parliament do then? As a group, when it discusses such a bill, I think the first criteria must be Is there a suffering of our people that requires this parliament to assist. [00:23:00] Then I think it has to say How can this parliament maintain the standards of behaviour which a clear majority believe are necessary in the interests of the society? Is it true that there is suffering that needs to be alleviated? I think clearly there is. I do not accept that homosexuality [00:23:30] is a matter of choice. I am quite satisfied that in many cases, if not in all it is not. I think therefore that to apply a criminal sanction is wrong. So I think people are suffering and therefore I seek to alleviate that pain. I ask, Am I at risk if [00:24:00] we do this or others that I love or others that I represent from activities that two people may take part? I don't think so. The only people that are at risk, in my view, from such activities, uh could be Children and provided the protection is there for them. And then there is no reason not to support the decriminalisation of such [00:24:30] acts. I do not believe that it is the function of this parliament to enter into the bedrooms of the nation. If I am in any doubt at all. I would err on the side of saying that it is no business of Parliament to interfere in that way. I do not support homosexuality. I personally find it rather abhorrent. I certainly have no desire to embark on a homosexual life. I feel particularly [00:25:00] sorry for those who find it necessary so to do. But I have no desire to make it a criminal matter. I do not think that it requires the sanction of the law, possible imprisonment or at least to be seen to be brought before the courts. And therefore I say there should be a decriminalisation of homosexual acts. The next part, of course, is a little more difficult. And it relates really to the protection of the young. [00:25:30] I think 16, probably today in 1985 is rather young. I accept the arguments that if it's good enough for young ladies, then why should it not be good enough for young men? Uh, but I would prefer, uh, that the age was higher. Uh, and, uh, during the committee stages of the bill, I suspect there will be some amendments made in that area. But [00:26:00] the hardest part is the question of the human rights legislation. Yeah, whilst I have said that, I do not believe that the criminal law should apply. Nevertheless, I think it is absolutely essential that all New Zealanders in their own individual right are entitled to express their views on anything free from interference. Unless there is some compelling [00:26:30] reason why that should be restrained. Mr. Graham. Opposition. We enacted the human rights legislation. We made it difficult. One could say we made it an offence, uh, for people to discriminate on the grounds of sex on the grounds of their marital status or on the grounds of their religious or ethical beliefs. I don't find much to argue in any of those [00:27:00] I think, probably that it is right to try to encourage people to take an objective and fair and tolerant view of that. But I accept that there are some behaviour patterns which people find totally abhorrent. And quite obviously from the speeches in this house tonight are many members of this chamber. I find homosexuality totally and utterly abhorrent to a degree far greater than I. [00:27:30] Should they be restrained from expressing that view. Are we doing New Zealand Society proud? If we say to them, you can now no longer say I have. I want to have nothing more to do with you because I do not agree with your behaviour pattern. If you elect to follow that, feel free to do so. As I have said, you must work out your own salvation. [00:28:00] I can help. I can guide if asked. But I have to say to you that I don't agree with your method. I don't agree with what you are doing and I voice my opinion against it. If we do not allow people to express that view, even if it may be bigoted on occasions and prejudiced, then we are suppressing something which will become a very latent and festering sore at a later time. [00:28:30] And I think that that is very dangerous and I think we have to be very careful before we outlaw the right to express views Well, she says, it's not in the bill. What is in the bill is that people who are in possession of real estate or job or granting jobs are not now entitled to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation. Well, well, express [00:29:00] an opinion, right? I I see. I don't think it's quite as simple as that, because what you are saying is if I want to. If somebody comes to me for a job and that person is a homosexual, I cannot discriminate against them on that ground. Is that correct or not? I think I should have that right. I think I should be able to say I don't blame you. I am not heaping scorn and condemnation on your head. I accept [00:29:30] that you have the right to do as you will. But I personally don't want to have anything to do with you. So I don't want to employ him. That's my right and I don't want that right taken away from me because if it is, then I will go away. And I will say I have been frustrated in expressing a view that I hold and society heads for danger. If we do that and so Mr [00:30:00] Speaker, it is not an easy matter. Passions are aroused and I think that the best thing that can be done at this time and in this chamber is to support the decriminalisation, to look carefully and listen to the arguments regarding the age of consent. But when it comes to the human rights legislation, I have to say that I am not convinced that sexual orientation should be included in the human rights legislation. [00:30:30] I would hate to think that society is prevented from expressing its view on this or any other matter, unless there are compelling reasons. And in this case, in my view, they do not exist. That is all I have to say at this time. Yes, Mr Sullivan. Mr. Speaker, As I see this bill, I see it as a radical measure. It has two [00:31:00] revolutionary purposes. The first is to establish, for the first time in New Zealand that the homosexual lifestyle is a legitimate option. This is the bill aimed at attesting and affirming and enshrining that legitimacy in the laws of this country. Its second radical purpose [00:31:30] is to attempt to redefine traditional normalcy as we have known it in this society. This bill and its proponents are using this bill and this debate to argue that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality. So clearly, Mr Speaker, this bill seeks to make a sociopolitical [00:32:00] statement which characterises the relatively recent gay liberation revolution the revolution began about 1970 perhaps precisely in that year in America, giving rise to the uncustomary strident and arrogant demands of the younger gays. [00:32:30] That revolution thereby transmitted the older, law abiding, monogamous homosexuals into relics of the past. For them, I had considerable concern and genuine sensitivity, and I have expressed that in earlier debates in this chamber. However, monogamous partnerships [00:33:00] between older homosexual men went swiftly out of date at the inception of the Gay Liberation Revolution. Mr Speaker, New Zealand is following the American sequence of events some years behind, but we are following those self same events. It is therefore instructive to see what well documented research of the American [00:33:30] sin has to reveal in America. Mr. Speaker, the social institution which has been the most influential within the homosexual subculture, has been the gay bar. In fact, without the gay bar and the gay bar or gay sauna, as we would say in New Zealand, it would be impossible to conceive of the homosexual movement [00:34:00] as it exists today. Indeed, the exact event which brought the movement into the open, arose when the New York police endeavoured to curtail homosexual activity at a gay bar and the Stonewall riot occurred. Mr. Speaker, already in New Zealand, we have equivalent meeting places and we have had them [00:34:30] for some years now. 234 Yes, of the American Gay bars, medical researchers have observed that the degree of promiscuity defies the imagination of those not familiar with gay homosexuality. From the point of view of traditional values, they are some [00:35:00] of the most destructive and degrading institutions in America today. The mover of the bill suggested some might go to the city of the world, which has the highest reputation of homosexuality. She has Mr Speaker. So have I. Recently she has made her inquiries and so have I. [00:35:30] I do not want to see them in New Zealand. I do not want them to flourish here. Mr. Speaker, if this bill is passed, inevitably they will. We gave barbs or saunas constituting a major focus for the transmission of disease. The most recent one being AIDS, we see revealed the full implications of gay liberation homosexuality [00:36:00] for the rest of the community in terms of the health illness continuum, the honourable Mr Sullivan government to the health and well being of the whole community by the individual human rights of the individual homosexual. There is considerable documentation for identifying the gay community, the promiscuous gay community, as a reservoir [00:36:30] of disease for the rest of society. I have studied considerable documentation by medical researchers of this matter, and I believe any member of this House could have access to the same Mr Speaker. Proponents of this bill will resist these allegations since they are inimical to their interests and to the passage of this bill. But evidence suggests that the homosexual [00:37:00] community itself is very much aware of this. There are well known homosexual periodicals and they all carry medical advice, columns advising on the nature, treatment and prevention of illness directly related to male homosexual practises. There is no comparison to female homosexuality [00:37:30] and they should not be compared. In this context, though, it is convenient. So to do there is a distinction and they are not in the same category. Mr Speaker in America, there is a national organisation called the National Coalition of Gay Sexually Transmitted Disease Services. The degree to which the homosexual community is affected by sexually transmitted [00:38:00] diseases STD S and the promiscuity prevalent among homosexuals is revealed in its own advice to its members. I quote simply one sentence. Always exchange your name and telephone number to facilitate contact in case signs or symptoms of an STD are later discovered. There's so much more I can't repeat in my time tonight. But the impression given [00:38:30] by a study of the literature of the National Coalition of Gay Sexually Transmitted Disease Services Literature is one of ceaseless and quite impersonal sexual activity which creates the ever present danger of STDs. The Coalition that coalition has devised a measuring scale to enable gay liberationist [00:39:00] to ascertain their relative probability of contracting an STD. Seven major categories are listed to have a different sexual partner every other week is said to be a low risk. But to have more than 10 different sexual partners a month is a high risk factor. As to the types of encounters carrying high risk, the coalition points to [00:39:30] one night stands and Group six. The coalition also points to the high risk of sodomy and of oral anal sex to rimming to scatting and also makes a particular point about the possibility of major surgery to repair injuries sustained from anal sex. Using one's fist. [00:40:00] It also warns about intestinal parasites. Writing in the Medical World News Journal in 1980 Dr Dan Williams, an active member of the coalition, stated his concern that there could be a sudden outbreak of seriously damaged immune systems. Mr Speaker, this house knows that AIDS did [00:40:30] follow, as he predicted, about which he expressed such deep concern. There is little doubt that the extreme promiscuity associated with the male homosexual condition guarantees they are a high risk population as their own coalition points out for sexually transmitted diseases. [00:41:00] The Sentinel, a well established and respected homosexual newspaper in San Francisco, has admitted that the risk of contracting disease among gay persons is approximately 10 times that of persons in the general population. It has also reported that homosexuals have a risk of developing hepatitis B 10 times greater than the risk to other persons. Mr Speaker. These conclusions were confirmed by [00:41:30] a survey reported in the official publication of the American Public Health Association. Their survey yielded a variety of results, one of which was that 78% of the thousands surveyed by them had been affected at least once by an STD. The same survey indicated an average of 49 different sexual partners per homosexual [00:42:00] over a lifetime. Their survey was with members of the gay coalition and other homosexual organisations. It was furthermore reported in that survey that 10% of homosexuals have more than 500 sexual partners during their lifetimes. The high rate of illness in the homosexual community has been repeatedly linked to the promiscuity [00:42:30] of some of its members, and the connection between the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals of some homosexuals and their tendency to infection is clear. Mr Speaker, any act of parliament that might in any way predispose us to go further along the course, which we already have, and to impair the health [00:43:00] of the community should not be passed by this house. Commenting about the high incidence of ZD in the San Francisco doctor, Irvin Bra, director of the city clinic, indicated that the problem is due to generally active people having multiple sex partners, and Dr Braff made the observation that most of the partners chosen were single. Doctor [00:43:30] Silverman, director of public health for San Francisco, has indicated and described that city as a tolerant city. Hence the be Mr Speaker. I want to very briefly discuss some of the issues which have been raised with me by constituents and also some of the fears which have been expressed because many of the expressions of opposition which I have received have attested to a degree of fear [00:44:00] as to what may or may not be in the bill, not always well informed. And I want to say that those people, particularly outside the house but also some within the house who have dwelt at some length on some of the more bizarre. And I hope some of the more rare sexual practises which have been described in medical and other literature are actually not addressing the issues in the bill, but are in fact playing on people's fears, to the extent [00:44:30] that some of those practises which have been described are not in fact homosexual practises at all, but are sexual practises which can be engaged in between people of any gender and any form of pairing, and that I think is not actually helping determine the issues which the bill is about, Mr Speaker, some of the fears raised with me by my constituents have been based on a perception that If homosexual acts between consenting adults [00:45:00] in private are no longer punishable by imprisonment, then adult homosexuals will in some way be free to prey on young boys in our society. And that is in fact, totally incorrect. If it were true, it would be good grounds for opposing the passage of this bill. There is nothing in the bill which would permit that to happen. In fact, it is interesting to note that the bill provides a protection [00:45:30] for young boys, which does not exist in law. Now there is no specific protection for male Children from homosexual attentions. At present, what the bill does is to provide or seek to provide exactly the same protection for our male Children. As for our female Children, I happen to be the father of one of each. And that is, I think, how it should be. It is unfortunate that the youth of our country [00:46:00] is at risk from the predatory sexual attentions of older people. We must protect them from that. It is my belief that we have an obligation to protect our sons and our daughters equally, and that is what I would want the law to do and That is what I understand this bill to do it would incorporate into the Crimes Act exactly the same measures protecting male Children as presently protect female Children. [00:46:30] I want to mention the age of consent, Mr Speaker, because that has been mentioned by some members, and I want to mention that in the context of that equality before the law, it may well be that 16 years of age is too young. An age is too low. It's too young an age of consent. If that is so, then I would suggest that it is equally too young for female Children as well [00:47:00] the same protection before the law as I would wish for my son. It seems to me that the question at issue in the age of consent is whether there should be a different legal prescription in respect of homosexual activities than there is in respect of hetero heterosexual activities. I want to turn now to part two of the bill, Mr Speaker, because that is another fear, which has been expressed to me by a number of constituents and has been mentioned in the house tonight. That [00:47:30] part provides a particular protection in respect of discrimination on the basis of perception of sexual orientation or affection. The fear that has been expressed to me is that if there is no general criminal sanction against homosexual acts between adults, then people in a position of responsibility, such as teachers or members of the police force or senior members of the armed forces [00:48:00] may in some way be able to abuse that responsibility in order to obtain sexual advances or to press their sexual attentions on people who are within their care. And I want to say that that is manifestly not correct. The question of heterosexual attentions on, for example, school pupils, female school pupils by male teachers, which is probably the most common form of sexual abuse of that position of responsibility [00:48:30] is not does not call into question the legality or otherwise of heterosexual acts between consenting adults. It is, I think, statistically demonstrable that in fact, the by far the greatest number of abuses of positions of responsibility in a sexual manner is relates to acts by males in a superior position with respect to girls or young females who are in some way [00:49:00] in their care, and that if in fact, the licence for the acts between adults were causative of that, then we would be looking very hard at the position in relation to heterosexual acts between adults. But society does deal very severely and swiftly with, for example, a male teacher who abuses that position of trust in respect of female pupils. Exactly the same sanction in respect [00:49:30] of abuse of trust or of advocating immoral behaviour would would apply, in any case, to any person in a position of such responsibility with respect to the people for whom they are responsible. The argument that there is going to be a rash of teachers or as one constituent suggested Sunday school teachers who are able to advocate immoral acts to the Children within their care does not, in fact stand up. It is a fear which has been whipped up. I want to say also [00:50:00] in respect of an argument which was advanced by the member for North Shore. That part two is asking the law to do the impossible to legislate public attitudes, that that is not in fact in the bill, and that is not in fact, in the present law which makes illegal certain forms of discrimination it is obviously impossible to require by law people to hold certain attitudes. The present law does not require people to hold certain tolerant attitudes on matters of race or religion or [00:50:30] any other matter which is currently covered in the Human Rights Commission Act. What it does do is make illegal discrimination that is an unfair or unjust attack on the rights of other people on the basis of perceptions of race or religion, etcetera. And what this bill seeks to do is to make similarly an unfair attack on the rights of people on the basis of a perception about their sexual orientation illegal. And I think that is a very just and proper thing for [00:51:00] this house to legislate for. The member for Remo era suggested that it would make impossible an expression of opinion or a dissociation from people whose nature one disapproved of or whose nature gave rise to perceptions which led one to want to dissociate oneself from them. That is not, in fact, what is proposed in the bill. It is an unfair attack on the rights of other people because one thinks they might have a certain nature, which is in fact in the bill. The matters of principle in this bill [00:51:30] are likely to be lost sight of in the emotional debate which has arisen. And I'm pleased to see that the vast majority of members who have spoken on both sides of the debate have stayed clear of some of those emotional statements. But I was disappointed to hear an attempt earlier to link this bill to such matters as incest, youth and Asia, prostitution and so on. They are not in the bill. They are not envisaged by the bill. The bill does not affect the law on those, nor [00:52:00] does it make any statement on on those matters. And I think it behaves members of this House to bear in mind the matters which are relevant to the bill and the House's standing orders on relevance when debating it. The bill is also not about homosexuality per se, and that is a matter which is not well understood. The bill is about whether or not certain sexual practises or sexual practises between certain types of people [00:52:30] should be subject to a criminal sanction. It does not imply a judgement for or against people who wish to engage in those practises. It merely deals with the question of whether or not they should be subject to criminal sanction to the threat of imprisonment consequent on that to blackmail the threat of blackmail, sometimes to violence which goes unreported because of the possibility of legal action. And I suggest, Mr Speaker, that the questions [00:53:00] which members must address their minds to are those narrow questions of whether or not we feel that there should be a criminal sanction dealing with matters which are questions of moral principle, perhaps which are questions of strong opinion in society but which are not questions of damage to third parties, which are not questions which are normally dealt with. Uh, as in our criminal law, [00:53:30] there is also the question of equality before the law, whether or not there should be two different sets of legal prescription governing, on the one hand, the behaviour of the majority of those people in New Zealand who are heterosexually inclined and the minority who are homosexually inclined. What the bill does seek to do is to amend the Crimes Act so that there is one law which is applied equally to all with the same protection [00:54:00] to our young of either gender to the mentally incapable and to various other people. I believe that there should be equality before the law wherever possible. And I think this is one of those cases where there must be equality before the law. Therefore, I believe, Mr Speaker, that this bill should be passed and I believe that whether or not one believes that 16 or 17 or 18 or some other age is the appropriate age of consent for sexual activity, that there should [00:54:30] in fact be one age of consent, sexual activity and therefore the bill should be supported with the age of consent of 16. The question of what the age of consent should be in general terms could be addressed if the house so wishes in another matter at another time. Mr. Speaker, I would like to say in the time remaining to me a few words about the petition which has been brought before this house. The petition, which the member for hierarchy said was for God [00:55:00] for country and for family, and I want to refer to the numerous representations I have received from Christians in my electorate who are incensed because they do not like to see the mantle of Christianity hijacked by people holding one particular view on this bill by people who are patriots and who do not like to see. It claimed that only people who are in favour of this bill can claim to be for country by people who hold strong family views and who resent the suggestion that only those who oppose [00:55:30] this bill can claim to hold strong family views. There is much more I could say about the petition, Mr Speaker, but I'm aware other members of the House wish to speak on this bill. And so I leave it at that. I hope the House will support the bill as it has been reported back. Uh, Mr Townsend, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a time that the house is flying blind, it is on this bill as a result that the Select Committee did not address two very vital areas that [00:56:00] we are looking at tonight. One is the age of consent, and the other is the moral aspect of the threat of age to the wider community. And if we go back and Travis what the Select committee did and have failed to report to this house on many speakers tonight are grappling for information to know what is the right decision on this particular bill [00:56:30] as to how whether the bill should be passed or whether it should be declined and the effect that it will have and the risk it will put to the community at large. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I wish to honourable gentleman. But the time has come when I'm asleep, the chair and the house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. We got up front [00:57:00] age, whether by mutual consent or not to be a criminal offence. A good deal of heat has gone in this debate, Mr Chairman, and has been generated by many who prefer strong Christian beliefs and are outraged by the morality or immorality of male homosexual behaviour. The fact that no criminal sanctions exist for female homosexual behaviour is a point on which most are silent. Is it the job, [00:57:30] Mr Chairman of politicians, to pass laws which deliver moral judgments on members of our society? Some Christians quote the Bible as their source for saying yes, but the Bible is a dangerous document from which to quote Mr chairman, you can get it quoted back at you. Christ himself did not have a high regard for either lawyers or lawmakers. Unless your justice gives fuller measure than the scribes and the Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of Heaven, he said. And [00:58:00] for those who are anxious amongst us to rush forward to judge the behaviour of others, he made the mob of his day an offer which they all refused. He said he who is without sin, cast the first stone in 1956 Mr Speaker prior to the reform of laws against homosexuals in Britain, a committee was set up by the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster to draw up a report on the Catholic position regarding homosexual [00:58:30] law reform. The report, which was submitted to the British government, came to among others, the following conclusions and I quote attempts by the state to enlarge its authority and invade the conscience of the individual. However high minded always fails and frequently does positive harm. It should accordingly be clearly stated that penal sanctions are not justified for the purpose of attempting to restrain [00:59:00] sins against sexual morality committed in private by responsible adults. They that is criminal Sanctions should be continue because one they are ineffectual. Two. They are inadequate in their application. Three. They involve punishments disproportionate to the offence committed, and four, they undoubtedly give scope for blackmail and other forms of corruption. Now no one in their right mind, Mr Chairman, could accuse the cardinal Archbishop of Westminster [00:59:30] of leading some kind of radical reform to hasten the demise of Western civilization. The truth is that people are not are made, are not made either good or bad by laws but by the set of ethics we acquire and by our own moral formation, which is gained on a personal basis, not through legislation. I was going to quote to the house a number of very, uh, well informed and sympathetic views in terms of the empathy the writers had, and many members [01:00:00] would have had letters like that. But I want to conclude by quoting one from an ex London policeman who wrote to me in favour of reform as follows in the matter, he said of the homosexual law reform bill, there appears to have been no mention of who does the arresting if consenting adult homosexuality in private remains a crime. Will it be you, Mr Anderson, or a religious group or a vigilante [01:00:30] squad? Or will it be the police? Before the English law change, he wrote I was a young policeman ordered into the dark streets and the private recesses of London to hunt and arrest homosexuals. My actions were the immoral act, his crime, his sexuality, my shame that I had no brief to crush the sensibilities of a fellow human being to criminalise private [01:01:00] morality. Turns off the steep path turns us off the steep path to civilization. I think this house should pay good heed, Mr Chairman, to the words of a young London policeman, now a New Zealand citizen writing in earnest and with grave concern about the way in which this House votes on this matter, I urge the house to take the liberal, sane and compassionate road [01:01:30] to reform. That is the road which leads to a better society. Uh, and an improvement on what we currently have. And in my view, Mr Chairman, that is the option before this house. Mr Lee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to firstly explain to the house and to those people listening tonight how they promoted this bill has been using her office as [01:02:00] junior government whip to rush this bill through this house and to explain that correctly, this should have been the day of the report back of the bill. Instead, we are commencing the second reading debate by exercising that action. Mr. Speaker, it has successfully stopped what would be the normal convention of the House to have a seven day gap [01:02:30] between the report back and the second reading and on a bill of this size and this major importance, that would be the protocol. Mr. Speaker, I reported this bill back. I want to make it absolutely clear that it was not done under any government instruction or whipped. Well, speaking to the point of order, the honourable Mr Wellington summed up very well, Sue. And he said that is debating material. It is not a point of order in accordance with our standing order. [01:03:00] Uh, well, I would I would have to find that way. It seems that the, um the matter having been dealt with, uh, in the select committee report, it's not appropriate for us to, uh, cover that ground again. However, um, this is the second reading debate, Mr Lee. Thank you, Mr Speaker. Sir, this debate is of tremendous interest to the people of New Zealand. It is also of tremendous interest to the [01:03:30] worldwide homosexual network because this bill, the bill that has come before this house now has been prepared over a long period of time on a very highly organised basis. And, sir, it's in their words that they have chosen this time and they have chosen the socialist government. And it should be of concern to the people of this nation that some members of that government have [01:04:00] made declarations of very liberal attitudes and who do not accept the traditional morals of our society. And what we have now, Mr Speaker, is a bill before this house which is of intense interest to homosexuals everywhere. Because one, it indeed is the most progressive legislation of its type ever offered in the world. And secondly, [01:04:30] it is a reflection of the intense commitment of the homosexual people to obtain the rights they believe at any cost. And therefore, sir, they've gone to significant lengths to, in fact, to ensure that this bill is not amended and I can agree with them on that one point only that one point only, that this bill cannot be amended, sir, it cannot be amended. It can only be thrown out. [01:05:00] And that is the clear direction of the people of this country. It is not sufficient to simply eliminate part two of the bill or to raise the raise the age benchmark to 18 or 20 years. That will not in any way eliminate the threat that this bill in any part represents to the family life of this nation or to the public health of this country. [01:05:30] So the clear reason why this bill cannot proceed is the fact that the people have spoken through the petition. The petition that has been announced to this house as 817,549. But, sir, I want to tell the house that tonight that figure unofficial certainly. But it is a figure [01:06:00] in excess now of 830,000. That figure, sir, is a figure in excess of the figure that elected this Labour government in office in July 84 in excess of 830,000. And we've listened already to some amazing verbal semantics tonight as to why this petition is not valid. But it's understandable that there has been inordinate lengths undertaken by the proponents bill to discredit this petition, sir, [01:06:30] and they will go on doing it. But they will keep on this sliding and worthless attempts because the petition finally stands alone. Sir. Let it be said again that this petition is in a historic petition of immense proportions. And the only way that the members who will not accept this petition can do so is to deny the petition as a democratic tool of this Parliament and this government. [01:07:00] Mr. Lee Opposition Haki sir, The petition is so large, it's been compared that it would be in excess of 80 million in comparative terms to the United States of America. This petition says clearly unequivocally plainly that the people of this country do not want this bill to be made law. I accept errors, [01:07:30] sir. There will be errors that will still be found in spite of the attempts that were made by volunteers with the very most honest and most purposeful approach to the checking of this petition that there will be some errors that will still be there, Whether it be 5010, let it be even half the whole half of that bill, sir. That still is a voice of incredible proportions. It is a voice that says to every member [01:08:00] of the Parliament here tonight that it is an irresponsibility for this parliament to pass this bill. And sir, I have to say to you that it's been a great concern to me to have been assailed as one of those organisers of this petition to have heard the repeated comments of right wing fundamentalist bigots. Sir, I repudiate [01:08:30] and I renounce all those allegations as totally incorrect. And I am delighted tonight to stand here to associate myself with Sir Peter Tate and Keith Hay and all those other workers who have gone up believing that the people of country wanted an opportunity to say in a very visible form, they do not want this bill. They have done that. Their faith was more than justified, and the people sir, have spoken, and it's right, and it's proper that that petition [01:09:00] and that effort should be aligned with the motive, which has also been in fact spoken against so strongly that the motive for God, for country and for family is a proper expression of all this petition has meant in its compilation. Sir, it's important, I believe, to every one of us as members of Parliament here tonight and to the country that their petition prevails. Sir, I want to [01:09:30] speak about the fact that homosexuality is not one that cannot be changed. There's been a number of comments made already tonight that, and it is very fundamental to this whole argument that the homosexual is born that way. It is likened to be left hand or right hand, so there is no evidence around the world after decades of in fact, of assessment, [01:10:00] biologically, hormonally or genetically. The homosexuals were born that way. Therefore, sir, if they're not born that way and accepting that there is some very real difficulties that can be faced by many people from parental imbalances, et cetera, and except that it will take a long time for adjustment of life. But it is still therefore an acquired or learned behaviour, and therefore it is an acquired or learned behaviour. It can be an unlearned behaviour and homosexuals [01:10:30] are responsible for their actions, and it is a matter of choice, It is a matter of choice. And I'm delighted in spite of the unfortunate allegations tonight already in this debate, that investment has been put into the lives of people to allow the formation here of internationally claimed bodies that will help the homosexual, this country such as Homosexual Anonymous and the Exodus Organisation, sir, people against this bill because they have come [01:11:00] to understand homosexuality. I don't believe I understood it very fully. I believe a lot of this nation have understood very little in the initial campaign. But they do understand now, sir, and I have no pleasure in briefly talking about the practise of homosexuality. But I believe it's important. It's important that once again, the house and the country understand exactly the nature of this practise, and [01:11:30] we speak against again. I repeat, not the homosexual, but the practise, sir. I'm speaking from an a pamphlet that is called AIDS. New Rules for Safe Sex, put out by the AIDS Foundation, an organisation that seems to have been given the blessing of the health Department by which is, in fact the aid network in the past, and using taxpayers' money and So it says here in this am I going to repeat pamphlet that the practises [01:12:00] of homosexuality are a of course, fucking vial sex sucking to the point where you swallow the seamen or you stop before the actual swing of it. Semen indulging in water sports that is urinating on each other rimming, which is turning the anal area. Which, of course, brings the mouth [01:12:30] into contact with faeces, or indeed seeking even to enter the anal opening cheering of six toys twisting, which is to use the twist an arm into the rectum and write up the body of the partner or using other such things as. In fact, I don't believe we need to hear, hear about. So that is abnormality. That is our naturalness, that is, [01:13:00] against every normal habit of the body. It shouts out, Sir, as being something that this country surely cannot accept in any form of manner. It is calling, in fact, for the abnormal to be made normal for the people who believe normality is what life is all about, to be seen in the context of this bill and its passage to be then abnormal. So the comment has been raised as [01:13:30] to whether the homosexuality, if this bill is passed, will not increase, it will increase. And I will quote a book the book again that was quoted by the member for a book written by Mr Bacon on the social effects of homosexual New Zealand and says says here not just the first point which said that the homosexually, when declared legal, would be seen to be legally acceptable. But it goes on [01:14:00] to talk about the fact that a boy will be more likely to have his first sexual encounter from a practising homosexual. Thirdly, that the homosexual lifestyle will in fact encourage unrestrained propaganda that will certainly start in the classroom of our nation and will continue in society, fourthly, that homosexual groups were able to demand the funding from [01:14:30] the taxpayer's purse. Finally, Fifthly, that homosexual behaviour will indeed be a magnet to other homosexual communities around the world. I think that's almost a certainty. So I believe logic for that. And so I say to you that it is my belief and I believe common Sense says it, that the bill, if it passes through this parliament, will see an increase in homosexuality. Britain After 10 years, states from [01:15:00] the Research Public Act increased 300%. San Francisco, we know, has seen an increase of 2400% in sexually transmitted diseases. Los Angeles in the Anaheim area have had to close toilets and parks because of the increased activity of homosexuals. Since it's been decriminalised, sir, homosexuality will increase from the decriminalisation of this bill. Now, if it that is so, [01:15:30] It has therefore got to be seen that the AIDS problem will commensurately be that much greater and has been significantly admitted so far in the comments tonight. So what are we doing in the light of those comments with the increase in homosexually arising from this bill's passage to then say we see no difficulty when AIDS the greatest killer disease [01:16:00] confronting this nation or indeed the world is indeed at our back door I put to you, sir, the very, surely logical comment into this house. If we have waited two years when the age will be indeed in this in this country a very much worse threat, would that be the time that this bill would be offered this Parliament? I think not. I think not. Indeed, If the decriminalisation [01:16:30] of this type of law which has happened in many states of the United States was the reason to halt the aid, then why is it indeed, in fact, that aid has become almost an epidemic in the United States now doubling every six months in its incident? Sir, it is irresponsible, illogical. It is insane that we are pursuing legislation that will in fact give rise to an increase in age at this time, Mr [01:17:00] Lee. Opposition from the Health Department is obviously confused as to what will happen from his assessment. One thing he is clear about Sir is the fact that promiscuity is the issue to avoid. He is backed up by the World Health Organisation, which defines promiscuity as any two patterns as any two partners resulting from sexual activity. Indeed, if we take through the facts that the AIDS victims in [01:17:30] the United States have all on an average had at least 100 partners in the year preceding their death, then, sir, we have promiscuity of a large scale and it cannot be laughed away by the homosexual community. Theirs is a community of promiscuity, and many facts were delivered to the committee to indicate that over a homosexual lifestyle lifetime, there is over 1000 partnerships. [01:18:00] I say to you, sir, that the thrill of AIDS alone stands as a reason why we should not be part of this bill. I am concerned at the family unit, and I have spoken primarily in an address that I've given to the nation to the 21,000 people I've had the privilege to address that the family unit is at risk by the passage of the bill. The wives are at risks, sir, with the heterosexual community [01:18:30] distinctly at risk from that action because on their own admission, 70% of the homosexuals in this country are bisexual. It's not sufficient to talk, as another member did about, in fact, the risk of those people in their marriage situation. The risk, sir, surely, is for the wise and from the wise to the nation as a whole. Secondly, the Children of any family unit must become at risk. [01:19:00] They will be at risk in the classroom where it will be quite in order to speak about the question of homosexuality, to see it promoted actively by people in teaching positions, Sir they are going to have to come home to their parents and ask their parents why they should not be involved when they have been openly taught the advantages of this type of alternative lifestyle. Thirdly, the family has an identity and as [01:19:30] a whole is at risk because they face the challenge of a legal, lawful, so called viable alternative lifestyle. The lifestyle of homosexually, sir. And if we have any concern for the family unit of this nation for its integrity, for its future importance to the nation for its role as the cornerstone of society, then we must not pass this bill because the family will face the greatest single threat in the nation's history by the passage of this [01:20:00] bill. Sir, all these arguments, I believe, make it very clear that the parliamentarians of this house must not allow this bill to be passed.
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